UnSpace

For Black History Month, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a wonderful article, Freedom House ambulance service saved the day for many. Thanks to Ervin Dyer for an article that reminds us of the debt we owe those pioneers of prehospital care.

I've met almost everyone named in the article. I worked beside some of them, met others briefly or at dinners honoring them. I own books by two of them, well-worn grimoires of life-saving lore that I memorized. I've heard the stories and legends of the people of Freedom House, often first-hand accounts of those dawning days of the emergency medical services.

There's a brief line in the article I'd like to call your attention to:

Some of the Freedom House paramedics continue to work in public safety or health services. Other drifted back to the streets.

There is carefully phrased tragedy in those words. Heroes — each and one a lifesaver multiple times over — had stories that did not continue as they should have. How much was due to the emotional toll of being the first emergency medical technicians and paramedics, I can only speculate on. There's a loss in that sentence that haunts those of us who knew those men.

To those people of Freedom House who made prehospital care a national reality, I extend my heartfelt thanks and prayers.

Here's a bunch of stuff I found interesting. Enjoy!

• Senator Arlen Specter missed one vote out of 52, and Senator Bob Casey Jr. has yet to miss a vote. Senator Murphy missed 2 out of 102. If you're not from Pennsylvania, check out your senator here. You can find your House Rep here.
• Because of poverty and a mixup in addresses, a child died from a toothache. There's a correlation between poverty and Type II diabetes. I wonder if poor dental care is part of the equation?
• That reminded me of the patient who had an abscessed tooth and called 911. The abscess ruptured such that the purulent material made it's way to the mediastinum, turning a minor pain emergency into a major cardiac emergency. Is it any wonder my motto was "You call, we haul"? I tried to look up some information on that kind of emergency and came across this instead: DESCENDING NECROTIZING MEDIASTINITIS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF SERIAL SURGICAL DEBRIDEMENT ON PATIENT MORTALITY. Ok, now that's just nasty. I'm not sure anyone's going to want to click on that particular link, but it's a fascinating article. I'm surprised the mortality is only 25-40%.
• Speaking of odds and cavities, NASA predicts a "[ . . . ] 55 percent chance that some sort of space debris could penetrate the space station [ . . . ] and a 9 percent chance of a "catastrophic result over a 10-year period" [ . . .] . That idiot stunt the Chinese pulled with their old weather satellite and that failed Russian booster that exploded in orbit over Australia sure don't help.
• I was asked to blog for a local campaign. Now I see why I didn't want the job. That's on Salon, which means the link works as I write this; it may not for long, or may require earning a "Site Pass."
• I remember when the announcement came out that the quark jets weren't as energetic as expected from collisions at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider. It turns out that String Theory is actually capable of making a prediction on this result, and it matches up pretty well. I didn't think there'd be a decent test of String Theory in my lifetime. Cool if it holds up! Cosmic Log also covers this announcement, and in a more readable for the general audience.
• I don't know if he's quite a "Deathlok the Demolisher" fan like I am, but Multi-Medium posts a good Deathlok quote: "Cynicism isn’t maturity. Callousness isn’t strength. Pretending you don’t care so you don’t have to try isn’t 'winning.' What you do with your life matters."
• "Hail, hail, the gang's all here." We created a spaceship that can be wrecked by hail. Ya gotta wonder….
• The Japanese whalers are giving up and going home. I'm pretty sure this is my definition of schadenfreude.
• As a public service reminder, I'd like to point out that medical professionals practice medicine. No, we don't have it right yet, we're still practicing, and those extra vitamins you take for your health might be killing you.
• Chris Mooney's book Storm World is in the galley stage right now. Almost there, Chris! Hang on! You can pre-order from Amazon.com. Why's it teamed with "The God Delusion" though? Chris wrote The Republican War on Science, by the way, a great and important read.
• If you're pregnant, remember that it could be worse. If you were like an Australian skink called a stumpy, your baby would be the size of a 7 year old!
• Speaking of pregnancy, I never thought I'd hear of "spontaneous symmetry breaking" (a fancy term that shows up a lot in particle physics) in biology. But it turns out that it explains how only one X chromosome is turned off in mammals. If you don't turn off one chromosome, you'd have too many genes active — you only need one chromosome, as men prove. It turns out a blob forms in between the two X chromosomes when they line up. The blob moves randomly to one chromosome or the other and latches on to a special section, keeping that chromosome from being turned off. The same process works in men, but since there's no other X chromosome, the second chromosome isn't turned off. Cool!

Shawn Anthony complains about Rebecca Chopp's definition of church as a “constitutive community of emancipatory transformation.” Among other problems, he doesn't like the words used.

Those words strike me as 6th or 7th grade vocabulary, but then again, I was learning about Special Relativity and uranium decay chains in 6th and 7th grade. Yes, I recognize the words are a bit unusual. At least they're not "church words." We've got a lot of jargon in the church.

Jargon is used by a community to communicate concepts peculiar to that community. At a high power rocket launch, words like "CATO" and "shred" are used. Everyone's hoping they're not used two often, as they're examples of bad things that can happen to that rocket you just put out on the pad that costs an order of magnitude more than you told your husband or wife. But jargon makes it hard for outsiders to join in. Bloggers have their own set of jargon. At the last Blogfest, I caught the waiter looking a little puzzled at some of the snippets of conversation he overheard.

Christian jargon defines who "is" a Christian and who "isn't," acting as a shibboleth. The word "shibboleth" itself is from a Bible story, where the ability to say "shibboleth" vs. "sibboleth" was used to by Gileadites to kill off the Ephraimites. That's the problem with shibboleths: they're used to kill people, either literally or metaphorically. If you don't want outsiders to become Christians, then the more Christian jargon, the better. They get frightened by it and think we're nuts.

Shawn simply defines the church as the "Body of Christ." That's a nice definition that assumes a working knowledge of the books of Paul in the New Testament. It doesn't tell the outsider what the church does. It's Christian jargon. Granted, it's useful and saves time and conveys a lot in a little, which is the purpose of jargon.  But what if you're explaining th church to an outsider?

I've been thinking about how to rephrase Rebecca Chopp's definition. I think it's got a point. "A church is a united community with the power to free people from the things they're enslaved to." That's wordy compared to the original, but let's face it, I'm addicted to "wordy." As I rewrote the definition, I too have the same problem with the definition that Shawn did: there's no mention of God. "A church is a community united in the death and resurrection of Jesus, empowered by the Spirit to free people from sin and the damage caused by sin, and to support each other in the life the Father has prepared for us." Even wordier yet, and it's pretty obvious I'm a Trinitarian, but I like it. In my second definition, I use some words that are "suspect": resurrection, empowered, Spirit, and Father. We live in a society in which the majority do not know the basic stories and concepts of the Bible — what would be called in "emerging church" jargon a "post-Christian society." Resurrection and empowered are known through other uses — characters in science fiction (almost called it SF — more jargon) and fantasy are "resurrected" by magic or medicine and empowered by spider bites or cosmic rays. Spirit might need some explaining; I'm old enough to remember when people still said "Holy Ghost" in my church and others complained that it conjured images of someone in a bed sheet. I know enough people who come from broken situations that the basic concept of "Father" as good, steadfast, and nurturing is one I think of as foreign to most folks, though it wasn't in my case.

At some point, you have to explain some terms, I guess. Of course, Nancy has forbidden me to ever teach genetics again to anyone without at least a degree in biology.

There's something pithy, though, about Chopp's definition. Make it "God's constitutive community of emancipatory transformation" and I'll probably use it at the Youth Group Leader's meeting tonight.Hey, I've got a reputation as a writer to uphold. Occasionally coming up with something incomprehensible is part of the schtick.

BTW: I think I caught all the typos. For some reason, my brain isn't adapting to this keyboard. Forget trying to use the number keys in touch-typing mode. If I missed any errors, I'm sorry and am trying to do the best I can.

What are the odds of the names "Jesus Son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamne, and Jose" showing up in a tomb? In Matthew 13, the family of Jesus is listed: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55 NIV)" So, if we find a tomb with a couple of these names, is it the Jesus of the gospels or not?

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger¹ does a standard statistical approach to analyzing the question. Take how common each of the names are (1 in 190, 1 in 4, 1 in 160, and 1 in 20), multiply them together, divide by 4 to account for biases in the name base you used, divide by the number of family tombs (1000 seems a good estimate, although it's obviously a ballpark number), and presto, you get the answer: there's only one chance in 600 that the set of names is a coincidence. As far as Dr. Feuerverger's analysis goes, it's standard and mathematically sound, even allowing for errors in the data sample.

There is an assumption in the statistical analysis: independent assortment. Dr. Feuerverger assumes in the calculation that the names do not affect one another. There's a problem with this. What are the odds of finding a tomb with four brothers, all named Jose? That would easily be one in 20 squared, divided by 4 and divided by 1000, or about 1 in 400. But are we likely to find such a tomb? Of course not. Unless there was a first century George Foreman, no one's going to name all four of their kids Jose.

Think of these identical names as "collisions." In naming children, collisions are avoided. If the most popular boys names are Joseph, Jose, Judas, Jesus, James and Simon, and Dad's already Joseph, what do you name the five boys? Ask any school teacher about naming fads — it still happens today. This group of names doesn't show much imagination, and might well be a far more common grouping than statistics would lead one to suspect.

If your name is Joseph, apparently the odds of naming your kid Jesus are 1 in 190. What are the odds that Yeshua Bar Yosef has a brother Jose? If he's got four brothers, the odds that the first brother won't be named Jose are 19 in 20. That's 1 in 20 the kid's named Jose. If the first brother isn't named Jose, the odds of the second brother being named Jose are 19/20*20 or 19 in 400. The odds of the third brother being named Jose if the first two aren't are 19*19/400*20 or 361/8000. The odds of the 4th brother being named Jose if the first three aren't are 361*19/8000*20 or 6859/160,000. Summing up the odds, we get odds of 18.5%. In other words, about one in five families with the name of Joseph for the dad and Jesus for a son have a Jose in the family.

In marriage, though, the collisions are unavoidable. Let's look at the collection of names we're dealing with. One of the things that drove me nuts when I first started reading the New Testament was the plethora of "Marys." I had trouble keeping track, and I can't say I ever figured them all out. But we certainly know there was Mary, Jesus' mother, and Mary Magdalene. You get two Marys together, what do you do?

My solution, when faced with two Ellens in college, was to add nicknames. Ellen #1 was a pre-med English major (don't knock it — she's now an MD), so I called her a "barbarian": Ellen the Barbarian. Ellen #2, whom I met second, was obviously a "clone" and thus Ellen the Clone. Pretty clearly I was setting up the pun with that set of names: "Clone and the Barbarian."

We see this in the Bible: there's Mary, mother of Jesus or Jose (depending), and Mary (of) Magdalene.

An alternative scheme is to make slight variations on the name. My Uncle was Bob, and (something modern Jews don't tend to do) I was named after him. To make myself distinct from my Uncle, I had everyone call me "Rob." It definitely saved on the confusion.

So, if Miriam is one in four Jewish female names, you can bet the two women will be known by variations: Maria and Mariamne would be two examples, and they'd suggest the possibility of a third: Miriam, the most common version.

I'd argue that the odds of there being a Mariamne overall are low, but if you get two or three Miriams together, having one named Mariamne gets to be a lot more likely. Using the figure of 1 in 160 for Mariamne grossly overestimates the rarity, at least in the presence of at least one Miriam and maybe two.

The ossuary of James, brother of Jesus isn't used in this calculation. If it were, and if it can be shown to be authentic, and if it did come from this location, then statistically even I'd have to say this is looking amazingly like the Jesus of Christianity's family. But that's a lot of ifs. The unknown provinence and mishandling of the James ossuary mean that it will be very difficult to authenticate.

Note also that the name Matia, which isn't listed as a brother of Jesus and bears a strained relation to Matthew of the New Testament, whose presence would be problematic to explain. There's no way to factor a "miss" like that into the odds as calculated.

Lastly, as far as independent assortment is concerned, is the possibility that the naming was deliberate. Would a Jewish follower of Jesus named Joseph have named his kids Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Well, maybe not Judas. That name might have been out of popularity with followers of the Way (as early Christians were called) for some obscure reason.

What about deliberate fraud, with someone in ancient times trying to mess with the Christians? Could someone have been unhinged and decided to make their family the Jesus family? In my days as a paramedic, I met a few Marys and at least one Jesus who thought they were the Divine Thing.

There are other problems. Some of the names aren't an exact match, like Jose instead of Joses. There's some debate about how the script should even be read — the names may not be a correct reading. Why would Miriam, Jesus' mother, have decided to go by the name Maria? The Latinized version hints at some relation to the Roman empire — perhaps a husband who is a Roman citizen. Perhaps Jesus' mother was originally named Maria, but that strikes me as odd. It's not a nickname she would have chosen, especially after her Son's treatment at the hands of the Roman overlords.

Finally, try to imagine a scenario where Jesus and his relatives get burried together. There's this whole thing about Him having supposedly risen from the dead. If you've swiped the body, are you going to label the ossuary? If you're part of a scam — or even if you're an innocent bystander — do you want any association with it? You cared enough to take care of these bones. If most ossuaries are unlabled, why label these, knowing full well that if they're found, someone's going to mess with them big time?

Here's an interesting question: What would it take to positively identify the ossuary with the Jesus of the gospels? I can think of only one possible scenario. There are those who hold the Shroud of Turin is real, despite carbon dating results to the contrary. They claim contamination and the taking of a sample from a mended portion of the cloth, etc. The arguments remind me of the arguments for the validity of the James ossuary, actually. Now, if a DNA sample from the shroud and from the supposed ossuary of Jesus matched, that would be the one piece of evidence strong enough to debunk Christianity.

Off Topic But Interesting: The various people keep trying to connect Judah son of Jesus in the ossuary to adults in the Biblical narrative. Jesus' ministry lasted three years. Jesus met Mary Magdalene during that ministry, casting out demons from her when he met her. So the upper limit on Jesus' purported son's age at the death of Jesus would be 2 to 3 years old.

1. There is a typo in the Discovery.com PDF named tomb_evidence.pdf, created February 23, 2007 at 9:23:44 AM and modified February 23, 2007 at 2:25:56 PM with Dr. Feuerverger's name not capitalized. I mention this to document which version of the PDF I am using. I downloaded the PDF on February 27th 2007 at 7:38:59 AM. [back]

I figure I'll be on the leading edge of a big tail item by commenting now on the report that Jesus' tomb was found.

Update: Too leading edge. I discovered more information about the find on the Discovery.com site. Changes have been made to this article to reflect some of the new things I've learned. New information is italicized.

A couple years ago, there was a claim that the ossuary¹ was found that belonged to James, the brother of Jesus. The discovery was hailed in many quarters as "proof" of Jesus. Later, those studying the box reached the conclusion it was a forgery. Because the box went through several less-than-reputable people, it's true origin was thought to be unknowable.

Well, now someone claims that a tomb with an ossuary for the rest of Jesus' family (Jesus included) has been found, and is linked back to the original James box.

The case has been compared to an episode of "Crime Scene Investigation." That comparison makes the evidence sound strong, but the truth might be that it's like an episode of "Crime Scene Investigation: Miami," which we all know (at least if you read my blog) is terrible science.

The Evidence

The ossuary itself was found over a quarter century ago by a construction crew, and its contents listed by L.Y. Rahmani in "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries." There were names on some of the ossuaries, in a mishmash of Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Written in the script from the first century, there is significant question as to the accuracy of the names. The names themselves are Jesus Son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Matia and Mariamene e Mara.

Now, names like Jesus, Judah (which could also be written in English as James, Jude, or Judas), Maria (Latin for the Jewish name "Miriam," and Matia (a Hebrew version of "Matthew") were tremendously common in first century Palestine. Mariamene would probably be what Mary Magdeline would have been called, with the "e Mara" meaning "the Master."

DNA was taken from the Jesus Son of Joseph and Mariamene ossuaries. The two are unrelated. This leaves the possibility that the Jesus individual and the Mariamene individual are a couple, although that's mere supposition.

The encrustation of the ossuaries was analyzed and found consistent with the James ossuary that is believed to be a fraud. How exclusive such a patina was is questionable: does it really prove the looted James ossuary came from this ossuary — and if so, how? Remember the "batch analysis" the FBI used to do that "proved" a bullet came from the same brick of bullets? That analysis was found out to be insufficient to actually show a particular bullet came from a particlular lot.

The Analysis

The list of names is interesting, to anyone who's read the Bible — or seen the fictional work "The Davinci Code." Joseph was nominally Jesus' father, Miriam (Maria) his mother, James a brother (please, Catholics, let's not get started on the cousin/brother thing), and Mariamene a known associate. Mary Magdalene is thought to have an important place in the ministry of Jesus, so one might even stretch things a bit and make calling her the "Master" fit. Matthew the disciple (also known as Levi) was, from the gospel accounts, apparently unrelated to Jesus. Does that mean Jesus also had a brother named Matthew, or that Matthew the disciple hung out with everyone else? The Discovery.com site hints that Matthew was the second husband of Mary. Of course, Judah would be Jesus and Mariamene's son, though no DNA evidence is presented to document that:

Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

I just read through the Book of John, chapters 13-17, which describe the Last Supper, and there's no mention of a child sleeping in Jesus' lap. I suspect Jacobovici refers to this passage (based on the Discovery.com site, I was correct):

His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" (John 13:22-25 NIV)

This hardly sounds like the description of a child. The Discovery.com site cleans up Jacobovici's analysis, making it a little more logical, but personally, I think someone's pushing it. If I had to "blue sky" an excuse for the proof of Jesus' child in the gospels, I'd have picked the streaker from the book of Mark:

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. (Mark 14:51-52 NIV)

I can't actually say there's any proof in that verse that the young man was Jesus' child, but then again, there's no proof in the John verse, either. One unidentified person is just as good as another at this point. The Discovery.com site also claims that the child was there, unlisted, at the foot of the cross and thus reinterprets the following passage:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25-27 NIV)

So first, the Discover.com site suggest taking Jesus' words, assume that they were the exact words said but not in the context given, and then attribute them to Mary Magdalene and a son created out of thin air. Never mind that this directly contradicts the earlier mention of the "son," who was supposed to be "the disciple Jesus loved." Instead, we have Matthew taking in Mary, not John (as the "disciple Jesus loved" is traditionally interpreted. If this were a comic book retcon, the fans would be screaming at the inconsistencies and never put up with such nonsense. As history, it's even less plausible.

The linking of the James ossuary is extremely problematic. The inscription on the ossuary is believed to be a forgery. Any attempt to link the name "James" on that ossuary would be dubious at best. Others have questioned why a "tomb raider" would have taken the James ossuary and left the Jesus ossuary. I think that complait assumes a lot about the intellectual skills of the thief.

James Cameron, who is the producer of The Tomb of Jesus documentary and known for his other movies, said "… statisticians found 'in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them [the Jesus of Christianity and his relatives].'" Anyone who has ever read the Bible Code type books would be familiar with the abuse of statistics to produce large yet meaningless numbers.

The Repercussions

If Jesus' bones were found, the effect on Christianity would be profound. The basis for Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, followed after a short period of time by his bodily ascention into heaven. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Paul the Apostle said it best: "…If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' (1 Cor 15:32 NIV)"

There are those who do not hold to a bodily resurrection of Jesus, and one would expect that their faith would be unaffected by such a discovery. They are fairly few in number, though. Personally, I would find their faith to be without power, fairly much whistling in the dark. But that's my opinion, and I'm sure they'd disagree with me.

My Conclusions

I have to go with the evidence. If someone found the bones of Jesus "who was Crucified," I'd give up on Christianity. To me, there would be no point. I'd probably start exploring "models of God," trying to figure out what one would expect a supreme being to be like. I do that now, but it's mostly an intellectual exercise. I doubt my personal behavior would change much. Well, you could pretty much forget me going charging into dangerous situations as I have in the past. Saving my own carcass would take on a much higher priority, and the rest of yunz are on your own. Tough luck.

From what I've read of this evidence, I don't buy it. This isn't a case that would prove beyond any doubt (let alone a reasonable one) that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or that Christianity is wrong. It's an interesting coincidence of names, sort of like finding a marathoner in his late 40s who is named Rob Carr. Stuff like that happens.

The statistics (which granted, I haven't seen) sound hokey at best. Even if they're valid, I have to wonder if there's some other reason: an early Christian that named his family after Jesus as a tribute or someone who created an ossuary collection to screw with Christian's minds. Maybe it's my dark side coming out again, but I could see that playing out any number of ways that would leave you with a pile of interesting names, full of sound and fury but signifying didly. The statisticians should have seen that, and the people producing the documentary should have known that.

Frankly, this is the abuse by statistics and logic I'm more used to seeing from the Christian nutcase end of the spectrum — the same one that "proves" evolution didn't happen or that you shouldn't vaccinate your daughters against HPV because they won't die horribly if they have sex before they're married. I continue to marvel that religious fanaticism causes similar behavior among all religions — including atheism.

I will watch the TV show to see if there's better data than what's currently available. I'm skeptical, but willing to listen. On the other hand, I don't expect much. My emotions are what they are, albeit rather consistent.

I can't believe I had to put all this effort into this post instead of one about wave mechanics and the atalatl. And yes, I'd love an atlatl for my birthday, but don't get me one. I'm not coordinated, remember? We're talking major bad idea for me to be slinging darts with crossbow-like efficiency. Contribute to the computerized microscope fund for me instead.

Update (not related to the Discover.com article and added before I discovered that): I completely forgot to mention my cynical view of archaeology which was formed by the book "Motel of the Mysteries." Now, archaeology is fun, and I like to follow it, and there's a lot of good work. Sometimes you just have to wonder if they're pushing the data a little too hard. Like off a cliff. Speaking of cliffs and archaeology, I "firmly believe" the Cahochia mounds were used for primative hang gliding. It makes as much sense as every other theory I've ever heard, and explains all the bird motifs better than most. Yeah. Right.

1. An ossuary is a box in which bones of a person are placed after the rest of the body has decayed away. [back]

Yesterday, I posted about how unconscionable our treatment of our returning veterans was. Well, I just got off the phone after calling the offices of my two senators and representative about the problems veterans returning from Iraq face. Senator Specter's staffperson handled my call quickly and with no questions. The person who answered Senator Casey's phone took my name and zip code and thanked me, assuring me this would be mentioned to the senator. Congressman Murphy's staffperson stated that she thought this was a very important issue. She took my name, address, and stated that my concern would be passed onto the Congressman Murphy.

I probably got better at the phone call with practice. I've done this before, I don't know why it's still hard. I don't think the practice accounted for most of the response from the person answering the phone, though. Murphy, being elected by a region rather than the whole state, probably needs to be more responsive. For all I know, all three pay some grunt to go "Yeah, uh huh, I'll inform him" and then take the next call, with nothing being done. I am feeling a little cynical today. The best I was realistically hoping for was an additional tally mark on a list of what people are concerned about. I was left with the impression that Senator Specter doesn't intend to run again, Senator Casey's staff might be educable, and Congressman Murphy knows how hard he's going to have to fight next time.

Technorati shows that I'm not the only one talking about this. Remember the Ladies includes the abysmal treatment of veterans in a long post. The Impolitic calls the veteran situation a national disgrace. ThinkFast includes the veteran situation in a "quick link"-like list. I could go on and on…I even came across a very hard left site and a White Power site that were outraged. Nearly everyone agrees on the need for better treatment for our returning soldiers — but will the politicians do anything?

I can't condone the approach taken in the video on Viral Media in Retrospect to dealing with the problem, but there's a part of me going "Yeah, baby!" Come on — do we really have to con society into taking care of those who were willing to serve their country?

I'm not sure how I let this one slip by:

Researchers, led by Catherine Verfaillie, published a landmark adult stem cell paper in 2002 where they showed adult stem cells could be used to generate a wide variety of tissues. At the time, the results were much heralded, but they also proved difficult to repeat.

Verfaillie, now at the Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) in Belgium, has since written to the two journals informing them of problems with data within the two papers, stating: “It was [the experts’] consensus opinion that the data were flawed and should not be relied upon as accurate representation of MAPC marker profiles.” –
Flawed stem cell data withdrawn Peter Aldhous and Eugenie Samuel Reich, NewScientist.com news service, Feb. 15, 2007

Other studies have shown that adult stem cells can form all the cells found in blood, but the much greater claim, that most tissues can be formed from adult stem cells, is now in question.

At the time, in a previous version of UnSpace that has long since disappeared into theInternet "bit bucket,"¹ I pointed out that this was a welcome study, but that it was preliminary — as was most research about stem cells, adult or embryonic. Aside from public policy and theological reasons, being able to use stem cells from the patient would solve a number of problems like rejection and the possibility of spreading viruses.

There's too much wishful thinking on all sides of the stem cell debate. The universe, being the universe, does not reshape itself to fit our desires, though. Instead, we have to conform our strategies to reality.

And finally, I just have to mention this quote from the New Scientist article:

“If I had been following this recipe since 2002, I’d be extremely angry,” says Jeanne Loring, a stem cell biologist at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, California.

Yeah. Oopsie.

You thought bad directions for setting up your DVD recorder were a problem? Imagine what it means in the world of "publish or perish."

1. Yes, I checked the Wayback Machine. [back]

Well, I got a new keyboard. I'm addicted to the ergonomic keyboards that permit your hands to rotate outward slightly and spread the keyboard out a bit. The only one I could find was the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.

It's cool, with a Web/Home, Search, Mail, Mute, Volume-, Volume+, Play/Pause, Calculator, Zoom, Back and Forward buttons as well as all the typical keys and five programmables.

Unfortunately, to use it, you have to install the software that takes over the mouse as well. Darn you, Microsoft! Darn you to heck!

Actually, it's not all that bad. The only button I can't program I never used, so it's no big deal. The wheel button now shows every running program, which makes switching between programs easy. I may change that behavior later, but for right now, it's fine.

I have the programmable buttons set to open Thunderbird, Starry Night, WS_FTP Pro, the My Pictures folder, and Paint Shop Pro XI. That may change.

What doesn't work is the Zoom button. It acts as a scroll inside programs. I don't know why it doesn't work, although I should check my screen resolution. I may have to write Microsoft and ask.

The keyboard is different. At first, I started typing nonsense touch-type words. I still have trouble with some letters, but I'm improving rapidly.

I'm a little late in blogging about the preview of Wild Hogs I saw on Wednesday. Unlike "Black Snake Moan," a movie so complex that I had no idea where to begin, Wild Hogs is so simple, I don't know where to start.

How about the cast? I've been a big fan of William H. Macy ever since his turn as The Shoveller in Mystery Men (a movie I thought alone in my appreciation for, but does surprisingly well at Rotten Tomatoes). Macy does well as Dudley Frank, the character who develops the most through the movie. I probably shouldn't admit that I know Martin Lawrence best from Black Night, but his humor here as hen-pecked Bobby Davis is understated and quite a good performance. Tim Allen isn't over the top and mugging; this isn't Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor, it's Doug Madsen, dentist, for which I'm glad. John Travolta turns in a good performance as Woody Stevens, a man whose life is disintegrating. The lesser characters, including "Crossing Jordan"'s Jill Hennesey, Marisa Tomei, and Ray Liota are functional, but don't contribute that much to the movie.

Then there's John C McGinley, Dr. Perry Cox from "Scrubs." He plays a gay motorcycle cop. With four guys, the whole question about "gay" apparently has to come up, with the whole "people might think you're gay" brand of humor. Maybe this is some snarky reference to Travolta's sexuality that I'm not getting. It plays out as some strange Snicker's commercial. This part of the movie was simply embarassing. You know those portions of "I Love Lucy", "Monk," and "Psych" where you want to slam your head into the wall to make your head hurt so bad you'll forget what you're seeing? McGinley's appearance signaled it was time to go pound your head. He's a great actor, I swear I know a real life Dr. Cox, and I'll take a while to forgive him for this.

The four friends decide to go on a road trip for various reasons: Davis hates his job with "The Firm" cleaning out toilets. Steven's losing everything, Allen is having a midlife crisis and his son doesn't think he's cool, and Dudley, well Dudley's named Dudley. That tells you all you need to know about Dudley. They run into a motorcycle gang and hilarity ensues.

The term "formulaic" comes to mind as I think back on "Wild Hogs." Given the characters and the setup, most of the screenplay writes itself. There are a couple small surprises along the way, which were honest treats.

I got to see this movie as a preview. If I hadn't, "Wild Hogs" would have been one I said I wanted to see and never did. I hope all the movies I wanted to see and didn't were like this, because that means I haven't missed anything significant. "Wild Hogs" wasn't horrible, but it's not a movie I'm going to see 3 times like Inside Man.

Nancy liked this one better than I did. She doesn't think the Highway Patrolman scenes with McGinley played out as homophobic as I did, but she did admit they were somewhat over the edge.

If you have a choice and want leather and chains, go see Ghost Rider instead. Everyone was telling me what a horrible movie it is, and yet the flaming bike is burning up the box office. Nya nyah!

Me? I want to go see Bridge to Terabithia. Kids movies are fun and no one ever dies, especially not a kid.¹

Note: I see no need to do a review with spoilers for this movie. If anyone disagrees, leave me a comment and maybe I'll change my mind.

1. Yes, I know. That's what I'm being snarky about. [back]

Living near Century III Mall, I often find myself driving past the Baldwin High School on Route 51. Over the years, I've watched the changes to the high school. Construction of some kind or another always seems to be going on. I've never gone up and checked out the construction. I'm limited in what I can see while driving, especially given what a nasty piece of work 51 is. Better one keeps one's eyes on the road.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the renovation cost $60 million. I'm not sure if that includes the fancy red digital sign, or if that was from the last renovation. The school district is losing students — it's down from the 4,421 in 2005 to 4,187. The population is older, too, with 80% of the district households no longer having children. The district has some of the highest property taxes in Allegheny County.

Pretty clearly, the school board screwed up on the renovations. The cost of the renovations is the real reason the school board can't meet the teacher's demands. I'd almost wonder if that was the plan all along: spend the district into red ink so that teacher salaries have to be cut. If you hate unions and workers and long for a more Dickensian world, it's a great strategy.

I'm enjoying watching the on-camera interviews on the news. I wonder if the TV reporters throw the sanest responses in the digital trash can and only use the ones where the people being interviewed look stupid. Of course, I should talk — I am terrible in on-camera interviews.

In one TV news segment, the parent being interviewed left me with the impression she thought her kid was a turnip undeserving of a quality education. Granted, she might be right, but what parent says stuff like that? Besides, above-average intelligence kids can learn despite the system. It's the students who don't have as much to work with that need the best possible teachers.

Another interview came across as "People without kids in school paid back when my kids were in school, but now that it's my turn, why should I have to pay?" I don't remember the exact words, what I "quoted" certainly wasn't what was said, but it was the impression I got. I was watching the news in a group, and others thought the same thing.

I hope both cases were examples of common people freezing up when the camera was on. I'm cynical, but not that cynical. I wish I'd recorded the news: those interviews were YouTube worthy!

Part of me would love to see the teachers accept the school board's contract and then resign en-masse to take jobs where they could be paid what they're actually worth. Such an action would serve as a warning to school boards nation-wide as to what the most important part of the educational system is — and it's not the school board!

I know for certain they're not paying near enough to entice me to go into teaching — and that's without confronting my complaints about how chemistry classes have been gutted by the lawyers from Nerf World.

In the argument about the Iraq war, people on both sides of the debate agree: the soldiers that were sent over there deserve our support. How, then, are there hundreds of homeless Iraqi vets with more on the way?

They were sent over there to fight in our name and asked to fight an ill-developed strategy that resulted in the deaths of too many of them. When they return home, the medical care is substandard. An incompetent paymaster system has resulted in debts the soldiers cannot get out from under.

What is going on here, folks? Why are the conservatives and liberals and moderates and pretty much anyone saner than Fred Phelps not up in arms over this travesty? Why are dead and heading-toward-dead celebrities the top stories in the news?

Tomorrow, I'm calling all my congresscritters — Casey, Specter, and Murphy (find yours [link corrected]) and demanding that action be taken to straighten this out.

Support our troops!

Thespacekeynolongerworksonmykeyboard.

BloggingwillresumeafterImanageatriptoBestBuy.

Imagine you are having a medical problem. Two paramedics show up. Do you ask their religion?

Strangely, some people did. I used a standard vague answer that kept the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and the one Wiccan calm.

I've been on the wrong side of the heart monitor, and my concerns were not about the religion of the medics treating me. I was worried about their ability to take care of me and (in one case) find the hospital.

So it's with my "hammer theology" I approach the whole "Romney's a Mormon Presidential Candidate" brouhaha. I disagree with him on a number of stands and wouldn't vote for him — his being a Mormon has nothing to do with it. Not everyone feels that way. A number of Roman Catholics I've spoken with don't consider Mormons to be Christian, and so would not vote for Romney. These same people would freak at similar opposition to a Roman Catholic candidate.

In reading the Reuters/MSNBC article, I noticed that the author does not explain why Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do not accept Mormons as Christians. It comes down to how different religions view the nature of God and salvation. Mormons do not accept the concept of the Trinity (one God, three Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but instead believe that they are separate individuals united in purpose and divinity. The Mormon church also teaches that doing good deeds and faith are synonymous, while many Protestants believe in salvation by faith alone, with doing good things being a natural outgrowth of that faith. Note that some Protestants and Roman Catholics consider the Roman Catholic church to teach salvation by good deeds and faith. My father, a CCD instructor and Deacon in the Roman Catholic church would have disagreed, but if my theology is based on a hammer, my Dad's was fractal in nature to the point of being close to jerrymandering.

Would I allow a person's religion to affect whether I voted for her or him? My reaction would be "no," I wouldn't care what the person's religion was. I would be concerned with what the person would actually do in office.

When George W. Bush declares Iraq to be a war America must win, he damns himself and his administration for their every miscalculation, "Mission Accomplished," and "Bring it on!"

George W. is right. We must win this war. If the United States abandons the nascent Iraqi government before it is ready to stand on its own, the country will be over-run with terrorists. Already, Iraq is a fertile training ground for our opponents. Witness the recent rash of helicopter downings: the enemy is learning from the conflict and improving its tactics. Imagine what Al Qaeda can do with an entire country to play with: wasn't that why we went into Afghanistan? Won't Afghanistan, rather than being a success that we nurtured and helped to grow strong, be the next country to fall to the terrorist onslaught?

We must win the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, each failure of the Bush battle plan has made that victory less and less likely:

• When the country was first taken from Saddam, there were insufficient troops to secure the Iraqi military weapons caches — which rapidly disappeared into the murky Iraqi underground, later to resurface as the infamous "Improvised Explosive Devices."
• The Iraqi army was fired, leaving the best militarily trained people in the country unemployed and out for revenge.
• The Iraqi borders were not secured, permitting outsiders to come in, bringing new weapons into the theater.
• American troops were not given proper equipment and support with which to fight the war.
• Corporations were given carte blanche to steal from the very soldiers they were supposed to be supporting.
• Billions of dollars of American money was thrown around in Iraq, buying little to nothing.
• Admitting mistakes and learning from them was considered an admission of weakness by the Bush team, and so failed policies were permitted to continue long after sanity would have demanded their abandonment.
• Torture of prisoners, "collateral" deaths of Iraqi nationsals, rape and murder by American forces of Iraqi nationals, taunting of the opposition and unwarranted bragging about the "success" of the war strengthened the enemy. Bush and company gave aid and comfort to the very terroristse they were claiming to protect us from.

The surge will be insufficient. Bush does not have the will, let alone the political support, to call for what is truly needed: an escalation of the conflict with an order of magnitude increase in the troops — and even that might not be sufficient. The American economy cannot withstand such a shock.

And yet, how will the people and the economy deal with the shock when, feeding on the hatred of America this war inspired in the Arab world, working from a powerful Afghan and Iraqi base, the terrorists bring the war back to America's heartland?

I believe the future will remember George W. Bush for getting us into a war we did not need, one his father was wise enough to avoid, and which (because of repeated bungling) we cannot win.

The United States of America will be paying the price for President Bush's "splendid little war" for years to come. I believe historians will see this as the greatest single catastrophic blunder by a President in American history.

I hope I'm wrong.

Not quite quick links, but I want to clear my desktop….

• According to commentary on MSNBC, "The Christian Right’s Dream Candidate" is Jeb Bush. After being used and abused by the G.W. Bush administration, one would have to ask "Why, can't they learn from their mistakes?"
• "Federal law outlaws possession by anyone (a) who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year…." For "macing," "[t]he law provides for a maximum total sentence of one year in prison, a fine of $100,000, or both…." Today, "[f]ormer sheriff Pete DeFazio was sentenced in federal court today to six months home confinement, five years probation, and a $5,000 fine." I am not a lawyer, but the logic here seems to be fairly straightforward. DeFazio can no longer own guns. Oopsie.
• I think some gun-owners are worst nightmare of all responsible gun owners: for example, Senator Robert Regola. And that's just based on what the behavior he's admitted to!
• Kimberly Reed made me cry.
• I'll have more to say about March 8th's Sound Kitchen.
• "Well, now we know not to put the baby's head in a guillotine." — Danny Tripp to Jordan McDeere on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. This is why I watch TV: I learn useful things.
• Diane Kentner, the photography teacher, was played by Laura Harris, who was Daisy Adair on "Dead Like Me," Miranda Ellis on "The Dead Zone," and (of course) nasty but cute terrorist Marie Warner on "24."
• Does anyone else go crazy while watching TV, saying "I know that person from some other show!"?

Today, Tom Vilsack withdrew from the race for President.

When asked to comment, Vilsack's campaign manager Craig Varoga said "Who?"

If you wish to see the first seven stations, as well as other information about the Stations of the Cross at Pleasant Hills Communi