Coke: The "working end" of globalization...

Oh, how environmentally and nutritionally benign is Coca Cola.

http://www.livepositively.com/en_us/pdf/livepositiveqaguide.pdf

What is known in the public relations business as a Puff Piece.  Love the FAQ format.

Consider this little factoid: 

almost 1.5 billion servings of the Company's products are being consumed every day, WORLDWIDE.

I'm sure nothing good can come of more people in more places being able to afford more carbonated sugar water in a package that breeds mosquitoes when casually discarded.

Let's Live (Positively?) Long and Die Out.  

This next little snippet is from a related site...they are using social networking (perhaps Coke's facebook friends...) to assist in lobbying efforts.

CAN - Community Action Network (YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!)

"Whenever an issue comes up that would change our day to day lives, CAN goes to work getting important information to its members. 

For example, did you know that right now your favorite Coca-Cola beverages could cost more because of new, special taxes that are under consideration?"

I'm calling my representative, immediately.
--
Frish

20 stone plates broken in honor of the G20 meeting in Seoul

CLF - In a small room on the roof, cent Mex, 5:00 AM

(CLF is CraigsListForum, in this case Haiku Hotel...I sent it to myself to document how sending a haiku from CL looks today, 10.10.2010)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:55 PM
Subject: CLF - In a small room on the roof, cent Mex, 5:00 AM

a craigslist forums reader named 'frish' has sent you this.

note from frish: wonder what this looks like...
---------------------------------------------
posted in craigslist forums haiku hotel

posted by frish (10/10):

In a small room on the roof, cent Mex, 5:00 AM:

To keep chastity
When visiting girlfriend
Nineteen Seven Five

Her Dad and I slept
In the room above kitchen
Next to bird cages...

Father-in-Law SNORES
Were answered, by the turkey's
insane gobbling

Practically watched as
Paint peeled.....then BELLS PEALED...
Cathedral at 5

---------------------------------------------------
*** to respond, or to view this posting in context:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?ID=171470570

To those who might care about how women influence group intelligence

Collective Intelligence: Number of Women in Group Linked to Effectiveness in 

Solving Difficult Problems

ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2010) — When it comes to intelligence, the whole can indeed be greater than the sum of its parts. A new study co-authored by MIT, Carnegie Mellon University, and Union College researchers documents the existence of collective intelligence among groups of people who cooperate well, showing that such intelligence extends beyond the cognitive abilities of the groups' individual members, and that the tendency to cooperate effectively is linked to the number of women in a group.

(see article at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100930143339.htm for more)

Frish

A UN Mission regarding The Future Of Cities...

UN Habitat's mission:

"... to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements development and the achievement of adequate shelter for all."

http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2998

Didn't check out the whole site, or other pubs, or even this one, although I did down load it.

I find it somewhat interesting that long term planning or interest in urban life exists at a global level.

Cities are the "eternal" measure of human organization even if they started out as quite a messy business.

Those who lived in early cities were beset by diseases unknown amongst the hunter gatherers/horticulturalists who proceeded them.

However, calendars, accounting, writing, division of labor, concentration of labor and markets in cities supported by agriculture was a far more stable way of life.

And, ultimately unsustainable.  Because it provides for unlimited human population growth.  Ooops.

I think the mission statement is difficult to achieve regardless of what adequate means.

The demands of the world's biggest cities will be incredible over the next decades.

Frish

According to Pew

So, I'm an atheist and Jewish therefore I know more about religion than the righteous.  

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=60976

"Know thy enemy."

Sorry, that may have been too strident.  How about:

"All the better to trip them up" (Wolf of Hooded Red Rider Fame and my middle name (for real!))

Oops, still too predatory...

"I enjoy evaluating the irrational."  

(That's better, passes "truthiness" test.  And, has a 4 syllable word, definitely will be "Passed Over" if ya know what I mean...)

Just the thing, my new signature...

Frish

I enjoy evaluating the irrational.

Answer to "But our child may be 'THE ONE'!"

The other problem which would counter any justification for breeding such a "savior of the world", even if we could know that would be the result with certainty before conception, is that which I encountered in an antinatalist book. Namely, that all lives brings suffering. Lack of life (nonconception) cannot bring suffering since there is no one to suffer. Even conception of someone who could solve the problems of the world would be a negative from that person's standpoint. As I thoroughly expect things to get worse before they collapse completely, conception of any child at this time is tantamount to child abuse.

It cannot be justified.

Beth

Maternal Mortality: Can We Talk About Sex (at the UN)?

From the Huffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/maternal-mortality-can-we_b_731096.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092010&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry

Evelyn Leopold Veteran reporter at the United Nations  September 20, 2010 03:07 AM

Maternal Mortality: Can We Talk About Sex (at the UN)?

UNITED NATIONS - The statistics for maternal mortality have improved by 34 percent. That means a woman is no longer dying every minute, but one woman is still dying every minute and a half.

No doubt prenatal care, malnutrition, access to a hospital and skilled practitioners and professionals could prevent most of the deaths. As could education for girls that keeps them in school longer.

But the squeamishness of talking about family planning or contraception -- in short sex -- is a no-no in many nations. An estimated 215 million women in the developing world want to delay or avoid pregnancy but have no access to contraception or fear the side effects or their families object, says the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).

With President Obama participating, the United Nations is holding a summit this week on its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the world's most ambitious program to slash poverty by 2015. While the glass is half empty on many of the goals, the decline in deaths of pregnant women is nowhere near the target of a 75-percent reduction by 2015.

Consequently, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon scheduled a side-event on the deaths of pregnant women and children under five years of age on Wednesday, the last day of the three-day MDG summit.

It's not that UN agencies don't talk about contraception and the draft outcome document, for the summit mentions family planning, sexual and reproductive health several times, including "ensuring that women, men and young people have information about and access to the widest possible range of safe, effective and acceptable methods of family planning." But the wish list is not duplicated on the ground. (My fantasy was to give a "morning-after pill" to the 150 women recently gang-raped in the Congo.)

Child brides

Marriage of child brides, whether forced or by consent, can be a recipe for disaster in bearing healthy children. Says the International Women's Health Coalition, an expert in the field:

Child marriage is the major cause worldwide of pregnancies before age 15. In most of the developing world, 90 percent of girls who give birth before age 18 are married. Young brides typically become sexually active as soon as they are married, sometimes before their first menstruation. Often living in their husband's household and community, they face intense pressures to bear children as soon as possible, with potentially disastrous results. Because their bodies (bone structure, pelvis, reproductive organs) are not yet fully developed, girls ages 14 and younger run a very high risk of complications in pregnancy and childbirth compared with older adolescents.

As many as 50 percent of pregnancies in developing nations are unplanned and 25 percent are unwanted. The unwanted pregnancies are disproportionately among young, unmarried girls who lack access to contraception. In Ethiopia, for example, about one third of all maternal deaths each year could be averted if women had access to reliable family planning methods, UNFPA says.

Mother-in-law decides

Access to birth control is one problem. But even in some nations where the government has reproductive health clinics, the "mother-in-law often makes the decision," Nafis Sadik, the former director of UNFPA, once said.

In Pakistan, for example, a government survey found that 84 percent of the women who want to limit family size do not use modern family planning methods. And among those that do, sterilization is most popular. Illegal abortions are also common with close to a million carried out each year, according to the Population Council of Pakistan.

Patricia Licuanan, a Filipino psychologist and educator, and the current chairman of the Commission on Higher Education, has said that despite the Obama administration's support of reproductive health, "religious fundamentalism is on the upsurge."

She was not wrong about the Philippines, which together with Malawi, last week sponsored a panel of gifted health specialists from around the world, who opposed contraception as well as abortion. Several argued that legal abortions were not necessarily safe and that maternal deaths would not be reduced through contraception, only by proper health care, and that condoms did not necessarily reduce AIDS. (Both the Philippines and Malawi have extraordinarily high rates of maternal mortality.)

There is another side of religious leaders as evidenced by Rev. Debra Haffner who helped organize an open letter among religious leaders on the UN conference, saying in part: "We are called to bear witness to the harsh reality that without comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, women and girls around the world suffer illness, violence and death."

Clearly contraception is not a panacea for sepsis, severe bleeding, obstructed labor or even the consequences of illegal abortion. Health care in many countries is too tenuous that even sophisticated women worry about surviving a difficult birth. Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro, the UN deputy secretary-general, told a luncheon at the UN Foundation of her fears at the birth of her second child in her native Tanzania where she was a professor and then foreign minister. The doctors, she said, were excellent but the equipment so outmoded "I was afraid for my life" when she needed a cesarean section.

There is no easy answer and nothing works without community involvement, the reduction of extreme poverty, health practitioners at the village level, cell phones for emergencies -- and a proper analysis of available data, much of it sketchy. UNICEF, the UN Children's Fund, found that statistics masked differences within a country between those in relatively prosperous areas and the rural or slum-dwelling poor in developing countries.

And one could add -- in the United States also.

--
Frish 

Here's a notable quote from a Korean business leader...(and demo of bait/switch)

Dr. Il SaKong is Chairman & CEO of the Institute for Global Economics, a private non- profit research institute based in Seoul. "It's like inviting community leaders to our family party. We have to give an impression that Korea is a fundamentally good and solid nation."
...not an impression that we eat your pets.  

(Frish's Bait and Switch:  That was the "icebreaker" (tawdry and rank joke with enough truth*** to be funny to some, and attention getting to most) here comes the message.)

Please note, during the next very few weeks, how much campaign money is spent by various Chambers Of Commerce.

Don't let them buy it, get out and vote, and tell a friend. (Call to action)

Thanks, Frish (MBA Marketing, happy to share some technique!)

Turns out "frishbait" is rather inexpensive and ubiquitous.  (The closer!)

***For those with strong stomachs...

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Shopping/DogMeatInLA.htm  

"Four Years. Go" (if we get started NOW, the world's bad trajectories can be changed in 4 years...

http://www.fouryearsgo.org/organizations/browse-organizations/

When first informed of this site, I thought it was "so four years ago" but it turns out that isn't quite the case.

There is an associated blog post that is too true not to share as well...

http://www.evolvingthemovement.org/

From the blog:

"So why isn't the world tackling global warming, sex slavery, economic disenfranchisement, species extinction, terrorism, environmental collapse, financial sustainability, and other critical problems with an all-hands-on-deck approach? "

They definitely ask the right question, I wish them well...

Their pages of allied and worthy organizations is QUITE an interesting list IMHO.

http://www.fouryearsgo.org/organizations/browse-organizatins/

Almost signed VHEMT up as another of the a "sustainable" ally...  But that would be wrong... VHEMT: Not an Organization!

Sex Ratio and Geography, Marriage and Monogamy!

Well, Monogamy?  Just threw that in to obtain interest...but here's an interesting article for those "on the prowl".

Perhaps we ought to think about moving to a gender appropriate city, and contribute to the childlessness of our new partners!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/shortageofsingleladiesdrivesmentocommit;_ylt=AkW9_cHVZ8WdryQhrl.J0aS9IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTN2Z2k3MjU3BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2xpdmVzY2llbmNlL3Nob3J0YWdlb2ZzaW5nbGVsYWRpZXNkcml2ZXNtZW50b2NvbW1pdARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzkEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNzaG9ydGFnZW9mc2k-

-- The top five areas where women were scarce, with their gender ratio and median age of marriage for women, were:

Las Vegas: ratio 116, 24.5 years (Median marriage age for women)

San Diego: ratio 115, 25.9 years

Salt Lake City: ratio 113, 23.2 years

Austin, Texas: ratio 112, 26.2 years

Phoenix: ratio 111, 25 years

The top five areas where men were scarce were:

Birmingham, Ala.: ratio 88, 26.7 years (Median marriage age for women)

Memphis, Tenn.: ratio 88, 27.2 years

New Orleans: ratio 89, 27.8 years

Richmond, Va.: ratio 89, 26.3 years

A three-way tie for New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., ratio 92, where median marriage ages were 28.3, 27.9 and 27.8, respectively.

Frish

Damn Fine Commercial, regardless that "Brown" is probably part of the problem!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRAHa_Po0Kg
 

Do we really need to ship things from Bangkok to NYC overnight?  

Whatever.  

It's a great commercial if you haven't seen it on TV yet.

I hit your car with a Frisbee golf Frisbee (A note in prose and haiku)

(Adapted from a true story)

From 5 seconds before I threw it (when I was planning another throw altogether)

to 3 seconds before I threw it (when I noticed your car)

to .5 seconds before it threw it (when I planned on it going down the other side of the street.) 

until .5 seconds after throwing I watched it bear down on your car (and hoped it hit a window)

and then I saw the dent (near the black streak)

 

Forever indelibly impressed upon my conscious and conscience.

 

Tho' I am guilty

have no fig for forgiveness

Or apologies

 

Honorable thing?

No kvetching/obfuscation,

Make dent --------- disappear

 

Women get angry.

That is not something I wish.

Men? Forever - boys...

Eco's question

Eco you wrote:

"This year in several Latinamerican countries we are celebrating our Independence Bicentennial. Happily we remember VIOLENT periods and BATTLES, which casted away oppression and slavery (..well just partially we have become independent, ..., but in fact conditions for slaves or native people, "indios", were worst two hundred years ago).

Of course pacific solutions are always much preferable, but even in India with M. Gandhi, independence took also lots of lives, suffering, TIME and very special people and circumstances, that are not always available."

First, in response to your post, perhaps Martyrs become Heroes depending on who "wins" the war, eh what?  (He who controls Wikipedia controls the future!)

Secondly, and far more importantly, I believe the two paragraphs I resend above capture a terrific thought.

As a species, we seem to be "progressing" to some "higher" moral stand on the way we treat each other.  Stumbling, 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, but we seem to be ruled by laws, that, if enforced, makes life peaceful for many.

I have an Archaeology Degree, I know a little about what we were like coming out of the trees.  

Tool making omnivore soon to have speech and fire.

We fan out, and, through our material culture, we've used that technology to "genetically engineered" ourselves as a specie to EAT EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET.  Our tools make plants/animals into mincemeat.  Literally.  

The question your prose has me pose...

Is our Social Evolution fast enough to save us from our Human Nature (that which we've lived with for .25 to .5 million years or whatever)?

Live Long and Die Off

Frish

--
Frish

Regarding Humans! Rah, Rah, Rah!

Les, thanks for sharing this article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sustainable-were-a-lot-smarter-than-that/story-e6frg6zo-1225914025010

I have selected portions of the article to comment upon below (within parenthesis).

Austin Williams loathes the smug "carbonistas", the ecological armageddonists and those who've grown afraid of future growth, indeed of the future, and their burgeoning political influence.
(OKAY, so what?!!)

His case:  we should not be sacrificing humanism at the altar of environmental sustainability.

"There's this tired Malthusian logic that's coming back into the mainstream across the Western world, that humanity is a huge problem for the planet,"

"It's amazing that Malthus was so widely discredited, but now he's back being discussed in such a positive light at all the right dinner parties," Williams says.
(The only thing Malthus got wrong was how human "ingenuity" would stave off the Malthusian die off.  But Williams neglects to consider the consequences of a petroleum based economy, and especially petroleum based agriculture, to allow humans to procreate without restriction.  This has allowed humanity to grow at the expense of the rest of the biosphere, and it is patently unsustainable (think "peak oil" whenever that year already or will occur).)

"We seem to have lost any notion of the future as a positive place to be. We've forgotten that humans are endlessly creative individuals. We instead see ourselves as problems, not solutions, and once that becomes the prevailing view the next logical step is the fewer humans the better."This negative view that we are nothing more than carbon excreters is an attitude I find reprehensible. I see humans as problem solvers, so the more people there are the more problems that will be solved and the better society will be."
(That one was truly funny, I'll admit.)

Urban congestion is something we should embrace, Williams argues, with any adverse issues eminently fixable with the right policy settings and technology.

(oh, really, how about changing Human Behavior along the way too, is that "eminently fixable" as well?)

"we need to reclaim the humanist agenda, which puts people first, and the technological advances will inevitably come."
(So, he is an unabashed speciest, who cares not a whit about the rest of biology, and believes all we need is technology to overcome whatever difficulties face this "Modernity" he seeks."

Those who fret about carbon footprints and have no faith in humans to solve the carbon problem, get short shrift from Williams. He labels them "carbonistas", highlighting the notion that such concern is merely fashionable.

(What faith ought we have in humans and technology that has brought us to the brink already?  Why is "more of the same" an answer to what are clearly problems, made far more problematic since our population and technology are overwhelming natural coping mechanisms?)

"China isn't having these discussions about the nature of cities. Something's happening there at least. Sure, a lot of it isn't pretty . . . but they are resolving the problems as they arise.
(More funny stuff, wonder how China will handle the age creche sex ratio problem that will almost certainly require military means to supply enough women for the Chinese male population?
The reality:  The sex ratio for those aged 0-14 years represents 20.1% of the Chinese population and the ratio of males to females is as follows:
male 142,085,665/female 125,300,391) (2008 est.)

Seems like 17,000,000 men are going to be looking for love in all the wrong places (like Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, North/South Korea or name any other country they care to "visit".'

This Williams character is clearly an anachronistic throwback in his faith in ingenuity and technology and in his disdain for trends and realities of the small planet we call home.)

Frish

This is raw video of a US Coast Guard rescue of a Russian sailor

I would entitle this exercise, "Survivor Coming Up".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzGBMssrS1E

Operator/Narrator is really "in the moment", eh what?  Has a lunar landing quality as well...

The internet is a disturbing thing.

MSEL "*Master Sequence or Scenario of Events List" used to both prompt and track activities during a management plan exercise.

http://dhsmedia.wi.gov/main/Viewer/?peid=b87462ebcd284514a3602b3ccf955a61 for way too much information!

"Science, it's what for dinner." (Hannibal Lecter)

Liver cells created from patients' skin cells (August 28, 2010) -- By creating diseased liver cells from a small sample of human skin, scientists have now shown that stem cells can be used to model a diverse range of inherited disorders. The researchers' findings will hopefully lead to new treatments for those suffering from liver diseases. ... > full story

Had to read the abstract twice, since:

a) Didn't think anyone would want to create a diseased liver cell

b) Didn't know how useful such would be.

--
Frish

Doctors' Religious Faith Influences End Of Life Care - choose your provider well!

Doctors' Religious Faith Influences End Of Life Care  Article Date: 26 Aug 2010 - 10:00 PDT  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/199110.php

(Frish sez: Y'know, we're all most likely going to end up in the hands of some medical practitioner before we check out.  An Atheist MD is my firm choice, please!)

A new study from the UK suggests that doctors' religious faith strongly influences end of life care, 

with agnostic and atheist doctors nearly twice as willing to take decisions that speed up end of life 

for very sick patients compared to their deeply religious peers.

Dr Clive Seale, a professor in the Centre for Health Sciences at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, wrote about the findings in a paper published online 23 August in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Data for the study came from a postal survey of UK doctors working in a range of specialisms where end of life decisions are most likely to occur, such as care of the elderly, palliative care, intensive care, certain hospital specialties, and general practice.

The survey asked participants questions about their own faith and religious beliefs, ethnicity, and views on assisted dying and euthanasia. It also asked them a series of questions about the care of their last patient who died (if relevant), including whether they had given them continuous deep sedation until death, and if they had talked to the patient about decisions judged likely to shorten life.

3,733 doctors responded to the survey (42 per cent of the total invited). Of these, 2,933 answered questions on the care of a patient who died.

The results showed that:

• Specialists in care of the elderly were more likely to be Hindu or Muslim.


• In contrast, specialists in palliative care were more likely to be Christian or white and to agree to the question asking them if they were "religious".


• However, overall, white doctors, the largest ethnic group, were the least likely to report having strong religious beliefs.


• Doctors with strong religious beliefs were less likely to discuss treatments judged likely to end life with their patients.


• On the whole, ethnicity was not linked to rates of reporting ethically controversial decisions, but it was linked to support for assisted dying or euthanasia legislation.


• There was a strong link between specialty and reporting decisions that were expected or partly intended to hasten the end of a sick patient's life.


• Hospital specialists were nearly 10 times more likely to report such decisions than palliative care doctors.


• However, doctors who said they were "extremely" or "very" non-religious were nearly twice as likely to report having made these kinds of decisions than peers who described themselves as having religious beliefs, and this was regardless of specialism.


• There were only a few cases of the most religious doctors having made such decisions (ie expected or partly intended to hasten end of life), but those that did were also signficantly less likely to have discussed them with their patients than their less religious peers.


• There was a similar pattern regarding support for assisted dying and euthanasia legislation.


• Palliative care specialists and those with strong religious beliefs were the most strongly opposed to such legislation.


• Asian and white doctors were less opposed than doctors from other ethnic groups.

Seal concluded that there is a need to acknowledge more strongly the links between doctors' religious beliefs and values and the clinical decisions they make.

--
Frish

29 second Car Vid (Darwin Award Contender?)

Here's the internet video site, if you don't have the embedded video in this note...

Males Scientists Regret Parenthood Decisions More than Female Counterparts

This is one weird story!  With that title I assumed they regretted having kids more than their counterparts.

Nope, they are expressing their frustration at not having enough kids...wowser.

Best quote: However, Ecklund said, "...Not having as many children as they wanted has a more negative impact on their life satisfaction than it does for women."

Male Scientists Regret Parenthood Decisions More Than Female Counterparts, Sociologist Finds

ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2010) — Many scientists in academia bemoan the fact that their lifestyles do not allow them to have as many children as they would like. Surprisingly, male scientists harbor more regrets than female scientists, according to a study by Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund.

When asked about "denied parenthood" -- having fewer children than they would have wanted, many more women (45 percent) than men (24 percent) said they had fewer because they chose to pursue a scientific career. However, Ecklund said, "Men are harder hit by this than women. Not having as many children as they wanted has a more negative impact on their life satisfaction than it does for women."Ecklund and co-author Anne Lincoln of Southern Methodist University measured the perceptions of career, life outside work and the intersection of work and family for scientists in two different scientific fields -- physics and biology. They chose physics and biology because the proportion of women is much higher in biology than physics, where women's representation has remained quite low.

Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology and Rice Scholar at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, delivered her findings Aug. 15 at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta during a presentation called "Male Scientists Want to be Fathers, and Other Ways The Science Career Influences Family Life of Men and Women."

According to the survey, "a lower percentage of female scientists have children, and of those who do have children, they have fewer on average than men, averaging 1.9 versus men's 2.1." Ecklund and Lincoln sought to use the data to draw broader conclusions. "These analyses suggest that experiences of parenthood are different for male and female scientists, that women who have successfully pursued academic science careers have different expectations for parenthood possibilities or that people who persist in science careers are different from those who drop out along the way," they wrote.

As the United States competes with other countries for scientific expertise, many scholars have argued that gender diversity helps to increase the pool of prospective scientists and keeps them in the field once they have joined academia. While recent figures show women and men earn nearly equal proportions of bachelor's degrees in science, far fewer women than men continue in science past their bachelor's degrees. Universities and colleges look for ways to retain female science faculty members so they won't lose this talent.

Ecklund and Lincoln point to satisfaction with work, satisfaction with family and leisure, and the work-family nexus as crucial indicators of whether faculty members remain in academia. Applying the research to scientists, they surveyed men and women who are in different ranks and at different stages of their careers in the top 20 graduate programs in the fields of biology and physics.

Because they focused on these two fields, Ecklund and Lincoln were able to study whether "perceptions and experiences differ within the sexes between disciplines that have more women (like biology) when compared to disciplines where women are severely underrepresented (such as physics)."

They found that fewer male physicists than male biologists (79 percent vs. 87 percent) are married, are less likely to have children and have fewer children. "Male biologists, however, report working more hours per week than male physicists, are somewhat less happy with their jobs and are significantly more likely to report a lack of departmental and university support," Ecklund and Lincoln wrote. "Because there are proportionally more men in physics when compared to biology, this latter finding is consistent with the general organizational finding that individuals are happier when they work with those who are similar to them."

But the results differ for female physicists and biologists. "Women in biology and physics do not differ statistically in rates of marriage, the number of children they have or their perceptions of career impediments," the researchers wrote. "We expected that because there is a much greater proportion of women in biology than physics, women in biology might experience less tension between work and family (e.g., due to working with more understanding colleagues or having greater support through their departmental infrastructure). Yet, there are no disciplinary differences for women in terms of work-family balance as an impediment to career progress or having fewer children than they would have desired. Reaching gender parity in a profession may be a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about equality with men in the profession or the discipline."

In what could be seen as an unexpected finding, Ecklund and Lincoln noted that when asked about denied parenthood, "women in both physics and biology are significantly more happy with their lives than are male physicists."

Still, Ecklund and Lincoln found that overall, women scientists are less satisfied with their careers than their male colleagues are. "A higher percentage of women (nearly 48 percent) also report that balancing work and family has obstructed their careers," they wrote. But the researchers did not detect any significant difference between men and women in how many hours they work each week and whether they work on weekends and vacations. Finally, women scientists are significantly less likely than men to perceive support from their departments, but there is no gender difference in perceived support at the university level.

Re: People With No Religious Affiliation Have Less Favorable Views of the US

Chuck, I can almost explain the insanity of "why would a deist believe whatever they need to believe".  I cannot offer a means to help them believe something else however.  In other words I am one of those who, if surveyed, would be questioning of authority of all stripes.

A warning to those who don't like rants and a warning to those that do.  

Considered yourselves warned...this turned out a little longer than I thought it would, apologies in advance.  

Perhaps I'm just pointing out the obvious, I just want to try to make a difference, and I think this November is an opportunity.

Here's why this author, with "no religious affiliation", believes that governments, corporations, churches, and any other assemblage that claim the truth need more scrutiny.  

This is why.

Groups of Humans of whatever affiliation seem incapable of acting with wisdom.

(Obviously the RCC is a wonderful prima facae example of the wisdom of bureaucracies. But I'm in a more secular frame of mind and that's way too easy a target, (they like that, a way easy target...it's weird how humans treat each other, eh what?.)

Let's take a quick look at the USA in 2010, as some of the non-religious who are quite concerned about the direction of our government in oh so many ways.

We have "Government" as an institution, since nation states are still the rage worldwide (South Sudan is the latest contender for "be the next country sweepstakes").  

In order for government to operate, under the Constitution, Presidents put forth budgets, Congress agrees, things get funded, and all goes just fine, with the Judiciary keeping track of who is doing what to whom and will it wash...

However, the "military industrial complex" needs to be fed.  The way forward for the "defense industry" is to capture as much tax money as possible, even if the contracts are cost plus. 

(I'm certain that a fighter aircraft manufacturer has more convoluted bookkeeping than a Hollywood studio.)

(Fear mongering among politician ought to be outlawed.  ROFL)

We have Corporations - specifically organized to maximize their shareholder's value.  Over the past 200 years or less, they have managed to become undying "persons" with many of the perks of citizenship (such as having their speech protected under the 1st amendment!).

How do you put BP in jail for a) Murder, b) Manslaughter, c) Gross negligence leading to a death or whatever they may eventually be convicted of...

Have you seen the visibility of the Chamber of Commerce (local and national) going up lately?  I have.  They are more frequent talking heads on a variety of so called "news" shows.  

The Supremes proclaimed the right to free speech as a justification for corporate open donations to whatever and in whatever quantity they wish to do so...  

The corporations just bought the entire government a few months ago, just wait for the television campaign season to crank after Labor day.  

The Defense Budget of the USA is 43% of the entire world total, over $660Bn dollars(4.3% of GDP).  Why do we spend 40% of military dollars worldwide, and, why should we?  

Why for example, is a woman's right to medical advice without terrorists intervening in her personal decision not funded with Federal Dollars, but the Killing in Iraq is just the war portion of the budget?

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues.

What if: We hadn't spent $1,000,000,000 dollars of "unfunded mandate" that G.W. Bush created when he declared war on Iraq (for phony trumped up multiple explanations, as the wind blew) blew up the deficit and the debt *(like Ronnie "Starwars" Raygun before him) and then lowered taxes to the rich.  

I had dinner with a fellow who wouldn't consider voting for Obama, since he was given a $70,000 present every year the tax breaks are in place.

What if: 1,000,000 dead (Iraqis and others), and 4000 Americans too, hadn't happened, and the money saved by not going to war and letting Saddam rot in his own infrastructure (that of course we inherited and haven't fixed yet...) and letting his own countrymen decide the direction of Iraq.  But of course, BushCo needed a war, oil, and a tax break for those who benefit the very most within the USA's economy and used the cover of 9/11, and the huge capacity for Americans to swallow lie after lie after lie, from all "trusted sources" of whatever stripe...

Oh I can explain Shrub, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rowe, and the rest of BushCo.  They actually were drinking their own koolaid, and WERE SCARED AS HELL of our "enemies".  

They also have a quite narrow focus, on OIL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.  

That's because, our own consumer culture (propped up with meager salaries by jobs created in support of the military-industrial complex) drives (literally) the need for petroleum products.

That means, we need plastic stuff as fast as possible.

Even though they just caught a trigger fish in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean that had 37 fragments of plastic in its gut...

So, we're in a vicious cycle with both our direction and our velocity (citizens/residents of the USA) destructive, counter productive, and just plain insane (perpetual war), but we're speeding it all up, all the time!

Politicians spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and deflect any true participative discussion with the populace).  They get big military budgets justified, they need the Pork back home.

That industrial activity, and agribusiness, needs petroleum product in limitless quantities.

That's what keeps our prices low in the USA.  Lower petroleum costs means lower food costs, transportation costs, electrical generation and the rest.

Keeping our prices low, keeps we "unwashed" from rising up after all.  

So it to a politician's benefit to subsidize agribusiness and hide it in the debt/deficit, just like the war costs became "the next guy's problem".

It will be quite interesting to see if the Republican'ts actually do take back either house after November.  

Just another example of how groups of us (the voters in this case) act unwisely since we often and vigorously vote against our best interests.

So we declare war, against the scary bad guys. 

What's really stupid is that Iran was ready to get cozy with us but Bush declined the overture.  Peace doesn't compute with BushCo.

So, that's one "non-believer", "non-religious", "free-thinking", "Bright (Fearless Leader, LA Brights, Emeritus), "atheist" opinion of the daft situation we are so totally "in".

Here's a thought. 

 Why not demilitarize the military, and make them into a world deployed resource to assist Haiti, or Pakistan, when they are facing horrific potential for loss of life.  

Then our enemies would have less reason to hate us, if we can keep the crazy evangelicals from finishing the Crusades.  If you liked "Iraq, a war in two acts (one illegal)" wait until the Republicans start "Iran, the sequel..."

The craziest thing is, even tho' none of us in the populous thinks that government can be all things to all people, whenever government is involved it better be a perfect response.

For example, the BP disaster.  The Feds CANNOT fix something like the top of an oil well 5000 feet underwater with pressurized flammable gas and a lot of oil are squirting like a fire hydrant on steroids.  BP was the only contractor who can handle an operation like that...

So Obama get's tarred with the same feathers that were stuck on Bush during/after Katrina. 

Lazy Journalism, but let's not talk about their complicity.

Well at least we have blogs and yahoo groups and facebook and loads of distractions so that the rich and powerful have their way.  

I'm living in West Hollywood, my precinct will vote the correct way.  

Before November's election, does anyone know the best means to influence others in places not quite as 'freethinking' as my neighborhood?

Frish  (Sorry, but I feel better now...thanks.) 

Chuck, see below...

Frish makes good points.
Also, people may say one thing ("I'm a patriot!") but behave in a contrary manner (hence, demonstrating cognitive dissonance).

Chuck
PS: Hey, Frish. As a retired accountant, I don't consider myself "way ambiguity intolerant". In fact, annoying as it may be to non-accountants, the profession deals with ambiguities all the time. We call them "gray areas". I consider your statement concerning accountants and engineers to be unnecessarily unambiguous. ;-)

Chuck, Tolerance for Ambiguity is a scalar measure, not a step function, if you will, so we are all more or less tolerant of ambiguity.

As a salesman/marketer (I provide print manufacturing for all sorts of clients, like brochures, maps, catalogs, calendars, posters, ink on paper projects) I constantly test my clients on this measure, without their knowing.  

It becomes a terrific tool to characterize my prospects, to then convey benefits so they are more receptive.

Could this work to educate the religious amongst us?  Doubtful, as it has been pointed out ad infiniturm the moral is the same one as why we ought not teach a pig to whistle.

Don't teach a pig to whistle.

It's impossible, and therefore frustrating to you.

Far worse, it will annoy the pig.

*(in other words, you can't fight irrational beliefs with a rational argument and expect acceptance, and worse, it annoys the pig...and these pigs have guns (just to continue that portion of the thread.  Bullets should be serialized and sold to registered buyers, only.)

Frish

Frish (gosh, hope no one quit the group because this was somehow off topic!) 

Research into Yoga and Alcohol, surprising findings...

Research confirms that while heavy drinking helps get you into yoga positions,
further research must occur to see if it provides the same benefits!
 

Savasana
Position of total relaxation.   


Balasana
Position that brings the sensation of peace and calm. 


Setu Bandha Sarvangasana
This position calms the brain and heals tired legs.


Marjayasana
Position stimulates the midriff area and the spinal column.  


Halasana
Excellent for back pain and insomnia.  


Dolphin
Excellent for the shoulder area, thorax, legs, and arms. 


Salambhasana
Great exercise to stimulate the lumbar area, legs, and arms.


Ananda Balasana
This position is great for massaging the hip area.


Malasana
This position, for ankles and back muscles. 

Pigeon
Tones the body, and builds flexibility and helps get rid of 'stress'.
So in the interest of healthy relaxation ...  let's start drinking !! ............

Confessions of a print buyer, part 1 - Promise of a client

First the Confession!

'

"Morning Frish,

 

I don't usually tell the printers each others price, so I can see what your normal pricing is…but I'll tell you. The lowest price I got is $xxxxxx for all of them (tax included). Can you match, or go lower than that? And they need to be high gloss laminated on the foamcore. I can show you samples if you like. I would need them fairly quickly.

 

Just let me know."

What I want to say is something like, 

Don't even think about sending me a note for a project under $20,000.  

I will then judge whether you are worthy of doing business with us.  

However, being unusually diplomatic, I suggested she had a good price for those foam core things.

Promise of a client 

She'll "keep 'me' in mind for other quotes"!  

Heard this on NPR this week...target practice, not calm water

Native Language - Linguistic Issues and Articles

Sequim, Washington (AP) August 2010 A tribal linguist says the translation used for the past century for the town of Sequim (skwim) is wrong. Sequim doesn't mean "quiet waters" after all. Timothy Montler says the correct translation would be a "place for going to shoot." That's a reference to the Sequim-Dungeness Valley's once great elk and waterfowl hunting. Montler is an expert in the study of dying languages. Since 1992, he has been studying the Klallam language and has been interviewing elders in the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe. The tribe announced the new, more accurate translation last week. When asked where the "quiet waters" translation came from, Montler says "that's something that somebody made up."

--
Frish - an expert in the study of a dying language (English).

Re: Pre- and Post- Choral IBMers: A recent ethnographic observation

I supplied a copy of the IBM Songbook to the press during an announcement cycle.

Ever Onward was just the best known, there were loads more.

I got to dig around the Armonk Library where they had copies of all sorts of historic IBM photos and collateral.

So I used them in announcement activities, mostly photos but the Songbook came in handy.

I don't believe I ever sang it in a group setting, nor do I remember my father singing it...although he had a great singing voice and repertoire.

It is the type of song best left to Barber Shop Quartets.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Bryan Standley <BS@innerserv.com> wrote:

"Ever Onward" was posted in the historical wing at a bldg at IBM Boulder. Never heard it performed (unfortunately?).

Pre- and Post- Choral IBMers: A recent ethnographic observation

BS <BS@innerserv.com>
To: Frish Yeah - nuff said. 

I'd bet a large number of real IBMers wouldn't even know there was/is such a song.
Guess that means there are pre- and post-choral IBMers.

From: "Frish

Subject: Further to Urban Dictionary - IBMer was published

Replies to last night's missive included several pithy observations, thanks to all. 

However, one comment emerged with both gravitas and vintage perspective! 

From: Lloyd 

To: Frish

Blue suits and white shirts in a bar--OK, but the authentic experience was singing three choruses of "Ever Onward" at the start of each sales meeting.

(Lloyd was the IBM Manager who hired my father in 1957...'nuff said!  Frish)

Defending the truth(?) Here's some truth - your god, by definition, CANNOT exist in this universe. Period.

Hi again.  By the way, I'd be happy to come on your broadcast and discuss any of this with whomsoever you wish, so your audience could benefit from a true debate...

Heard some truly amusing stuff on your program yesterday, "Defending the Truth".

An attempt was being made to "prove" the existence of "god" using "logic, science and intellectual" arguments.

1.  If what you believe is actually TRUE, why would it need defending?  It would be either self evident or it would be supported by evidence (in the scientific sense in this case).  So, simply by calling the show "Defending the Truth" I get the impression that whatever you call truth REQUIRES defending.  It sounds militant enough, just a bit ridiculous however, since, as I stated, the Truth should be easy to discern.
1a.  If the tenets of Christianity were "true" why are there 20,000+ Christian Sects all proclaiming to know the truth and still calling themselves Christians?  "Can't know the players without a program" it seems...(Oh, THOSE guys over there aren't "true" Christians (Mormons, Catholics, Snake Handlers, etc.))...but "WE" are, so send your checks to this address, soon and often.
1b.  Since NONE of what you believe can be proven, in a legal or scientific sense, I would like to hope that our secular government would put Christianity on trial for fraud.  Not that this could happen here, you are protected (as am I) by laws that preclude denying freedom to believe whatever we wish!  How fortunate for you, since fraud is all that you spout!

2.  I only caught a few minutes of the show on Friday, August 6, 2010, but am compelled to comment.

I'll stay with just ONE point, that of how protein molecules could "self assemble" and how unlikely that is...I think of the argument presented as a balloon filling slowly with very hot air...

A.  There was some discussion about 10 to the 158th power and how many seconds are in several billions of years etc.  As if chemical reactions can only happen 1 per second was the take away.  What if, as was real at the time, the Earth had an ocean filled with chemicals (much as it does today!).  There was no "self replicating molecule" that we now call life.  However, in that chemical soup, not simply billions, but quadrillions or more chemical reactions could occur during each second.  Not that this is anywhere as much as 10 to the 158th power, but it does seem slightly more likely that a molecule that could self replicate could occur.

However, none of that argument is even necessary to explain that life did occur here, without any miraculous or supernatural occurrences.

Just as a single needle punctures a balloon, the FACT THAT WE NOW ARE HERE shows that life began, however unlikely that may seem.  It only had to happen ONCE, and the law of evolution proceeds...

IpSoFacTo...

The problem with your argument is fairly straightforward.

We're here now.  Therefore WHATEVER happened to have us here now had to have happened.  Period.

The truly fun part is how you insisted that Intelligence must have guided evolution or creation!  That is so funny I am having trouble catching my breath.
Doesn't seem very intelligently designed to me...honestly.

B.  On the question of life's origin:  READ THIS AND REALIZE THAT THE CHEMISTRY AND ENERGY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME MAKES LIFE FORMATION INEVITABLE, NOT MIRACULOUS...
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-life  Now that article doesn't claim to have the entire answer, but I believe it shows that the answer is forthcoming, through the vigorous application of scientific principles, in the near term.

C.  Well, since you are so interested in the scientific, intellectual, and otherwise "truth" of god's existence, consider this logical, scientific, and unassailable logic proving there cannot be a "god".

1. Assume there is a supreme being, that is intelligent
2. Therefore, that being has thoughts.
3. That being is also capable, according to your mythology, of knowing everything there is to know (even our very own thoughts!) all the time!
4.  Thoughts are information
5.  Information is made up of data
6.  Data requires a PHYSICAL substrate upon which to exist (there is no data in a vacuum for example).
7.  There is a limit to the speed of which a particle can travel in this universe ("c" - the speed of light).  Actually accelerating a particle to the speed of light requires infinite energy as I understand it, and therefore is not possible.
8.  Yet, you maintain god knows all, about everything, everywhere, all the time.
9.  Whatever physical substrate hold the thoughts of god must operate at odds with the laws of this universe, since it must travel at beyond light speed.

Therefore "god" as an omniscient "entity" cannot exist in this universe.

Sure, you can therefore maintain that god is SUPER-natural, which cannot be argued down by logic or science, since supernatural doesn't mean anything real!
They why bother trying to "defend your truth" with logic, science or intellectual postulates?  Simply doesn't make any sense!  Stick to the supernatural explanations, then no one can argue with you!

Getting back to the discussion yesterday, let's discuss the nature of faith!

(RELIGIOUS) Faith = a belief held without evidence.  THERE CANNOT BE EVIDENCE IF GOD IS SUPERNATURAL.

However, and therefore the "Faithful" and the Non-Believer can agree:  "No Reason For God!"

Knowing you will continue to spout prime comedic material, I look forward to my next commute home.

Dear KBRT 740AM: I understand you have positions, but why LIE and MISINFORM?

(To those blind carbon copied, this is an open letter to KBRT 740AM - an "evangelical Christian" radio station in Southern California, feel free to send them something I may have forgotten, they ostensibly care about "truth"):

 

I tune in frequently.  I too believe that the constitution of the USA must be defended from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Prop 8 court decision was a perfect example of how the constitution defends and protects all US Citizens.

Yet your broadcasters and guests profess umbrage that "the democratic decisions of the people of California were overturned by a single judge".  

Please consider the following....

Marriage in this country provides many "special benefits" to couples who come to that contract (under secular law).

These include rights and protections and benefits in many areas, including and not limited to:

Tax Benefits

Estate Planning Benefits

Government Benefits

Employment benefits (family leave, insurance, etc.)

Medical benefits (visiting rights, decision making power)

Death Benefits

Family benefits

Housing benefits

Consumer Benefits (family rates for many things, tuition discounts, etc.)

Many other legal benefits and protections

The constitution does not discriminate according to sexual orientation.  

Your radio station, or churches, surely can, for example consider that restaurants can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!

The government of the USA cannot do so however.

How can the constitution do anything but find that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against when it comes to obtaining the benefits that accrue to the married?

Absolutely NOTHING in that decision was "activism" on the part of the Judge.  It was solely a decision that showed that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

And, I await your further feigned shock when the US Supreme court finds the same thing, should the appeals process propel itself in that direction.

It's a great way to obtain funds from ("moral"/"Homophobic"/"holier than thou") listeners, but it is simply lying on your part.

I heard someone from some "defending marriage organization"  NOT answer the question when asked:

What evidence did you provide to show that marriage is somehow harmed by having homosexuals also benefit from marriage?

There was NO evidence presented, simply some prattle about the judge reading emails sent during the campaign for prop 8.  The judge didn't mention anything about emails in his decision, he simply stated that no harm to "marriage" was shown by the defendants...since there is no evidence to be shown!

Homosexual couples raise offspring just as well adjusted as heterosexual couples.

Homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality (when did YOU decide what YOU are?)

Marriage is not only not weakened by this decision, it is actually now more inclusive and stronger than ever, with even more of our fellow citizens able to achieve the benefits of marriage!

If your position was that GOVERNMENT should NOT BE IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS AT ALL, and that no one ought to obtain any special rights, privileges benefits or otherwise by being married, then I could understand and even defend your position that homosexuals cannot marry (under religious law).

However, I have not heard that is your view, you simply don't want these contractual benefits to accrue to couples who happen to be of the same sex, with no justification at all!

Since you wear your flags on your sleeves, you MUST find that the constitution prevailed as it should, to protect those who are not being provided equal protection.

You can have all the eccentric and ill informed opinions you wish.

Just stop LYING to your audience.  

P.S. 

Later today I heard how "obamacare" is "clearly unconstitutional" since it includes a mandate for purchasing health care.

So funny that "unconstitutional" is obvious to you when it suits your purposes, and remains obscured when it doesn't.

However, it isn't "clearly unconstitutional" until it is adjudicated as unconstitutional, which it may well be!

Thanks for reading and providing your listeners with the truth, Prop 8 was an ill advised and unconstitutional attempt to discriminate against your fellow constitution loving citizens of the USA.

Well, why doesn't the WWF just say don't have kids instead?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100802/sc_afp/japanenvironmentfisheriestunawwf;_ylt=Asn16JTuDiHsMoeRvm93GU8PLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTM3YzhoamhnBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDgwMi9qYXBhbmVudmlyb25tZW50ZmlzaGVyaWVzdHVuYXd3ZgRwb3MDMTcEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawN3d2Z1cmdlc2phcGE-

I mean, really.

Mon Aug 2, 12:18 pm ET

TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese people, who consume most of the Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna catch, should avoid eating the species until its harvest becomes sustainable, the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) said Monday.

Japan consumes three-quarters of all bluefin, mainly raw as sushi and sashimi, but experts agree that decades of overfishing have seen its stocks crash by more than two-thirds in the Mediterranean.

"We want to make a call to Japanese traders, retailers and consumers," said Susana Sainz-Trapaga, who heads WWF's Mediterranean activities.

"They have the huge opportunity to make a real difference in the current mismanagement situation. If Japanese consumers don't buy the fish they will force decision-makers in the end to find the right solution."

Japanese consumers should choose skipjack and big-eyed tuna as alternatives until governments set up management measures that allow for the species to recover, Sainz-Trapaga said.

In March the UN-sponsored Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) rejected a ban on the international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna, which had been strongly opposed by Japan.

The bluefin's fate is now in the hands of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas(ICCAT), the inter-governmental group responsible for managing its stocks, which will meet in November.

Last year, the ICCAT agreed to cut its bluefin tuna catch in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean by 40 percent, to 13,500 tonnes in 2010.

The WWF has strongly criticised the deal, saying that it ignores a key study that found that even a strictly enforced 8,000-tonne quota would spell just a 50 percent chance of the recovery of the species.

The conservation group plans to open a Tokyo symposium Tuesday in its first attempt to reach out directly to Japanese consumers to teach them about the endangered ocean giants and the illegal fishing involved.