Riding the OHSU tram

Today was the first day OHSU employees and students were allowed to ride the tram. I went up to the OHSU terminal to take pictures, and saw that very few people were getting on the tram. So I ended up going for a roundtrip on the tram!

I must say that it was quite a rush to be standing out on the platform, since they have not put up any substantial fence or wall yet, just a waist high plywood wall (I think they will be putting up a glass wall sometime soon).

How was the ride? Well, the view was INCREDIBLE! The tram moves along smoothly and silently (unlike ski lifts), at a good speed but far from warp speed. This is a good thing for the faint of heart...combining heights and speed could send a few DIRECTLY to the hospital (pun intended). The tram slows automatically when it reached the mid-way tower, a nice feature. For those unsure about riding it, I must say that riding elevators is much more gutwrenching than the tram. The heights were never a problem for anyone aboard the tram (as far as I could tell), and there was never any jerking or dropping. When the tram is 20 feet from the terminal, it gradually slows down making the landing very smooth.

So here are some pictures. The first 10 are from last August and the last 12 are of today.

Here is the geocache of them, since it is fun to compare the August and December pictures from the same locations.

For three short videos taken during the ride, go to my Putfile page.

Portland Tram Construction

Everyday, on my laborious walk up the OHSU, I get to see all that is going on in the construction of OHSU's new skytram. Very exciting stuff, and really cool to see how it is all put together. Here are some photos of the OHSU tram construction.

Stem cells, real cures, and the media

I have been trying to find the most eloquent way to discuss this stem cell topic, but am finding it difficult to do. "Perhaps I can just not comment," I tell myself. But that isn't possible...the topic is too important and so many involved are twisting the truth for their own ends.

First off, here is a series of well written, and easy to read articles about the issue:
James P. Kelly #1
James P. Kelly #2
James P. Kelly #3
James P. Kelly #4

James P. Kelly is a man paralyzed man who at first supported stem cell research. However as he looked into the subject, found that the media and scientists have not been presenting the truth as to the potential of stem cells.

Here is how I see the big debate, and how different layers of assumptions got us here:

1) Scientists discover that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body
2) Scientists theorize that these stem cells could be implanted into people, and grow to replace damaged tissue
3) Media hears this and presents it as a possible cure (for cures are what sells papers)
4) People, especially ones with terminal diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries, hear about a cure and push to get funding
5) Politicians get pressured by the people, give in to their demands, and allocate funds for more research
6) Scientists see funds for research, and change their focus so they can get said funds
7) Research finds that an easy source of stem cells is embryos
8) Pro-Life people say no to research on embryos

Enter the current debate

9) Common public gets involved in the big debate: embryos vs. "curing" people
10) Celebrity spokespeople like Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Fox enter the picture, putting a bigger face on the issue
11) Politicians that stand up for the embryos get ridiculed and told that they don't care about the people. Many politicians cave.
12) Media eats it up, sells more papers
13) Scientists get more and more permissions to do research on stem cells
14) Even though scientists begin to find great limitations to using embryonic stem cells, they use their saleman techniques and still claim that the answer is right around the corner.
15) When a recent report comes out that embryonic stem cells can be harvested WITHOUT hurting the embryo, stem cell scientists poo-poo the idea saying that distroying the embryo is easier.

Interesting chain of events, but nothing spectacular. Well, I have left two important details out (you may have noticed this if you have read the above articles):
1) Embryonic stem cells (ESC) curing people is a theory, but has never actually worked in real life. There are many reasons, but a few are:

ESC are not programmed to live in an adult

ESC create tumors, not healthy tissue, in adults (cancer and stem cells grow rapidly for the same reasons)

ESC create tissue rejection within adults

2) Adult stem cells are available (within the nose) without killing anyone

These stem cells ARE programmed to live in an adult

These stem cells can be controlled

These stems cells ARE YOUR CELLS, and so your body won't reject them

These stem cells can be harvested easily, even from older people, without damaging (let alone KILLING) anyone.

I personally am angered that the media has manipulated the public by not telling the whole story. I am angered at Pro-choice people for using this misinformation to further their cause. I am angered at people with terminal illnesses for pushing so hard to have hope that they are harming others (embryos). I am angered at the media and the self-interest groups for giving people with illnesses false hope just to further their agenda. I am angered at politicians for not looking into the subject, but instead caving in for fear that they would look heartless.

Someone has really played the whole system.

Mel's Mistake

Explain this to me, please. Everywhere I turn there are people putting down the Christian faith, be in around town, on the television or radio, in our government, and even in the movies. It seems like the thing to do these days. However, after Mel Gibson let his mouth run afoul, saying some disparaging remarks regarding Jews, it seems like the thing to do now is to slam Mel. And no amount of remorse or apology is enough to satisfy many of his critics.

Now don't get me wrong: Mel should not have been saying those things, and I sure hope he doesn't believe them. But even if he did, why is it alright to put down Christians, blaming them for everything under the sun, but then demand that people of another faith be left untouched? Thinking of other religions of the world, I have observed that it is more socially acceptable to put down the muslim faith, and possibly the hindu faith and the atheistic faith (because it has become a form of religion these days), but not Jewish people. Why is that? I support people of all faiths, including Jews. My issue is how there is such a protection for one religion but not others. Where is the line between "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion"? Are Mel's critics slamming him now because they were unsuccessful at getting him when he made "The Passion of the Christ"?

Another blogger wrote a very well-written blog about this incident, that I recommend reading. It is level-headed and pulls no punches. One interesting point he makes is that there are many people in Hollywood that have put down Jews much more violently and much more consistently, than this incident with Mel. However these individuals are rarely, if ever, called on their words. It makes me feel that much more that Mel's critics have been lying in wait for him to make a mistake, wanting to find fault with him, and that they are much less concerned over his putting down Jews.

And relatively speaking, what all did Mel actually say against the Jews? He blamed them for being responsible for all the wars in the world...a bit extreme, but a personal opinion not much worse than people saying that the U.S. is responsible for all the wars in the world. He used an expletive followed by the word Jew...people say that expletive ALL THE TIME with other things, and it is pretty much ignored. What else did he say? We don't know. So, there really isn't much ammo against the guy right now, and yet the critics are really getting their moneys worth out of it.

I read this interesting article on Yahoo about how scientists are questioning physical constants of the universe. It cracked me up, and I have been talking about it too everyone in the lab. Either way you look at it, I feel it supports Creationism:

1) If it is true, then it shows that conclusions made today about how old the earth is or how the earth might have "evolved" are based on huge assumptions.

2) If false, it is another example of scientists twisting and tweaking the facts to fit their theory.

You may ask, how can they both support Creationism since that would be another example of making the data fit the model. Well, it is less of what they found and more that there is even a discussion. It is the "models based upon gross assumptions" that gets me. It is the "theory presented as fact even though there is so much that is unknown."

My take on the whole subject is that since everything was created by a Creator (that is my premise, so live with it...also, this is MY blog), there was a time when these things didn't exist. So as each one was created, things interacted differently (equilibrium was in a different place). As we look at things created near the beginning (via the mighty telescope), they may have different properties than they do know.

Slinging the Slang

I stumbled across this fun slang site as I was looking up how to spell "lieu" for a friend:

www.slangsite.com

It looks like VERY modern American slang, stuff that is hot off the tongues of the people who come up with this.

Perhaps I will have a "slang of the day"...not necessary stuff that you might use, but stuff that is humorous or interesting.

So to start it off...

Slang 0' Day

M.D.L. (Mutton dressed as lamb)
An older lady, usually divorced, dressing in fashions which are way too young for her.

Color Fixation of Meats Part 1: Overview

Recently another blog commented about an interesting article regarding a new practice of exposing meat to carbon monoxide to make the meat look more fresh. This is not limited to red meat, which turns and stays a bright pink after this treatment, but also to tuna fish. Intrigued by both the blogger's comments and the article it was based on, I wanted to look into this new manufacturing practice.

Being that my field of study is neurotoxicology, with an emphasis on foods, these kind of topics are ones I love to investigate. It is an area that I am very well read in too, since I am just finishing up my PhD in the field. So I think I have some background to give a solid opinion on the topic.

There are many issues at play. One side is trying to sell a product as inexpensively as possible, with as little loss as possible. The other side is looking to buy a product that is safe, healthy, and inexpensive, while still being delicious and presentable. How does the second party know if the product is safe? What keeps the first party from cutting corners in order to sell the product?

In the next few post I will talk through some of these issues, as it relates to this new technique of exposing meat to carbon monoxide. As I see it, the main points are: Should it be labelled as such? Is it safe? What is the consumers response?

Color Fixation of Meats Part 2: Labeling of Products

There are a lot of groups out there that want more information being put on the labels of consumables. Good, I have no problem with having informed consumers. But what about educated consumers? That is a whole different story. History shows that if someone isn't educated regarding what they are being informed about, then quite often people make rash decisions. "A little bit of information is a dangerous thing." How many products didn't make it, even though they are good and healthy, just because the consumer didn't appreciate it. It took a long time for organics to catch on simply because these type of products are smaller and more unsightly, while very perishable and expensive. People looked at them and thought they were bad, then saw the price and thought, why would I pay so much for that? As people were educated, things changed.

Back to the meat story. Most people equate carbon monoxide with car exhaust...so even though it is harmless when ingested, how many consumers are educated enough to know that? (I say "educated," because someone who is just informed might say, "That is stupid, because everyone knows carbon monoxide kills.") You may say, "Well, let them decide." Ummm...in theory Yes, in practice, No. Do you know why the Atkins Diet worked? Was it because dieters were educated on what was going on? No. The Atkins Diet worked because of marketing, not science and education. The Atkins Diet is a very unhealthy way to go, but consumers took it all--bait, line, and sinker--because of the good ol' bandwagon. They were informed that it was a fast way to lose weight, but were not educated about the long term effects of being on the diet.

So how a product is presented is a big deal. Companies are out to market their product, not educate the consumer. They want you to love it and buy it, not get a degree from reading the label. It is supposed to be "The Best," "The Cheapest," "Low Calorie," "High Nutrition," "All Natural" ("all natural" is a big "so what" in my book, and that is from a health and toxicology point of view). To protect the consumerr the government steps in to make sure things don't go too far where people are being deceived and that products are no longer safe.

But how much do you want to know, even if you are informed AND educated? Do you want to know what each of those "natural and artificial" flavors are? (Actually you can't know because often the specific chemicals and proportions are proprietary). Do you want to know that that special tang in Product X comes from a skunk cabbage extract? Even if it is safe, everytime you eat Product X, you will be thinking of those nasty plants.

America is such a legalistic society, that the fine print is demanded. But as the amount of fine print increases, the number of readers (let alone EDUCATED READERS) decreases. So, in labeling a product, the really important stuff is included, while the unimportant (like carbon monoxide) often is not included.

Color Fixation of Meats Part 3: Toxicology

Carbon Monoxide and You
Carbon monoxide is a nasty chemical, as most people already know. When inhaled, it binds to hemoglobin displacing oxygen. And because carbon monoxide binds more strongly to hemoglobin than oxygen, the net result of inhaling too much carbon monoxide is that your blood no longer can carry a sufficient amount of oxygen.

But this is only if you inhale it! If you eat it, nothing happens. Yes, NOTHING! I just looked up in my MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet), and it said there is no effect if ingested. Wow, this makes ingesting carbon monoxide LESS toxic than eating table salt (which is kind of a reference point for us toxicologists). So should it be of any concern that people are eating this chemical in meats? No, at least not from an exposure point of view. Some say there is the possiblity that people may eat spoiled meat, but I will get to that later.

[By the way, the LD50 of table salt is 1 gram/ kg of body weight. This means that it would be a lethal dose (LD) for 50% of people that ingest this much. So if the average man ate 70 grams of salt all at once, there is a 50% chance he would die right then and there).

GRAS (generally recognized as safe)
GRAS is a concept very common among toxicologists. The idea is that if people have been eating it for decades, with no harmful effects, most likely it is safe. It is kind of a grandfather clause, if you will. There are way too many chemicals in our food for them all to be tested. No, I am not talking about newly invented chemicals, but rather chemicals that are basically extracts from plants like tomatoes and soybeans. To get an idea of other GRAS chemicals check out this FDA site. Which brings me to the FDA.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The good ol' FDA has quite a load on their plate. So do try and give them a break. They regulate foods and drugs, but DON'T do the actually testing of these products. Our government doesn't have the resources to test everything that goes through the FDA. People may feel compelled to complain about this, but if the FDA stopped products until they were tested another group would start complaining that the government wouldn't let them eat what they had a "right" to eat! So they instead rely on the manufacturers to do the testing. Sounds like a huge opportunity to take advantage of the system. Some do, but most don't. The ones I would be most skeptable about would be the dietary supplement companies. They use some pretty sly practices, and can avoid most regulation by the FDA.

And the paperwork! Wow! The FDA has a hard time keeping up with every product. There are some products out there that the FDA has said should be pulled from the market for violations, much of this again in the dietary supplement category (though they can't regulate the product, they can regulate how it is labeled). But the FDA actually is very weak because they are overburdened with the huge work load. So many products continue to be sold against the FDA's finding. BUT when the FDA DOES look into a product/chemical (such as carbon monoxide) and says it is okay, it almost assuredly IS OKAY.

Color Fixation of Meats Part 4: The Consumer

While I was working on my B.S. in Biochemistry/Biophysics I would often do taste testing for the Food Science Department (it was fun and I got some bucks for it). That was a very enlightening experience. I learned about how foods were tweaked to be better tasting, more mouth watering, and look good enough for a beauty pagent. And the bonus was that, due to laws regulating research, I had to be an informed participant. That meant that I knew everything they were adding to the foods.

Picky in their Pick

From this taste testing, I realized that just because something looks good doesn't mean it tastes good. And just because something tastes good doesn't mean it looks good. But looks are very important to the consumer, even at the expense of taste and nutrition. Example: which would you prefer to eat, a shriveled up apple, or a nice big shiney one? A small discolored strawberry that is delicious, or a huge, bright red, bland one? So people may comment that apples are lightly waxed, but those apples are bought up more than the shriveled ones. Another example: awhile back they made green ketchup for kids. Didn't make it for adults. Why? Well, would you love your burger more or less if you had green slime oozing out from your burger. That is what I thought. So how a product looks affects your eating experience.
In the article, one person commented that by fixing meat, the consumer is being "deceived." Ummm...that is a huge stretch. No body is really that stupid (at least I hope not) to cook up stinky, slimy meat just because it is still pink.


The ground beef I buy actually is labelled to say that even though it is a purplish-blue color, it will turn back to red once it is exposed to the air. Even though I am informed and educated about this, I must admit the meat looks a bit disgusting until it turns back to the bloody red, meat color that I savor so much.

The article stated that a lot of fresh--though brown--beef had to be thrown out because nobody would buy it. Who would you like to absorb this cost? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't waste good food? (Don't forget those starving people in Africa, now).

What should the consumer's response be? Well, that is up to you. My opinion is that consumers (especially Americans) should stop being so fussy about what things look like. We are pampered to no end. The smallest thing and we throw food away. Many other cultures around the world are grateful for so much. If we took on this attitude, perhaps meat producers wouldn't have to take this color fixative step because consumers would be fine with buying brown, yet still safe, meat.

CSI, how do you stay sane?

Ever watched those clever Sherlocks do their work? Well, probably not in real life, but how about on t.v.?

I am referring to the current fad of forensics shows. Let's see...there is "CSI: Las Vegas", and their offshoots "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: New York" (I still prefer the Las Vegas one, though the Miami version is a close second). Then there is "Crossing Jordan," "NCIS," "Bones," and the new show "Evidence." If you include the crime shows that dabble in forensics, there is a huge list added.

But back to my point: How do the real forensic scientists stay sane, processing all of those samples, day in and day out? Example: Let's say there is this bloody murder scene. To process the scene forensics have to take samples of all of the blood in hopes to find the "perp" (or "un-sub" as they are called these days). After taking all of the samples there might be 40 blood samples!!...that is a lot to process.

These thoughts go through my head every time I have to process samples during my research toward my doctorate.

Just yesterday I had to process 34 samples. Ignoring all of the work I did on these samples on previous days, it took me 5 hours of constant work with no breaks just to quantitate the amount of protein in each of these 34 samples. This involves adding different amounts of different solutions to each of my samples, working with volumes that are smaller than a drop of water. And that was just one step in the whole process to get some data. That frustrating part was that when I got to the end of the experiment, I found out that the whole experiment was a bust. So now I have to go back and start again. And after that is done I have to move on to the final set of samples, probably around 34 again, and work those up from scratch!

How to stay sane through this all?

"There is a fine line between genius and insanity," Oscar Levant was quoted as saying. I think we may have assumed wrongly about the steps to intelligence...that the steps go from average intelligence, to being smart, to being a genius, and if you go to far you hit insanity. I propose that in order to reach the state of being a genius, you first have to cross the valley of insanity!

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I most likely never reach the level of genius. Knowing that, I hope to stop mapping my path through the valley of insanity.

Darn Fascia

Ugg...Remember back when I was in D.C.? Well, I did a ton of walking, both to sight-see as well as just seeing all of the exibits at the Neuroscience conference I was attending (no I skipped out on seeing all 27 miles worth of posters). But I did all of this in bad walking shoes. The strange part was that when I would my morning runs with "the Chief," it would feel better.

During January and February I did a lot of running, in the hopes to do VERY well racing the Pacific Crest Half-Ironman duathlon. During this time my right foot would hurt at the beginning of my runs, stop hurting, and then hurt like crazy the next day.

Around March my mom (an R.N.) asked one of the doctor's in her office what could be up. Plantar fasciitis. It is a very common cause of heal pain, where the fascia (bottom part of the foot that creates the arch) gets inflammed.

I have tried to stay away from running the past two months, to let my foot recover "let my heel heal." It is doing better, but a 4 mile hike on Saturday got it hurting again. This Saturday I am heading up to climb Mt Adams and am worried that 1)I won't be in shape because I haven't been running, and 2) that my foot will get worse.

Grrrr...just when I was getting ready for the marathon and that Half-Ironman too.

Portland Marathon

I am actually going to try the Portland Marathon this year. I was going to do it last year, but didn't have the dough. I have run two half marathons, once as part of a Half-Ironman. It really isn't that bad, as long as you pace yourself.

If any of you readers are the least bit interested in doing the marathon, I say GO FOR IT! And let me know, so I can keep an eye out for ya!

Apparently, 1/4 of all racers are walking the entire marathon. Just think, at a nice 3.5 MPH walk (most can keep this), you can finish in 7.5 hours, well within the 8 hour requirement. And if you *jog* (5 MPH) every other mile, you can finish in a little over 6 hours. WAIT, that's not all! If you actually RUN (7 MPH) every other mile, you will be done in 5 hours! And slowly jogging the whole thing would take 5:15 hours.

FOUR MORE MONTHS! Anyone can get ready for this in four months. Now, don't go about this backwards and think, "Oh, I can get started in a month and still have plenty of time." Summer is at hand, and now is the time to get going!

When: October 1, 2006
Cost: $85

Portland Marathon

Anyway, let me know if you want to join the "cool crowd." :)

Legal Double-Standards in our Schools

I heard about this story a week ago, and was outraged. It wasn't hard to Google, either. It is about how the Ninth-U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that making 7th-graders in California memorize verses in the Koran, pray Muslim prayers, and act out other Muslim exercises is alright. And yet, any hint of Christianity has now been denied access to our schools! How can such a double standard be allowed?

I think it is alright to allow students to learn about the major religions in the world, so they can better appreciate other people's belief systems and understand world politics. But to deny access to one religion, which this country was founded on, while permitting another religion seems backwards.

I seem to remember stories of harmless Christian activities, such as prayer before sports, or a prayer at graduation (See recent story), not being allowed because ONE parent objected. But in this instance, the Muslin teachings continued, but parents could keep their child from attending.

Am I missing something?

Brief conversation

Background: For my PhD I am studying a plant toxin that causes something like Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and ALS. In our lab we inject the toxin into mice in the hopes to learn more about these diseases, especially what causes them.

Below is a conversation I had with my boss yesterday, regarding mice that were injected a week before:

>Me: "All but one of my mice died yesterday."

>Boss: "How was their motor-function?"

>Me: "Not too good, being that they were dead!"

Kinda humorous, and thought you might have a chuckle.

Spectrum of religions

In our world, we have many religions. Some are very similar to each other, others seem to come out of nowhere. Some have huge followings, some only a few. Some are made up mostly by celebrities (at least it seems), others are more the average person. Some religions are the foundation of countries, bills, and organizations, while other religions only affect someone's code of living.

My question is why do some religions, which have teachings that most would agree are moral, humble, and self-less, get attacked and blamed for everything, while other religions which have questionable practices and teach things that go against common sense, are so well tolerated. Furthermore, a follower from the first category might be called a closed-minded or foolish, while a follower from the second category is might be called enlightened, or cultured?

Millions for a tram for the millions

Being that my blogs have been way too serious, it is time for something a little less thought provoking. Or maybe not!?!

Today they had an employee Open House for one of the new OHSU buildings. It is the building that the tram will eventually connect to, projected to be this fall. My what a building it is! And the view! A friend of mine who joined me for the open house mentioned the building's balcony (seen at left) would be a perfect place to spend a summer lunch. From it you can see the Willamette River, all of the Lair Hill neighborhood, the Ross Island bridge, and eventually the tram as is docks into OHSU. Was it worth all of the millions it cost to construct? We will see. (Yes, a vague answer to a big question, something that I won't blog about just yet since I am blogging from work).

1984

This past weekend I watched the Wachowski Brother's latest, "V for Vendetta." Interesting movie, but I am referring more to the present day implications. The first thing that I thought of was George' Orwell's "1984." (Yes, I do read from time to time.)

So much to say, and I don't want to overload my blog. I must say that the ideas behind both this movie and this book seem strangely familiar. Present day politics (on both sides) seem to be heading us in this direction. The "wiretaping" and phonecall database issues may be innocent now, but I fear where a future politician may take it. And on the other side, the idea behind "social tolerance" could swiftly backfire.

[Now I am a scientist, not a polititian or sociologist, so forgive me if I get the "who's" mixed up. I am note looking to place the blame, but rather my point is that this is present day stuff.]

Though I do believe in "the system" in general, and think that America is closest to the mark when it comes to democracy, I do still have this aversion to Big Brother. As our technology increases, the ability for governments to collect more personal data, inventory it, and make it easily accessible greatly concerns me. One of the only things I remember from my statistics class was that if you look hard enough for patterns, YOU WILL FIND THEM. If you collect enough info on a person, you are bound to find patterns and connections that could sound the alarms.

There are bad things brewing in our world. And the "bad guys" have this same technology at their disposal too. Does this justify governments scrutinizing citizens more and more, all in the name of safety? I would rather risk someone causing me harm and be more free, than for my safety to be nearly guarenteed and have no freedom.

And for those that say, "Preach it brother," thinking that I am here to bash Bush, I say be careful what you assume. On the other side there are the people that do the same thing just using (or shall I say mis-using) words and social pressures. This idea of tolerance is crazy! Yes to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of opinion. But the other side twists that around and starts calling some talk "hate speech" and labelling some religions as "uneducated" and "controlling." As a result our society loses freedom as people are afraid to voice their thoughts and opinions. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that they should be silenced or ridiculed. In "1984" the biggest form of control was by controlling speech and peer pressure. Definitions of words were changed, and clubs were formed to make it prestigious to have radical opinions that supported the government's agenda.

Sadly, I do not see or expect things to actually improve in these areas. I am by nature an optimist, but I also know how human nature works and the destruction that this world has for a future.

Money vs. Freedom

As I sit here at my desk at work, I savour the freedom I have at my work. I spent two hours having lunch with a missionary friend whose office is down the hill from my university. We talked about his upcoming Lake Tahoe trip, our mutual enjoyment of cycling, a current devotional book we have been working through. There was no rush for me to get back to the lab. Ahhh...this is the life.

Of course there is the fact that I am in grad school, and as one professor put it, "There is no free time while you are in grad school." But since I am finishing up my fourth year, I have adopted a heavy dose of "I-don't-care," medically called "senior-itis." The fact still remains that academic research positions are VERY laid back. Sure we have some deadlines that HAVE to be met: publication deadlines, grant applications, and that pesky thing called "a thesis." But it is far different than those who work construction, sit at an assembly line, or manage a classroom of students. If I feel like coming in late, I don't have to tell anyone. There are the days, I must admit, where I have to stay until the experiment is complete (once until 11pm). Also the work I do on mice has to happen when they are at a certain age (to the day). I almost had to work on Easter, except that assignment got handed down to a lab tech.

The money isn't swell though. As a soon-to-be PhD holder, I make less than many of my friends that have jobs using their B.S./B.A. in liberal arts. And when I do finally have the coveted PhD, if I decide to go the post-doc route, I will still be making less than someone with a B.S. in Engineering or a Masters in Education. Sad but true. Academic science is not where the money is.

Funding is very similar between the sciences and missionary work. We both ask people to pay us so that we can do work for the betterment of mankind. Our funding agencies do not ask us for any end product, only that we add to the intellectual commonwealth and that we give them credit for helping us along the way. Very vague, wouldn't you say? And not terribly fullfilling, at least for me.

So as I contemplate the path I have chosen, I often ask which is more important to me, money or freedom. And I must say freedom. My only change would be that I could use my freedom to work with people, even helping them. Right now, unless you are a mouse, I can't help you. But hopefully that will change very soon. But first I have to get back to this pesky thesis.

Spoiled children

Politically I am very moderate in my views of social issues. People are people, no matter their skin color, religion, political views, education level. However, I do have issue with people in America that are not carrying their load (I am referring to U.S. citizens). Welfare, free health care, low income housing. Yes, there are people that need these programs. But there are others that see the government as a big wealthy parent, and so they don't get off their hindquarters and do their part.

What comes to mind is a spoiled child that never leaves home after finishing high school. They have it so easy right where they are, why not? What often is the advice to a parent in this predicament? Cut off the funding, kick them out of the house and the child will be forced to get a job and a life! So why don't we do the same thing here? Sure, if the son or daughter is mentally handicapped or physically disabled, the parent would do whatever is necessary to care for that person. The government fortunately has the same perspective. But in comes the issue of immigration

There are people from other nations going to great lengths to get into our country so they can have a chance to work hard and increase their standard of living. They sometimes cover hundreds of miles just to have a chance. They work for next to nothing, and will work long hard hours. Quite different than those on welfare. Why do we have these opposing attitudes? Many of these foreigners are in just as bad, perhaps even worse, situations as those in the U.S. claiming hardship. So the "I never had the opportunity" excuse doesn't fly. Could we create a program whereby freeloaders in our society have the option of either doing their part or else reliquishing their citizenship to someone who will?

The problem is so big, and there is no way to force someone to be responsible. Part of it is that some citizens don't have the direction and opportunity to lift themselves out of where they are. More money should be spent to give thems the means to accomplish this. But a better system needs to be implimented to make it very uncomfortable for the freeloaders to continue in their ways.

I guess it comes down to honor and personal attitude. Why have so many Americans become so very selfish?

A Peculiar Thing Sleep Is

Temps yesterday were high 90's yesterday, and I couldn't get to sleep until the wee hours. When it was time to get up this morning, my body ached from the lack of rest. Reminded me of some thoughts that sometimes bounce around this silly noggen of mine.

Sleep. People are so used to the "activity" that they might not think how strange it is. Odd that an episode of "Star Trek: Next Generation" is the first time I remember anyone mentioning sleep as actually a scary idea (and no, I am not a Trekie). I mean, every day the body completely shuts down, and is extremely defenseless. And yet most of us look forward to the rest that sleep provides.

Cars. Why doesn't our body repair itself like we repair a car. You know, take it in every once in awhile for a tune up. Or maybe repair itself like I repair this sad attempt at deep prose: edit and fix as I go.

Motionless and braindead. If we were to just lay on our beds, motionless but conscious, we would hardly feel rested. So it isn't that the muscles, joints, bones, etc just need a break to repair. And it isn't the shutting down of the brain that is the key, since if we didn't dream we wouldn't feel rested either (and studies show that there is less brain activity in someone watching tv than someone sleeping).

Run ragged. Without sleep, some of us would never come home, never take a break from our work or from our fun. And perhaps like with our cars, without sleep some of us would never get around to the maintenance repairs and the much needed ones.

Evolution. Isn't sleep kinda counter to the theory of natural selection? If evolution were true, wouldn't animals that sleep be weeded out right from the start? Talk about a weakness! And yet every animal of any complexity sleeps for a significant amount of time. Sure makes animals more dependent on the social unit.

God. Sleep is one topic I will definitely be asking God about when everything is said and done. Perhaps He made it a necessity for survival so that we would be forced to depend on others, trust others, and admit to ourselves that we are weak vessels.

This is a topic that recomfirms in me that we are purposefully made by a creator. Strange but true.

The changing of interests

I am not sure what it is...Age? Boredom? Progression?

Let me explain: I went skiing yesterday, something that I haven't done in a few years. I have never been a big skier...I taught myself in my mid-teens, and soon after could get down almost anything, though not always gracefully. The years that I do go up, it only once or twice, but I do fairly well and ski mostly black diamond. Anyway, yesterday I helped some fellow grad students take some interviewing students skiing on Mt Hood, with everything paid for by our department. The weather was great, which was a surprise for us locals (and a good lie for the interviewees, since it is not the kind of weather we normally have).

But as I sat talking with others on the ski lifts, I noticed something had changed within me. My heart just wasn't excited by this sport like I used to be.

Growing up I was always big into the snow. I loved it! My parents still comment on how excited I would get when it would snow at home or when we would head to the mountain to go sledding. What has changed within me? I still love the snow, but it is different. I don't need or want to perfect the art of racing down the mountain on two narrow planks.

And as I reflect on other hobbies of mine, things have changed there too. I am ready to put many of them to rest. This is strange, though, since there were times when these very same hobbies are what got me out of bed, stirred my heart, monopolized my attention.

Is it that I am getting too old for them, and my body just can't handle the abuse? Sure I had one nasty fall yesterday, that has me limping from the bruise on my hip (being in the top 10 of my age group in the upcoming Shamrock 5K is now looking questionable). But, I am thinking it is not the physical pain.

Am I bored with my current hobbies, and want something new? In my 30 years I have tried hang gliding, sky diving, scuba diving, rock climbing, mountain climbing, snow skiing, mountain rescue, wake boarding, triathlons/cycling/running races, unicycle races, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, cross country, along with slower hobbies like movie making, radio controlled model car building, piano, photography, and vegetable gardening. How much more is there to try? Maybe I am seeing that these hobbies don't provide satisfaction in life, though I don't think I went to them for that.

Maybe I am maturing to the place where I am looking for a new type of adventure, one that is very different and very much outside of me. Is this what people feel when they are ready to settle down, get married, and have kids?

Missions are also very much on my heart too, maybe for the same reason. As I finish up my PhD, I realize that the career possibilities for this type of degree just don't jive too well whith who I am. I love people, their hearts, their dreams, their pains...bench work deprives me of any interaction on this level. And anyway, the discoveries I am making in the lab aren't going to be helping anyone, at least not for many, many decades. I want my life to be based on something real, something practical, something productive on an interrelational level.

My adventurous side will always be with me, so I don't think that is where the change lies. Perhaps it is that I am longing for a new adventure, one that looks mighty different than those of my past.

Been working another blog

Yes, I haven't blogged at all here in ages! Life has been busy, working the PhD, doing conferences, traveling for the holidays, and busy turning 30 yrs old. I also have been busy helping a friend form a cycling group on the Westside. The three of us rode the MS150 last year (165 miles), and we talked the whole time (okay, maybe not the WHOLE 165 miles) about starting an actual cycling club and growing in numbers.

So if I haven't blogged in awhile here, check out that site:
Fellowship of the Chainring

The group was formed around the ideas in the "Fellowship of the Ring" movies, where everyone works together to help everyone succeed in the task.