There Really Isn't a Planet B

As most of us* wring our hands over the undeniable reality of climate change, pollution, and the general degredation of our planet, a common comment made by environmental activists is that we have to take care of the Earth because "there's no planet B." This is undeniably true, as any potentially habitable planet is so far distant from us that we would never reach it in our lifetimes, even if the technology were available**.

Not only is there no planet B within reasonable reach, we probably wouldn't be able to survive on one if we found it, anyway, according to this fascinating article by Arwen Nicholson and Raphaël Haywood.

Their bottom line is that finding an "Earth-like" planet is not enough, because the Earth we inhabit today is the result of billions of years of the fortuitous combination of geologic development and complementary evolution of the range of plant and animal life that keeps the planet in a life-supporting balance. As they write,

We don’t just need a planet roughly the same size and temperature as Earth; we need a planet that spent billions of years evolving with us. We depend completely on the billions of other living organisms that make up Earth’s biosphere. Without them, we cannot survive. Astronomical observations and Earth’s geological record are clear: the only planet that can support us is the one we evolved with. There is no plan B. There is no planet B. Our future is here, and it doesn’t have to mean we’re doomed.

What about the possibility, however remote, of actually finding other life in the universe? As Nicholson and Haywood observe,

... finding alien life does not mean finding another planet that we can move to. Just as life on Earth has evolved with our planet over billions of years, forming a deep, unique relationship that makes the world we see today, any alien life on a distant planet will have a similarly deep and unique bond with its own planet. We can’t expect to be able to crash the party and find a warm welcome.

Read the article, and think about what the implications are for our grandchildren, and for their grandchildren. Because there really isn't a planet B, however appealing the idea may be.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Not applicable to Republicans.

** Spoiler: it isn't. And it won't be.

Murder in the Digital Age

* Update: I wrote this post several days ago. Yesterday, this story appeared on CNN: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars after First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle ... 

One of the stock scenes from old murder mysteries comes when the suspects are all assembled in the library of the old manor house. While a storm rages outside, the detective talks his way through the crime and the clues and - at just the right moment - he whirls about and stabs an accusing finger at the murderer, announcing in his sternest voice that "The butler did it!"

Well, perhaps it wasn't the butler. Maybe it was the maid. Or the gardener. Or the ne'er-do-well son. You get the idea, though.

But the traditional unmasking of the criminal may be very different in the not-to-distant future, when we learn to our horror that the evil villain is not human, or even a trained animal (as in The Hound of the Baskervilles or Murder in the Rue Morgue) ... but a machine.

The idea of murder by machine is not new - Jefferey Deaver's novel The Steel Kiss has the murderer using his computer hacking skills to turn common products into murder weapons. But what if there's no human involved at all?

This is the point of a fascinating article I read the other day titled, When an AI Finally Kills Someone, Who Will Be Responsible?.

If a driverless car runs down and kills a pedestrian, who is at fault?* If a complex power distribution grid managed by an artificial intelligence (AI) program suddenly shuts down power to a hospital and patients die, who is responsible? Is it the programmer? The builder of the AI system itself? The builder of the car or the designer of the hospital systems? Can the AI system itself be held criminally liable for its actions? If so, how would it defend itself? How could it be punished? Here's a quote from the article:

"If an AI system can be criminally liable, what defense might it use? ... Could a program that is malfunctioning claim a defense similar to the human defense of insanity? Could an AI infected by an electronic virus claim defenses similar to coercion or intoxication?"

This is not an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin philosophical discussion, because the need to consider these things is now upon us. As we've already seen with the advent of e-mail, cell phones, and similar things, our laws governing privacy and the criminal use of communication devices are woefully out of date.

As if you didn't have enough to worry about in the Age of Trump.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Null Hypothesis and the Nut Hypothesis

Given the Trump Administration's disdain for science*, I was interested to find a link to this YouTube video on one of my favorite websites.

The subject of the video (which is less than four minutes long and quite interesting) is the Null Hypothesis, the idea that a scientist should begin an experiment with the idea that nothing will happen. Narrator Tom Scott explains how it all works while he follows an experiment dealing with reading brain waves in zero gravity. The bottom line is that, when an experiment is finished and nothing has happened, it's not a "failure" ... rather, you've learned that a particular variable didn't make a difference. Unfortunately, that result isn't sexy enough to get media attention or encourage further funding** ... which in itself is a variable that can negatively affect scientific research.

Now, the Null Hypothesis - which argues for expecting that nothing will happen when an experiment is conducted - is the opposite of what we might call the Nut Hypothesis, which presupposes that enormous and uniformly positive results will result when a politically-motivated economic experiment is conducted***. We shall see how their latest experiment works out.

I'm reminded of the old saying that he who expected nothin' ain't gonna be deceived ... particularly as it applies nowadays.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* As well as truth, honesty, fairness, and a responsible and rational foreign policy.

** Particularly from an administration that places more value on business than on knowledge.

*** It didn't quite work out that way when the GOP tried it in Kansas, but her e-mails.

What Climate Change Reveals

The fact that some stubborn people don't acknowledge the existence of climate change doesn't make the effects of that change any less real. And those changes are not just reflected in melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns.

A few days ago I read this interesting article on the BBC website: There Are Diseases Hidden in Ice, and They're Waking Up. Yes, Dear Readers, as the climate warms, the warmer air is melting soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, protecting ancient bacteria and viruses that have lived on in the cold and dark. As the soils melt, they are releasing dormant viruses and bacteria to which modern humans may have no natural defenses ... and that's the serious question the article asks:

"What would happen if we were suddenly exposed to deadly bacteria and viruses that have been absent for thousands of years, or that we have never met before?"

What, indeed?

But the effects of changes in the climate aren't limited to the air and the ground and ice caps and the oceans. How about the effects of political climate change?

As our political climate has heated up, it has given new life and acceptability to all sorts of ancient viruses - racist attitudes, economic inequality, religious bigotry, rejection of facts that do not comport with our beliefs, and the spread of manufactured "facts" to justify illogical positions, just to name a few.

Unfortunately, the physical climate will be easier to repair than the political one, if only because it will become increasingly harder to deny its effects ... although many will continue to do so.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Of Sonic Screwdrivers and Politicians

Speaking of words and their definitions (well, I was getting to it in my roundabout way), I saw this article the other day: Doctor Who's Sonic Screwdriver Added to Oxford Dictionary.

Yes, Dear Readers, it appears that the "sonic screwdriver," a device which used sound waves to perform various tasks for The Doctor, will be included and defined in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

The definition will read, according to the article,

"sonic screwdriver, n. Chiefly science fiction. A (hand-held) electronic device which uses sound waves to perform various mechanical and technical functions. Originally and chiefly in (or with reference to) the British television series Doctor Who."

I haven't watched enough episodes of Doctor Who to be familiar with the sonic screwdriver, but it looks cool (a bit like a Jedi Knight's light saber, actually) and I can see the value of such a deus ex machina device for replacing a whole box of various tools.

Of course, we have a present-day device which uses sound waves to perform (or not perform, more often) various tasks ... we call it a politician.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a politician generates sound waves that target the comfort patterns of the listener's brain, causing him or her to support the ideas and positions exposed by the politician. By the time the listener realizes that it was all only sound, the politician has been elected ... usually to a safe seat in a district protected by artificially drafted boundaries.

So, you get the sonic screwing without the driver part.

This is why, considering the performance of many of the politicians we have elected to represent us*, we don't say "Doctor Who?," as often as we say "He said What??"

Have a good day. And always have a screwdriver** handy to help cope with politicians.

Come back tomorrow, when we will name the Left-Cheek Ass Clown for April. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Actually, to represent the special interests that funded their campaigns.

** Preferably with double vodka.

Rescue Roaches

I don't think there are many things on earth more disgusting than cockroaches*, but it turns out that they have their uses, more or less.

I call your attention to this fascinating article from the Washington Post: How One of Nature’s Grossest Creatures Could Help Save Someone’s Life. It seems that researchers looking for ways to rescue people trapped in collapsed buildings or mine cave-ins have taken an interest in the ability of the lowly cockroach to squeeze through the smallest of spaces and survive many pounds of crushing pressure, and are trying to apply the science of cockroach armor and survival to the development of search-and-rescue robots that can find people trapped in otherwise impenetrable piles of rubble.

Scientists who have studied the cockroach note that it combines a soft body with overlapping plates of flexible armor that allow it to compress itself to a mere quarter of its normal height. And it's fast - according to a researcher quoted in the article, an American cockroach can travel the equivalent of 50 lengths of its own body in a second, which would be the equivalent of you or I running more than 140 mph. Even when the roach compresses itself to squeeze through a miniscule opening, it can still cover 20 body lengths per second, which is pretty good for a disgusting insect that isn't running for office. And on top of that, a roach standing still can survive the application of up to 900 times its body weight before it reaches its crush point ... a useful ability for something you might want to send into tiny, dangerously unstable places.

So you can see that the combination of speed, agility, compressibility, and armored strength makes the much-maligned cockroach a useful model for search robots. The researchers have already developed a prototype they call the CRAM - "Compressible Robot with Articulated Mechanisms" - but note that while it mimics the desirable features of the roach**, it still needs to be miniaturized and equipped with the various sensors and control devices that will allow it to function as a useful search-and-rescue device.

Someday, Dear Readers, you may owe your life to a robot inspired by a cockroach. But while you may find that idea revolting, consider what might have been inspired by Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

Yuck.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for the naming of our Left-Cheek Ass Clown for February. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Well, except for politicians, Internet trolls, and religious bigots that - unfortunately - we can't stomp on or spray to eradicate.

** You should pardon the expression.

A Not-So-Uplifting Report

Sorry, Victoria's Secret and Frederick's of Hollywood ... although your products may be seductive and decorative, a study conducted in France* reports that not only do bras not support the female breast and decrease back pain, they may actually be harmful in that they may in fact encourage the breasts to sag.

According to the results of a 15-year study led by professor Jean-Denis Rouillon of the University of Besançon, conventional wisdom is wrong and bras are a "false necessity." According to Professor Rouillon, who spent a decade and a half using a slide rule and caliper to carefully measure changes in the orientation of the breasts of over 300 18-35 year-old women at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (University Hospital) in Besançon, “Medically, physiologically, and anatomically, breasts gain no benefit from being denied gravity. On the contrary, they get saggier with a bra.”

Indeed, after regularly measuring women who were not wearing bras, Professor Rouillon and his fellow researchers concluded that "on average their nipples lifted seven millimetres in one year in relation to the shoulders."

The researchers believe their findings suggest that wearing bras prevents the growth of breast tissue, which can lead to deterioration of the muscles that support the breasts. The breasts of women don't wear a bra get more of a workout and are, therefore, better developed.

Dr Rouillon was careful to note that the results of his study were preliminary, cautioning that “The small sample of 320 young women is not representative of the entire population – that would require something like 300,000 subjects.” The professor went on to add, “We will simply have to recruit a larger sample of the female population, and conduct further research."

I'm volunteering to do the data collection in this country.

Have a good day, and put a little bounce in your step.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Where else?

99% Air

According to a news report I read yesterday, the Boeing Corporation has created a "microlattice" metal compound that is strong, flexible, and 99.99% air. It is so light that it can, quite literally, sit atop a dandelion ...

Such a lightweight material would be of incalculable value in reducing the weight of rockets, aircraft, and other vehicles and devices where weight is a limiting factor (because, for example, of the cost of fuel to power a heavy airliner).

While this is a magnificent achievement in the world of metallurgy, with tremendous applications in many areas of construction, it should be remembered that something being 99.99% air is not so impressive in itself. After all, the GOP plans for tax reform and a replacement for Obamacare have consisted of 99.99%* air for a long time. And are far less useful.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for more Great Moments in Editing.

Bilbo

* At least.

The Vehicle Option We Really Need

I ran across this interesting article the other day: 10 Illegal Vehicle Options You May Not Be Able to Enjoy. It discusses a series of options, some of them potentially quite useful, which are actually either completely illegal or illegal in some states or countries.

Some of these options seem to me to be pretty useful, such as Aspherical Side View Mirrors which curve away toward the outer edge so as to cover the car's blind spot. They are apparently only illegal because of bureaucratic and legislative delays in Washington*.

Another potentially useful, but illegal option (if you live in Europe) is Remote Starting, which allows you to start your car and let it warm up while you remain in your house ... a wonderful feature in miserably cold winter weather. I have no idea why this should be illegal anywhere, but I suppose there's some political issue that makes it hard. Go figure.

Strobing Brake Lights are another option that has been vetoed by regulators here in the states. They flash stroboscopically when the brake pedal is pushed with sudden force, theoretically making the suddenly-stopping car easier to see. I suppose they are considered illegal because of their potential effect on drivers suffering from epilepsy, but who knows?

Now, these and the other options listed in the article are interesting, but I believe they are missing out on the most important and useful option of all: .50 Caliber Machine Guns. This option would be strongly supported by the NRA and other advocates of the open carry of firearms in all venues. The argument would be the same as that made by open-carry advocates: it would encourage good behavior for fear of the potentially deadly outcome of bad behavior**. After all, who would cut you off in traffic if they knew you could hose them down with machine gun fire?

Even better than that, why not forget the guns as an option on your Beemer - go all out and hit the highway in your own World War II era halftrack with not two, but four .50 caliber machine guns on it! Couple it with your Gadsden Flag license plate and no lily-livered commiepinkoratbastard liberal pussy is gonna screw with you on the highway!

Drive with confidence and safety! Park where you want! Go for the option that defines 21st century American manhood - the Big Gun!

Have a good day. Drive ... defensively. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I know ... it's hard to believe, isn't it?

** After all, as Robert Heinlein once wrote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." That must be why there have been so few gun deaths in Washington, DC, since the gun restrictions there were struck down by the Supreme Court, ha, ha.

I Wouldn't Piss Off That Wall If I Were You ...

One of the problems in major cities (and in a lot of smaller ones, too) is that of people (usually men) who have overindulged in alcoholic beverages and then feel the need to relieve themselves. Unfortunately, all too many of those men are unable or unwilling to go to the nearest toilet, and so opt to relieve themselves against the nearest available wall. This, of course, leads to unsanitary conditions and all sorts of undesirable associated odors.

What to do? Well, as it turns out, science has an answer!

Scientists have developed a specialized hydrophobic paint that actually repels liquids from a painted surface. In fact that paint, properly mixed, will not just cause the painted surface to simply shed liquids such as rain or, well, urine, but to actually repel them with great force. This means that the wall will actually pee back, causing a mess on the offending urinator's shoes and pants, as in this before (vorher) and after (nachher) depiction from Germany*, where the paint is being used** in the St Pauli red-light district of Hamburg ...

This is a marvelous invention, and reflects a practical application of the ability of some substances to actively repel unwanted pollutants. Such substances are found frequently in nature, as in the brains of single-issue fanatics who are impervious to reason and argument. They are the chemical equivalent of Faraday cages, about which I have written before (go here to read the post).

So gentlemen, if you've had a bit too much to drink, you might want to think twice before you pee on that wall. It might just pee back.

Better living through chemistry, as the old slogan says.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Considering the amount of beer consumed in Germany on any given day, one can see the value of such a paint!

** Be sure to watch the video ... it's in German, but has English subtitles.

Saving the World

We know that the world is a dangerous place. Just consider a few of the dangers we face every day:

- Mass Shootings. Of course, these are not as bad as we think, because we now know that guns have nothing at all to do with them ... the problem is drugged-up crazy people lured by the irresistible siren song of "gun-free zones" ... lock up the crazy people, eliminate gun-free zones, and get more guns into circulation and the problem will solve itself ...

- Environmental Catastrophe. When there's a vast floating island of trash known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, when China's air quality is so terrible that the government deliberately understates the degree of pollution, and when even the Pope warns that you're wrecking the planet, it's probably time to worry.

- Economic Collapse. If you're part of the Great Unwashed, this should probably worry you more than it does.

- The 2016 Presidential Election. Donald Trump. Ben Carson. Ted Cruz. Need I say more?

- Gay Marriage. Oh, wait ... never mind that one. It's fixed.

Yes, we  have plenty of things to worry about, but although no useful action will ever be taken on gun violence, the garbage will continue to mount, the economy will lurch along from crisis to crisis, and we'll elect the windbag who tells us what we want to hear*, there are some terribly dangerous things that we actually are doing something about.

Well, not we as in the sense of all of us ... we in the sense of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). You may be murdered by someone exercising his Second Amendment rights, choke on polluted air, die from eating tainted meat, lose everything in the next stock market crash, or endure a hyperconservative GOP presidency, but NASA is working to protect you from a real and clear threat: Giant Killer Asteroids ...

Yes, Dear Readers, this recent CNN article describes how NASA is planning to protect us from the cataclysmic threat of Giant Killer Asteroids (or "GKAs," for short) by developing technologies to nudge them aside, causing them to change trajectory and miss the earth ... making it possible for us to destroy the planet on our own, without outside assistance.

Of course, there are other options for dealing with this cosmic threat. One would be to announce that the GKA is preparing to stake a claim in the Spratley Islands, whereupon the Chinese government would immediately mobilize its Navy and police forces to keep it away.

Another approach would be to announce that the GKA will pose a clear and present danger to ethnic Russians when it lands. Russian President Vladimir Putin would immediately take action - secretly, of course - to cause so much trouble for the asteroid that it would go someplace else**.

Yet another tactic might be to let it be known that there isn't a single Starbucks location on the asteroid. Starbucks would immediately build coffee bars every few hundred feet on the surface of the GKA creating enough change in its drag coefficient*** to divert its course away from the Earth.

NASA could drop a hint to the NRA that the GKA isn't real, but is actually a cynical distraction to divert attention from the Jack-Booted Government Thugs^TM coming to confiscate everyone's guns. The enormous howls of anger and outrage would generate a vast pressure wave in the atmosphere that would easily shove the asteroid at least back out to the orbit of Neptune.

And if all else fails, we could always launch giant tubes of Preparation A to crash on the surface and shrink the asteroid to less painful dimensions.

Do you have any other ideas? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. If you see an enormous fireball coming out of the sky straight at you, duck. More thoughts tomorrow.

* Or what most lines up with our preconceived ideas.

** The CIA believes that the mess Putin has created in Ukraine is actually a field test of his Giant Killer Asteroid Protection Scheme.

*** The "drag coefficient" is a dimensionless quantity that is used to quantify the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment, such as air or water; it does not refer to the appearance of an object inappropriately dressed in female clothing.

About Face

From the Department of I Couldn't Make This Stuff Up comes this story datelined Chicago: Chicago's Mud Facial Bar Adds 'Breast Milk Facials' To It's List Of Add-Ons.

Yes, Dear Readers, if you are in the Windy City and in need of a good facial treatment to rejuvenate your tired, wrinkled visage, for a mere $10 added to the basic $40 cost of your facial you can add a "breast milk substitute" that is advertised to "clear the skin and make it smooth by healing the underlying skin problems." The owner of the bar said she had been inspired by reading mommy blogs that extolled the virtues of breast milk, presumably for reasons other than nourishing hungry infants. She said that, "I really wanted to come up with something that is quick, effective, that appealed to the urban city girl.”

The active ingredient that allegedly makes breast milk good for the skin is lauric acid (C₁₂H₂₄O₂), a saturated fatty acid that has a faint odor of bay oil or soap. It is said to boost the levels of "good" cholesterol in the blood and to have a beneficial effect on skin that has been damaged by sunburn, eczema, and acne.

So, if you're tired of shelling out enormous amounts of money for overpriced cosmetic skin treatments, you should consider going natural ... after all, if it's good for little babies, it's ought to be good for you, right?

And the active ingredient comes in such nice containers, too.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow, when we'll name our Left Cheek Ass Clown of the Month.

More thoughts then.

Bilbo

An Engineering Look at Wardrobe Malfunctions

Something to make you think warm thoughts on this bitterly cold morning. Well, at least if you're a man ...

You are all no doubt familiar with the term wardrobe malfunction. The term refers to the exposure of portions of the anatomy when an article of clothing fails properly to protect that portion of the anatomy, whether by accident or by design. A classic example of a wardrobe malfunction was the "accidental" exposure of a nipple (gasp!)* by Janet Jackson during a performance with Justin Timberlake during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, and there have been numerous other such malfunctions since that time.

There is generally a question in the mind of the observer as to whether or not the malfunction was real, or was engineered to occur in order to draw attention to the partially-exposed individual ... possibly as a way of diverting attention from something else, like a lack of talent. In most cases, we'll never know.

For the most part, wardrobe malfunctions on the part of everyday people are fairly rare, and a great deal of effort goes into preventing them. One of the most interesting of these was presented in a 1956 article by engineer Charles Seim which was later re-published in the Annals of Improbable Research: A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Gown. You must read the full article (and understand physics) to get the complete meaning of the article, but it's a delightful diversion. Here is one of the accompanying diagrams ...

And here is the other ...

There are also variations on the application of engineering to the study of anatomy, such as this one designed for civil engineers** ...

I have a few stories dealing with wardrobe malfunctions in the context of ballroom dancing, but those are best told in person over a few drinks. Let me know when you're in town.

Have a good day. Keep your zippers zipped, buttons buttoned, velcro pressed, and snaps snapped. If all else fails, use body glue. You never know when someone with a camera is standing ready to benefit from your discomfiture.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Oddly enough, people get hysterical over the exposure of the female breast (or parts thereof) on television, while no one seems to object to the level of graphically-depicted, hideous violence in shows like Criminal Minds or Law and Order: SVU. What's up with that, eh?

** As it happens, my older son is a civil engineer, well-trained to appreciate a fine cantilever.

Seeing the Gorilla

There was a very interesting story on NPR a while back - "Why Even Radiologists Can Miss A Gorilla Hiding In Plain Sight."

The report discussed a psychological condition called inattentional blindness, which occurs when a person is so focused on a specific task that he or she completely misses other obvious things that are happening in plain sight at the same time.

In a classic experiment, test subjects were asked to watch a film of two teams passing a basketball, and were asked to identify how many times players wearing one color shirt passed the basketball to each other. During the basketball game, a man in a gorilla suit strolled halfway across the court, stopped to beat his chest, and then wandered off the other side. At the end of the film clip, the observers were asked if they'd seen the gorilla. Here's the test video ...

Fifty percent of the respondents didn't see the gorilla. You probably did because you were forewarned and looking for it. 

You can view the original film clip, and several other perception video tests, here.

The point of the experiment had nothing to do with basketball or gorillas, but with identifying why radiologists sometimes miss important things on the x-ray films they review. This brings us to the condition of "inattentional blindness" - the inability to see things that do not conform to what we are specifically looking for ... what we expect to see.

On reading this story, it occurred to me that inattentional blindness may be one of the reasons for our miserable political condition.

If you're a Republican or a Democrat, you tend to see only what you're looking for, based on your political biases. It's similar to the well-known concept of confirmation bias, which describes our tendency to ignore evidence that does not support our positions or agree with our preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you should write to your elected representatives and urge them to look for the gorillas. It couldn't hurt.

Have a good day. Watch out for gorillas. And come back for Cartoon Saturday.

Bilbo

Off to 3D Print with the Wizard!

One of the upcoming movies I'm looking forward to seeing is "Oz the Great and Powerful," which opens on March 8^th. It's the backstory of classic film "The Wizard of Oz," and tells the story of how the man who became the famous Wizard originally came to the land of Oz.

If you recall the story, you will remember that Dorothy was blown in her house from Kansas to Oz by a tornado, which dropped her house on the Wicked Witch of the East, incurring the wrath of the Wicked Witch of the West and leading Dorothy to seek the aid of the Wizard of Oz in returning home. Along the way, she picked up three traveling companions, each of which also wanted the assistance of the Wizard: the Scarecrow wanted a brain; the Tin Woodsman wanted a heart; and the Cowardly Lion wanted courage.

In the end, of course, they vanquished the Wicked Witch of the West, Dorothy went home to Kansas, and each of her companions got his wish. It's a perfect cautionary tale for modern-day ultraconservatives, as it tells the story of four mooching characters who went to the government in search of handouts rather than solving their own problems.

Well, of course, it's just an entertaining fairy tale, isn't it?

Not so fast there, amigo!

You may have seen this interesting news report a few days ago: 3D Printers Help Scientists Grow Prosthetic Ears. Yes, Dear Readers, it seems that the new technological marvel of the three-dimensional printer is being used experimentally to grow replacement body parts ... in this case, ears, which are notoriously difficult to create or repair because of their intricate design of flexible cartilage.

Considering that most of the press surrounding 3D printers has focused on their use in creating plastic gun parts, toys, and other frivolous things, the use of such printers for medical purposes provides a look into a marvelous future in which hospitals may be able to produce spare body parts at an enormous markup.

And they might also be able to help resolve our ongoing crisis of gridlock and lack of leadership in Congress!

Perhaps we could use 3D printers to create hearts and brains for Republicans and backbones and brains for Democrats. Hmmm ...

Of course, once the sequester goes through, there won't be any extra money for frivolous spending. Experience has shown that both parties have been carrying on quite well for years without hearts, brains, and backbones, so why should scarce dollars that might be better used to give tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy be used to fix a non-problem?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Oh, hell, pay no attention to Congress, either.

Have a good day. You already have a brain and a heart ... use them to look clearly at what your elected reprehensives are doing in your name. Then get angry and use the backbone when you next go to the polls.

More thoughts on Thursday.

Bilbo

Kiss It and Make It Better. No, Really!

Even if you're a hard-core, ultra-conservative, they-had-all-the-answers-in-the-18^th-century-so-why-change-now Republican who doesn't believe in science*, here's some science even you might be able to get behind ...

You may recall my post from last December 7^th titled How To Kiss. It was relatively popular, based on the number of hits the blog recorded that day. Now from the Readers' Digest comes this interesting article: 6 Ways Kissing Makes You Healthy. In case you want to just cut right to the chase so that you can get busy convincing your main squeeze to lock lips with you, here are the six ways:

1. Kissing Boosts Immunity. The article notes that "a study reported in the journal Medical Hypotheses says kissing may increase a woman’s immunity from Cytomegalovirus, which can cause infant blindness and other birth defects if the mother is a carrier during pregnancy**."

2. Kissing Burns Calories. Anywhere from two to six per minute, according to some estimates. And really good kissing leads to other activities which burn a lot more calories than that, if you know what I mean.

3. Kissing Keeps Facial Muscles Strong. Scientific research indicates that you use 30 muscles while kissing, which helps keep your cheeks tight.

4. Kissing Naturally Relaxes You. Scientific reports say kissing increases the levels of oxytocin, the body’s natural calming chemical, increases endorphins, the body’s feel-good chemicals, and boosts levels of dopamine, which aids in feelings of romantic attachment. Of course, there's a certain amount of anxiety involved in kissing*** which might counterbalance some of that, but on the whole, I think the evidence is in favor of relaxation.

5. Kissing Helps You Select the Best Mate. According to a professor of evolutionary psychology quoted in the article, “At the moment of the kiss, there are hard-wired [biological] mechanisms that assess health, reproductive status and genetic compatibility ... Therefore, what happens during that first kiss can be a make-or-break proposition.” It may not be love at first sight, but it could be love at first kiss ...

6. Passionate Kisses Are Good for Oral Health. From the article: "According to Dental Health Magazine, 'deep kissing increases the flow of saliva, which helps to keep the mouth, teeth and gums healthy.' The additional liquid helps get rid of food particles in your teeth, and in stimulating your immune system, you're aiding your body in the fight against infection." I'll bet that Laura, my dental hygienist, has been keeping this a secret in her never-ending quest to get me to floss regularly.

So, what are you waiting for? Start looking for some nice lips ...

As Edmond Rostand remarked in his play Cyrano de Bergerac, "A kiss, when all is said, what is it? A rosy dot placed on the 'I' in loving; 'tis a secret told to the mouth instead of to the ear."

Have a good day. Kiss your very best beloved ... it's good for you.

More thoughts on Tuesday.

Bilbo

* "Lies from the pit of hell," according to Representative Paul Broun (R, GA), who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, in remarks made in September of last year.

** Because the website requires membership to search, I was unable to read the actual study report, so I guess we'll just have to take it on faith.

** Particularly on a first date, or with a kissee on whom you wish to make a good impression as a first step to second base.