More about Michael Phelps

 Posted by on 17 February 2009  Modern Life
Feb 172009
 

Please, please, please, let this be a slowly-catalysing backlash!

As with most explosions of fake outrage, the Phelps affair asks us to feign anger at something we know is commonplace. A nation of tabloid readers is apoplectic that Brad and Jen divorced, even though one out of every two American marriages ends the same way. A country fetishizing “family values” goes ballistic over the immorality of Paris Hilton’s sex tape … and then keeps spending billions on pornography. And now we’re expected to be indignant about a 23-year-old kid smoking weed, even though studies show that roughly half of us have done the same thing; most of us think pot should be legal in some form; and many of us regularly devour far more toxic substances than marijuana (nicotine, alcohol, reality TV, etc.).

(from Salon)

 Comments Off  Tagged with:
Feb 102009
 

I am no fan of the draconian, un-appealable ‘human rights commissions’ that exist currently in Canada. They’re a wee bit too Orwellian for me. But this latest case in Ontario takes the, uh, brownie?

From the Toronto Star comes the tale of a family restaurant owner who asked a medical marijuana smoker to please stop blocking the door while puffing away. The pot-smoker took his case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which ruled that restaurant owner Ted Kindos had discriminated against a disabled person. So he was about to relent, when…

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance – prescribed or not – is against the law.

“Heads I win, tails you lose,” Kindos said.

Sigh. Orwell, meet Kafka.

Feb 012009
 

coppertone_girlThis drug solves so many problems, but nothing really medical. In fact, it’s been called “a drug in search of a disease.”

It’s called afamelanotide and essentially, it stimulates the body’s melanin production. In plain language, it’s a drug that gives you a tan.

Without sitting in the sun all day, with no risk of burning, and without paying high fees at a salon with dodgy lights. A perfect golden tan.

I suspect that it does so without increasing your risk of skin cancer, since you’re not exposing yourself to UV light, but it does apparently screw with your moles, and that’s part of what the human trials are supposed to test.

A very similar drug is available on the black market right now, though — and although people love getting a risk-free tan, it’s the side effects that keep it going.

This street version of the drug, marketed as Melanotan II, does more than give you a tan. The serious side effects include weight loss, increased libido, and more and better erections.

This is one drug where they hope the official version actually has increased side effects!

(via Wired)

Jan 262009
 

william20-20crack20pipe

Yes, it’s true. The whole “crack baby” thing was a myth. Turns out that researchers who follow crack-exposed kids from womb to now find that there is almost no difference between them and kids whose parents weren’t crack-addicted.

It’s official, because it’s in the New York Times:

So far, these scientists say, the long-term effects of such exposure on children’s brain development and behavior appear relatively small.

(snip)

Cocaine is undoubtedly bad for the fetus. But experts say its effects are less severe than those of alcohol and are comparable to those of tobacco — two legal substances that are used much more often by pregnant women, despite health warnings.

Of course, you could have learned that three-and-a-half years ago, if you read Slate or the Columbia Journalism Review, whose story back in 2004 chronicled the rise of the new “meth baby” myth.

Or heck, go back another decade, to 1995, and you’ll find a piece in Mother Jones, deconstructing the crack baby “epidemic”:

The crack baby quickly became a symbol for the biological determinism recently promulgated in its rawest form by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in The Bell Curve: These (mostly black) bug-eyed morons weren’t quite human–and no amount of attention could make them so. In the late ’8os, some commentators predicted they would become America’s “biologic underclass.” By 1991, John Silber, president of Boston University, went so far as to lament the expenditure of so many health care dollars on “crack babies who won’t ever achieve the intellectual development to have consciousness of God.”

(snip)

No one suggests using cocaine in pregnancy is harmless. But unlike alcohol, which in heavy doses can cause a set of birth defects known as fetal alcohol syndrome, cocaine is not associated with any pattern of defects. Nor does it produce infantile withdrawal, like opiates. Today there is something approaching scientific consensus that cocaine increases the risk of low birthweight and perhaps premature delivery.

The piece goes on to say that, although low birthweight and premature delivery are no laughing matters, by themselves, they don’t predict what a child will be like at 3 years of age, or 9.

Now, as the Slate piece linked above makes clear, it’s time to inoculate yourself against the awful overreporting of the “meth epidemic.”

“Meth mouth” is probably mostly myth and the rest exaggerated. “Meth babies” I would be surprised to find exist. I’m not going to go out and say let’s all do meth, but let’s take a look at this bit from a 1990 Newsweek article, cited from that very same Slate story:

Don’t tell the kids, but there’s a dirty little secret about crack: as with most other drugs, a lot of people use it without getting addicted. In their zeal to shield young people from the plague of drugs, the media and many drug educators have hyped the very real dangers of crack into a myth of instant and total addiction

Now, where they say “crack” read “meth” or “hillbilly heroin” if you prefer.

So, yeah. Drugs are, not that bad, mmmkay?

Jan 222009
 
This deadpan explanation of the moves in the Hokey Pokey looks utterly unfun, and was irresistable to post. Click through for the full-size version at its home with the National Post.

This deadpan explanation of the moves in the Hokey Pokey looks utterly unfun, and was irresistable to post. Click through for the full-size version at its home with the National Post.

It’s too bizarre to even credit: apparently there is a furor in the UK over the “Hokey Pokey.” Yes, the “put your left hand in, blah blah blah” song. Over there it’s known as the “Hokey Cokey,” and the latest rumour has it that the lyrics parody Catholocism, therefore they are offensive, therefore they can’t be sung at football matches.

“Not so!” counters the man who claims his dad copyrighted the song:

My father never referred to the “hocus pocus” idea. He said the unusual title was to do with drugs taken by the miners in Canada to cheer themselves up in the harsh environment where they were prospecting. “The word ‘Cokey’ ”, he wrote on the back of the sheet music, “means a dope-fiend!”

There you have it. The National Post gets its claws into the story, and extends the drug mention, saying that the dance has its roots in a folk song that is “a drug anthem celebrating the therapeutic powers of cocaine.”

Attention Lisa: Prove that you read my blog! You’re in the UK, is this really an issue? Be my eyes and ears! My roving reporter!

 Comments Off  Tagged with:
Jan 192009
 

Why, we’d probably cook it over a stove, then freebase it from a pipe. Wow! What a rush! Fun at parties! In this alternate reality, there’d be old ’50s films with names like “Coffee Madness!” and we’d all be wearing hemp instead of cotton.

Want to know what that would be like, but all you have is a pipe, some coffee grounds and ammonia? You’re in luck!

(found at Boing Boing)

PS. I tagged this ‘NSFW’ but it’s probably not safe to try this at home, either.