Doc Bushwell is a biochemist and a medical writer who serves as a slavering minion of the dark lords of Big and Little Pharma; Jim is a college professor with a fondness for running shoes and drumsticks; and Kevin Beck is a self-exiled member of the clan who refuses to stay gone. Read our interview with Science Blogs.
So. The chimps will be brachiating off to a new territory, the address of which kemibe provides below. We have considered this move for a while, but our decision crystallized lately due to the confluence of a number of events.
My absence may or may not have been noted in recent months here on the Refuge - a blog on which I once posted with more frequency. Part of that is due to work-related writing, part of it attributable to dabbling in creative writing (I use that term loosely), but largely, it's because posting on Science Blogs is no longer fun.
As the bona fide scientist of the chimp troop, having a PhD in biochemistry and such, I feel like I ought to be holding up the scientific end of things that would at least justify the blog's existence here. However, writing science-oriented posts became a chore rather than pleasure. I always felt like I had to be "on my game" in this particular milieu: required to add a gazillion links and references and to be a good community member by linking to other bloggers' posts if they covered a similar topic, all of which is too damn much like work. Not to mention time-consuming.
Also, as the "good cop" atheist of the trio, I am not inclined to ignite the blazing pieces that draw in a number of readers. I'll leave that to kemibe who does it so very well and to Jim, who applies systematic slicing and dicing to these issues. Rather, I like goofball stuff like MSTing bad science fiction movies and television shows, reminiscing about the National Lampoon (I still have some scans of Son-o-God comics), waxing poetic about my past experiences in the scientific arena, posting pornographic photos of flowers, and just slapping up whatever the hell strikes my fancy.
I also want to be open about what I say without fear of being castigated as a misogynist (a term often used inaccurately - try "sexist," folks), a tremendously ironic notion given that I harbor genuine ovaries (although going dormant) and had some pretty hair-raising experiences during my fairly long scientific career which allow me to speak from a solid platform of experience and credibility.
The latter sniping derives from my stumbling upon some very shoddy behavior in the back rooms of Science Blogs, stuff that removed any doubt that leaving Science Blogs for an independent venue was the thing to do. The majority of the folks that blog here do not participate in this -- uh -- "community" forum, but the ones who do are fairly heavy hitters and like it or not, they set a tone.
I'm hoping that Refuge v.3 will host raucous free-for-alls at times and also - at times - will be a place where we can just hang out and pick off each other's nits, crunching the juiciest ones. I'm not looking for kind and gentle behaviors there (hell, it wouldn't be the Refuge then), but in a setting with more freedom and, well, less posturing. And you know, I might even post more often in such a place. I think I'd like that.
Thanks to SEED for hosting us in this little backwater, but it's time to move on. So long and thanks for all the bananas.
~~ Doc Bushwell
My reasons for leaving ScienceBlogs.com aren't identical to Doc B's, but there's more than a little overlap, and those reasons are compelling all the same. My typically manic-depressive posting frequency has deterorated badly of late; I'm about to sign a contract to write an extremely boring book that will sell few copies, and so, given that I also have a full-time job, I cannot commit to writing anything of substance here, inasmuch as I have ever done so. In terms of my science background, as someone with a long-forgotten physics degree, the vestiges of an astronomy habit, and a fewyears of med school, I'm sort of a jack of few trades and a master of squat, so it makes sense for me to go back to inhabiting a locus where my increasingly occasional tirades about what's wrong with the world and increasingly frequent links to Youtube cartoons of my own design do not clash so admirably with the local decor.
I'm very lucky to have had the chance to post here for almost three years. I rode into this place on the esteemed coattails of a genuine scientist and owing to this burst of good luck have had the chance to meet a lot of my fellow bloggers (a group that includes some truly incredible people, as I found out when weathering some difficult circumstances a couple of years ago) as well as connect with some uncannily clever commenters and people who blog outside of this "community." And I fully expect to keep in touch with many of them. But it is unquestionably time for me to go. I've taken pre-emptive strikes at my own participation here in the past and have ascribed this to any number of reasons, but at this stage I can only see forging on as resulting in a mixture of the toxic and the lame. That's no prescription for fruitful blogging.
We're going to be sounding off, at whatever frequency, at a new Wordpress blog. You can access all of the content we've generated here, should you be so depraved, and we hope to keep it a fun, raucous place. I expect I'll return to writing more about distance running and I have no doubt I will continue to rant and rave like an energetc misanthrope when the occasion strikes. I hope that those who have followed this blog for whatever inscrutable reason add us to your feed reader or favorites list, because the thing that has been most rewarding about being a blogger here has been the cavalcade of wonderfully clever commenters. That includes the people I have brawled with repeatedly over the same hallmark and often trite issues. In the end, it's all just fun and games.
I also want to wish the folks at Seed Media Group, both those I have met and the ones I've only corresponded with electronically, the absolute best. To have people busting their asses on behalf of us 80 or so petulant, demanding, hyperintellectual souls is as much a bona fide privilege as it is a curiosity.
That's more than enough bullshit from me. God bless everyone, and don't be strangers.
~~KMB
I don't really have much of use to say. Not that I ever did. Thanks for reading anyway.
What do you expect when you pick up an autobiography of a rock musician? Sex? Drugs? Rock-n-roll exploits with a chainsaw and a gallon of baby oil at the Ramada? Scandalous stories of band-mates and sundry hangers-on? You get virtually none of that in Bill Bruford The Autobiography. It's much better. Insightful, entertaining, and well-written, Bruford gives the reader a unique view into his 40 year career as a drummer to see just how he got to where he is and precisely how this business works (or doesn't, as the case may be). You don't have to be a follower of his music or even a drummer to enjoy this book.
I didn't know what to expect when I first cracked the cover, but then I'm not much of a fan of rock star or music biz bios, my only prior experience being The Real Frank Zappa Book. No, Bill is not Frank, although I have tremendous respect for both men; Zappa being the iconoclast composer/guitarist armed with biting wit and Bruford the pioneering progressive rock (and eventually jazz) drummer with a hunger for exploration and a thirst for improvisation. While Zappa's book is filled with usually humorous and sometimes outrageous tales along with his own take on socio-political topics of the day, Bruford's offering is comparatively understated. Nothing tabloid-shocking here. No confessions of drug-rehab, groupie orgies, or snippy gossip of former band-mates or associated rock stars, although there are some nice asides considering people like Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, Phil Collins, and Tony Levin, to name a few.
Master of the drum kit and poly-rhythmist Bill Bruford celebrates 60 years today. Well known among all manner of percussionists and drummers, Bruford's work spans 40 years from his early days with Yes, his tenure with several incarnations of King Crimson, and his own band, Earthworks, along with work in bands such as National Health, Gong, Genesis, UK, and others. While perhaps best known as "the godfather of progressive rock drumming", Bruford's efforts in the late 1980s to now turned increasingly to small jazz ensembles. Bruford announced that he has retired from public performance in January of this year and has recently published his autobiography (of which I will be posting a review within the week).
Under 200. That's the usual target for total cholesterol as reported in popular media. But are all 200s the same?
I just received my profile from a recent blood test. Here's what it said.
Total cholesterol: 204
LDL (bad cholesterol): 131.6
HDL (good cholesterol): 57
Triglycerides: 77
The total is computed as LDL+HDL+Tri/5. These are fairly typical numbers for me as compared to the last half dozen years, although my HDL usually is a few points higher and my LDL and tri usually are a few points lower. This 204 would normally place me at borderline high. However, my doctor is not very concerned, and neither am I. Why?
First of all, I have only one risk factor (being a male over age 45). Second, my HDL is on the high side for men my age and this leads to a favorable LDL/HDL ratio of only 2.3. Further, at 5'10" and 142 pounds, my BMI is about 20.5. As an avid runner, my resting pulse is in the low 50s, my blood pressure is typically 110/70 (and sometimes as low as 105/60), and a recent echo cardiogram showed no problems. OK, so what's the beef? Surely mitigating factors and health status need to be considered instead of a single number, right? Yeah, but there's more to it than that. It's an unfortunate but true observation on my part that people tend to focus on the one number and that number can be misleading. I know a lot of people who can recite their total cholesterol value but have no idea of the "numbers inside". I doubt that they are atypical.
Consider two men with minimal risk factors, Ralph and Larry. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume both have a triglyceride value of 75. Ralph's LDL and HDL are 140 and 30 while Larry's are 125 and 65. Ralph's total cholesterol is 185 while Larry's is 205. If we just look at the total, Ralph seems to be in a much better position than Larry, yet Larry's LDL is considered safe while Ralph's is borderline high, and similarly, Larry's HDL is considered protective of heart disease while Ralph's is definitely too low.
Knowing the tendency of folks to "like it simple", I wonder why there isn't a single "cholesterol index" that could combine these considerations. Why do we bundle all forms together when high HDL is considered protective, yet it raises the "scary" total? It seems that a fudge factor could be added for the LDL/HDL ratio (just like there's one for triglycerides). I think it would be a little easier for people to grab onto, and then their doctor could look at the numbers inside and the patient's lifestyle, and offer the most promising strategies to combat a too-high index.
Oh, and my doc says I should probably watch my diet a little closer. I tend to agree as I do have a tooth for the cookies.
A friend in another galaxy far away, when presented with photos of another friend's wide-eyed infant, remarked that the cute (and she truly is) baby made her icy heart melt.
In today's New York Times, Natalie Angier discusses primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's forthcoming book Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Hrdy posits that our capability of cooperating with others, our ability to empathize, and our attempts to see another's perspective likely arose from the selective pressures of being part of a cooperatively breeding social group.
Also noted is the entertainment value of infants in societies without the usual technological devices. Even with them, babies can provide amusement, cf. Talking Heads' "Stay Up Late."
Maybe Kevin needs to hold a drooling infant and make him stay up all night. All night long.
Philip José Farmer, a prolific and popular science fiction writer who shocked readers in the 1950s by depicting sex with aliens and challenged conventional pieties of the genre with caustic fables set on bizarre worlds of his own devising, died Wednesday. He was 91 and lived in Peoria, Ill.
As a pre-adolescent sprout, I'd sneak out copies of my older brother's PJF paperbacks and devour them. The Riverworld series was my favorite, but New Riders of the Purple Wage made an impact, too. So passes a muscular imagination.
Meseret Defar of Ethiopia ran 14:24.37 in Stockholm to break the women's 5000 meter indoor mark, lowering it by over 3 seconds. It is worth noting that this formidable run was performed on a track well short of the 200 meter indoor "standard" found in many colleges and universities, and thus displays tighter corners. Details here.
Sad news for the drummers and jazz lovers on SciBlogs. Jazz drumming legend Louie Bellson passed away unexpectedly on Valentine's Day. Some details here.
Update: Here's a short bio video with some nice bits of Louie playing and some rather unique kit layouts.
The other day, perennial political tool Rush Limbaugh was on CNBC defending his now infamous "I want Obama to fail" comment. His argument went something like this (paraphrasing):
Yes, I want him to fail. His policies are liberal policies and I want liberal policies to fail. I want conservative policies to succeed.
I find this to be a stunning argument because what it really says is "I am an unrepentant partisan ideologue. I am a political clown." It's a shinning example of us-versus-them, as-long-as-my-side-wins-at-any-cost hackery. I guess it's nice to know that his position isn't personal against president Obama, but how can you hope for failure when the national (and indeed, global) consequences of failure are so dire? Someone might argue that they suspect certain policies to fail, or fear that certain policies will fail, but that's completely different from hoping that they do. There were a great number of Bush policies that I expected would fail (and they did), but I didn't, for example, actively hope that the Iraq war would turn into the king of colossal clusterfucks.
Apparently, for Rush and idiots like him, it is more important that your political ideology and your personal biases and prejudices be confirmed true than for the myriad problems facing the country and its citizens come to a just and fruitful end. And while a bulbous red rubber nose makes a clown easily identifiable at 100 paces, statements such as Limbaugh's are every bit as telling but much farther reaching.
