Theodore Gray likes chemicals. “I’m not a shill for DOW, or Dupont, or anyone in the industry. I just think these things are cool, and are good to have around,” he said. His new book, Molecules, is dedicated to exploring chemistry’s building blocks on their own terms.
Molecules is the middle in a three book series about chemistry. It shares the same graphic style and tone as its predecessor, Elements, and according to Gray it was a lot harder to organize. In Elements, the table of contents mirrored the periodic table. But there was no methodical, objective way to cover the millions of molecules that exist in nature, so eventually he gave up and decided to write about whatever he found interesting.
That is how he ended up with a book that gives the same weight to explaining how molecules create color as it does to exploring the similarities of pepper and poison, and looks as just as deeply into artificial sweeteners as it does into opioid drugs. Speaking of drugs, Molecules rarely shies away from taboo topics, even though it’s targeted for classrooms. “I want to be able to talk about the chemistry of these interesting compounds without getting hung up on the controversies,” he said. Still, his publisher wasn’t comfortable with everything, and he had to make some compromises. “We had this absolutely gorgeous marijuana bud taking up a whole page, but we ended up taking it out.”
Of note is the book’s fuzzy, blue take on the classic stick-and-ball molecular model. These models, Gray says, do not represent the reality of molecules, but are merely convenient schematics. The blueish fuzz serves to remind readers that each molecule’s nuclei are vanishingly small, and if you could actually see them they would be blurred by a haze of unpredictable electrons.
Gray has a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, but got sidetracked from pursuing his PhD in the 1980s by an offer to co-found the computational software company Wolfram Research (You might be familiar with their knowledge engine, Wolfram Alpha). Between building that company and his career as an author, he won an Ig Nobel Prize for his hand made Periodic Table (really, it’s a wooden table), and for several years wrote a column for Popular Science.
Read more at Wired Science
Showing posts with label Recomended Reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recomended Reading. Show all posts
Oct 20, 2014
Aug 21, 2012
Homeopathy Takes Some Hits
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently uncovered significant violations at one of the world's largest manufacturers of homeopathic products. It is only the latest in a long line of blows to the homeopathy industry, both in Europe and the United States.
For example a major medical insurance company in the U.K. recently stopped paying for homeopathic treatment, citing no evidence that homeopathy is effective.
Homeopathy was invented around 1796 by a doctor named Samuel Hahnemann. He believed (contrary to the principles of physics) that homeopathic medicines become more effective the more they are diluted.
Homeopathic solutions are often so literally watered-down that they don't contain a single molecule of the original medicine or substance: the patient is drinking nothing but water. Homeopathic medicines have not been shown to work better than placebos, yet many people use and endorse homeopathy.
In 2009 the British Science and Technology Select Committee conducted a comprehensive study into whether homeopathy has any scientific validity. The report was devastating:"homeopathy is not efficacious, and explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."
Even professional homeopathic practitioners admitted that basic claims made about homeopathy have never been tested nor proven.
Homeopathic products from A Nelson & Co., a British company that manufactures many products including Nelson's line of pain relievers, digestion aids, emotional aids, energy, acne products and Bach Rescue Remedies sold in America were inspected by the Food and Drug Administration and the conclusions are alarming.
FDA Homeopathy Investigation
In a July 26, 2012, warning letter the FDA informed Nelson's that:
While the presence of glass in any drug or food is alarming, what should be of bigger concern is that because the manufacturer's dispensing machine was broken, one in six bottles in a sample batch of the homeopathic preparation was never even filled with the product they were selling -- yet not a single homeopathic practitioner or patient noticed!
Imagine if an error was made in the manufacturing of an important life-saving drug, and one out of six pills had no active ingredient at all: Doctors and patients would quickly realize that there was something terribly wrong. But because most homeopathic medications literally have no active ingredient in the first place, any pain relief is attributable to the placebo effect. It makes perfect sense that no one would notice that there was no active ingredient in the preparation, since there's no active ingredient in the medicine even when the bottles are correctly and properly filled.
Skirting Drug Regulations
Most manufacturers of homeopathic preparations sold in the United States try to get around the law requiring that they prove their products are safe and effective. One method is to include a legal warning on the packaging that any statements about what the product does be followed in fine print with the disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
By explicitly referring to alternative medicines and homeopathic preparations as dietary supplements instead of drugs, manufacturers avoid any legal obligation to prove that what they sell works. In addition to the other problems, the FDA found that Nelson's had made claims about their products that would classify them as drugs:
In one strange effort to avoid scrutiny from public health officials, a leading manufacturer of homeopathic remedies is considering marketing their (supposedly efficacious) homeopathic pills and preparations as candy. Any "medication" which can simply and accurately be re-labeled as "confectionary" is no medication at all.
Read more at Discovery News
For example a major medical insurance company in the U.K. recently stopped paying for homeopathic treatment, citing no evidence that homeopathy is effective.
Homeopathy was invented around 1796 by a doctor named Samuel Hahnemann. He believed (contrary to the principles of physics) that homeopathic medicines become more effective the more they are diluted.
Homeopathic solutions are often so literally watered-down that they don't contain a single molecule of the original medicine or substance: the patient is drinking nothing but water. Homeopathic medicines have not been shown to work better than placebos, yet many people use and endorse homeopathy.
In 2009 the British Science and Technology Select Committee conducted a comprehensive study into whether homeopathy has any scientific validity. The report was devastating:"homeopathy is not efficacious, and explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."
Even professional homeopathic practitioners admitted that basic claims made about homeopathy have never been tested nor proven.
Homeopathic products from A Nelson & Co., a British company that manufactures many products including Nelson's line of pain relievers, digestion aids, emotional aids, energy, acne products and Bach Rescue Remedies sold in America were inspected by the Food and Drug Administration and the conclusions are alarming.
FDA Homeopathy Investigation
In a July 26, 2012, warning letter the FDA informed Nelson's that:
During the inspection, the [FDA] investigator observed glass fragments present during the manufacture... Your firm failed to implement adequate measures to prevent glass contamination and had no documentation to demonstrate that appropriate line clearance and cleaning is conducted following occurrences of glass breakage, which has been a recurring problem.
While the presence of glass in any drug or food is alarming, what should be of bigger concern is that because the manufacturer's dispensing machine was broken, one in six bottles in a sample batch of the homeopathic preparation was never even filled with the product they were selling -- yet not a single homeopathic practitioner or patient noticed!
The investigator also observed for Batch #36659 that one out of every six bottles did not receive the dose of active homeopathic drug solution due to the wobbling and vibration of the bottle assembly during filling of the active ingredient. The active ingredient was instead seen dripping down the outside of the vial assembly. Your firm lacked controls to ensure that the active ingredient is delivered to every bottle.
Imagine if an error was made in the manufacturing of an important life-saving drug, and one out of six pills had no active ingredient at all: Doctors and patients would quickly realize that there was something terribly wrong. But because most homeopathic medications literally have no active ingredient in the first place, any pain relief is attributable to the placebo effect. It makes perfect sense that no one would notice that there was no active ingredient in the preparation, since there's no active ingredient in the medicine even when the bottles are correctly and properly filled.
Skirting Drug Regulations
Most manufacturers of homeopathic preparations sold in the United States try to get around the law requiring that they prove their products are safe and effective. One method is to include a legal warning on the packaging that any statements about what the product does be followed in fine print with the disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
By explicitly referring to alternative medicines and homeopathic preparations as dietary supplements instead of drugs, manufacturers avoid any legal obligation to prove that what they sell works. In addition to the other problems, the FDA found that Nelson's had made claims about their products that would classify them as drugs:
Your product labeling documents the intended uses of your products including, but not limited to the following: Arnica: "Homeopathy, such as the homeopathic remedy Rhus tox and Arnica, has been traditionally used to help relieve the symptoms of rheumatoid and osteoarthritis." Arnileve: "Apply Arnileve Arnica Cream liberally to the affected area in order to reduce inflammation and hasten recovery time." Based on the above labeling and claims, these products are drugs...because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man, and...because they are intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.
In one strange effort to avoid scrutiny from public health officials, a leading manufacturer of homeopathic remedies is considering marketing their (supposedly efficacious) homeopathic pills and preparations as candy. Any "medication" which can simply and accurately be re-labeled as "confectionary" is no medication at all.
Read more at Discovery News
Mar 30, 2012
Take a Hike for Earth Hour
For Earth Hour on Saturday, March 31, at 8:30 p.m. the world will see a little less glitz and more natural glamor as lights go out for an hour. I recommend taking the day and going for a hike - somewhere flashlights shine rather than street lights and when you turn off the lights the stars are so bright they feel like they are just beyond the edge of Earth's horizon.
Just make sure you turn off the lights at home before you go.
The International Space Station will be observing city lights around the globe as we observe Earth Hour. The best time to observe the ISS from the United States, however is in the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday. You can track its progress here.
Read more at Discovery News
Just make sure you turn off the lights at home before you go.
The International Space Station will be observing city lights around the globe as we observe Earth Hour. The best time to observe the ISS from the United States, however is in the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday. You can track its progress here.
Read more at Discovery News
Mar 11, 2012
America, the Beautiful (And Nutty): A Skeptic’s Lament
Almost one-third of Americans believe the ancient Mayan prediction of global calamity this December are “somewhat true,” according to a recent National Geographic poll. The prediction is based on a huge stone calendar wheel but exact nature of the disaster — already the subject of major motion pictures and fodder for a Super Bowl ad of remarkably black humor — is an open question. Perhaps an apocalypse will be sparked by expensive gasoline or another Charlie Sheen tantrum. Or maybe those early Mexicans just ran out of stone.
I’m a magician by profession, now retired and dedicated to communicating the facts about the so-called paranormal and the occult, and the supernatural people, claims, and stories that abound. My organization — The James Randi Educational Foundation — serves as a source of information about what I call “woo woo.” We work with a large number scientists, statisticians, and experts to evaluate and debunk for the benefit of the media, scientists, writers, students, and the merely curious.
Our efforts have brought JREF to the forefront of the world skeptical movement, following in the footsteps of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, Richard Feynman, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and so many others — and I’m proud to say that I knew them all well.
We do this day in and day out. And humans aren’t born crazy. But somehow nonsense science has what seems like a permanent foothold in our culture.
Not all dissonance is perilous. The general public accepts some obviously false beliefs: whales are fish, we only use about 10% of our brains, “free energy” is just around the corner for us all.
Wrong, but not nuts.
Now consider this: Some 70% of Americans believe in some aspect of the paranormal — ESP, devils, ghosts, homeopathy, and spiritual healing. More than 25% believe there are humans who can “psychically” predict the future. About 20% believe it’s possible to talk to dead people (and that the dead talk back).
In other words, a sizable portion of the U.S. population accepts as a given that an unseen world of magical paranormal power exists, and all that remains is to discover how to take advantage of it. Some pay handsomely in that vain — I mean this in both senses of the word — pursuit.
Personality traits, psychological motivation, flawed cognition, emotional instability, local demographics, social influences — all these could contribute to what might be called Lack of Reason Syndrome. Let’s add as well: basic ignorance. But experimental psychology has yet to fully explain why essentially rational beings seem to need to be at least a little irrational.
But we humans are gullible and not terribly perceptive. In my world these handicaps, and an audience’s innate desire to believe, combine to, well, make magic. The trick is really over before it begins because the magician has, without your knowledge, manipulated your behavior to suit his needs.
That’s just good fun. The stakes in the real world are much higher.
While the science establishment hasn’t always been vociferous enough about paranormal silliness and schemes, make no mistake: my respect for real science knows no bounds. Yes, my work inescapably points out where science has, for one reason or another, sometimes failed to police its own. But I believe — I know — that science is a glorious, righteous pursuit.
And so I begin my work here at Wired Opinion with a direct, firm, personal statement of my own convictions, derived from 60+ years of close association with dedicated scientists and the responsible media:
Those very popular mythical beasties — ESP, psychokinesis, prophecy, etc. — don’t exist.
Homeopathy is a dangerous farce.
Faith-healing is a deadly joke.
Perpetual motion is a juvenile dream.
Uri Geller is a 4-trick magician.
The dead don’t talk to anyone.
Religion is an ancient notion we need to get over.
There!
Having identified the illness, the question is, how able is the patient to participate in a cure? Figuring that out is part science, and part art.
The advertising industry knows this. They know that consumers will often respond to pricing tricks that do not bear up under the barest scrutiny. A 2009 Cornell University study found that we tend to interpret precise numbers that are bigger than rounded numbers as being lower: participants, for example, incorrectly judged $395,425 to be smaller than $395,000.
The skeptical mind boggles …
Read more at Wired Science
I’m a magician by profession, now retired and dedicated to communicating the facts about the so-called paranormal and the occult, and the supernatural people, claims, and stories that abound. My organization — The James Randi Educational Foundation — serves as a source of information about what I call “woo woo.” We work with a large number scientists, statisticians, and experts to evaluate and debunk for the benefit of the media, scientists, writers, students, and the merely curious.
Our efforts have brought JREF to the forefront of the world skeptical movement, following in the footsteps of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, Richard Feynman, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and so many others — and I’m proud to say that I knew them all well.
We do this day in and day out. And humans aren’t born crazy. But somehow nonsense science has what seems like a permanent foothold in our culture.
Not all dissonance is perilous. The general public accepts some obviously false beliefs: whales are fish, we only use about 10% of our brains, “free energy” is just around the corner for us all.
Wrong, but not nuts.
Now consider this: Some 70% of Americans believe in some aspect of the paranormal — ESP, devils, ghosts, homeopathy, and spiritual healing. More than 25% believe there are humans who can “psychically” predict the future. About 20% believe it’s possible to talk to dead people (and that the dead talk back).
In other words, a sizable portion of the U.S. population accepts as a given that an unseen world of magical paranormal power exists, and all that remains is to discover how to take advantage of it. Some pay handsomely in that vain — I mean this in both senses of the word — pursuit.
Personality traits, psychological motivation, flawed cognition, emotional instability, local demographics, social influences — all these could contribute to what might be called Lack of Reason Syndrome. Let’s add as well: basic ignorance. But experimental psychology has yet to fully explain why essentially rational beings seem to need to be at least a little irrational.
But we humans are gullible and not terribly perceptive. In my world these handicaps, and an audience’s innate desire to believe, combine to, well, make magic. The trick is really over before it begins because the magician has, without your knowledge, manipulated your behavior to suit his needs.
That’s just good fun. The stakes in the real world are much higher.
While the science establishment hasn’t always been vociferous enough about paranormal silliness and schemes, make no mistake: my respect for real science knows no bounds. Yes, my work inescapably points out where science has, for one reason or another, sometimes failed to police its own. But I believe — I know — that science is a glorious, righteous pursuit.
And so I begin my work here at Wired Opinion with a direct, firm, personal statement of my own convictions, derived from 60+ years of close association with dedicated scientists and the responsible media:
Those very popular mythical beasties — ESP, psychokinesis, prophecy, etc. — don’t exist.
Homeopathy is a dangerous farce.
Faith-healing is a deadly joke.
Perpetual motion is a juvenile dream.
Uri Geller is a 4-trick magician.
The dead don’t talk to anyone.
Religion is an ancient notion we need to get over.
There!
Having identified the illness, the question is, how able is the patient to participate in a cure? Figuring that out is part science, and part art.
The advertising industry knows this. They know that consumers will often respond to pricing tricks that do not bear up under the barest scrutiny. A 2009 Cornell University study found that we tend to interpret precise numbers that are bigger than rounded numbers as being lower: participants, for example, incorrectly judged $395,425 to be smaller than $395,000.
The skeptical mind boggles …
Read more at Wired Science
Jan 18, 2012
A SOPA/PIPA Blackout Explainer
Hundreds, if not thousands, of websites are expected to go dark or alter themselves Wednesday to protest proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation that many believe goes too far fighting online copyright and trademark infringement.
Josh Levy, campaign manager for Free Press, said in a Tuesday conference call supporting the protest that “This is the biggest revolt we’ve seen online” against U.S. legislation.
The websites are expected to participate in the protest against the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act. They include brand names like Wikipedia, Wired, BoingBoing and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to little-known sites likes political action committee DemocracyForAmerica.
But what’s all the fuss about? Here’s an explainer of the basics of the bills, the protests and how you make your voice heard.
What prompted the protest?
*The expected protest comes despite the White House announcing Saturday it would not support the bills if they mandate changes to internet infrastructure, which was the most egregious provision in the measures that prompted the protests.
Leaders in the House and Senate also buckled to widespread pressure and announced they would at least temporarily remove those DNS-redirecting requirements. That provision would have required ISPs to prevent Americans from visiting blacklisted sites by altering the system known as DNS that turns site names like Google.com into IP addresses such as 174.35.23.56. Instead, for the blacklisted sites, ISPs would have to lie to their customers and tell their browsers that the site doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, that has serious security implications and undermines government-led efforts to prevent hackers from hijacking the net’s naming system in order to scam users. Those sites would disappear in a process that security experts said would damage internet security.
The SOPA and PIPA measures are now being reworked behind closed doors and are expected to exclude the DNS language.
If DNS blacklisting is off the table, why the protest?
While DNS blacklisting was the most egregious portion of the bill and a clear indicator that Congress didn’t know what it was doing, what’s left in the bills continue to have serious implications on the First Amendment and online freedom.
The bills give the Justice Department the power to seek court orders requiring search engines like Google not to render search results for infringing websites. (The proposals are vague and broad when it comes to defining an infringing site.)
The bills also allow the Justice Department to order internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T to block their users from visiting blacklisted sites. That would be unprecedented in the United States, though it’s a common tactic used in countries like Syria, Iran and China to clamp down on political dissent and adult content.
The SOPA proposal bars the distribution of tools and services designed to get around such blacklists. The ban could arguably cover tools such as VPNs and Tor used by human rights groups, government officials and businesses to protect their communications and evade online spying and filtering.
The proposals grant rights holders the ability to demand that judges order ad networks and financial institutions to refrain from doing business with sites right holders say are infringing.
The measures also give out legal immunity to ad networks and financial institutions that choose, without a court order, to stop placing ads or processing transactions for websites they deem are dedicated to infringing activity.
Copyright holders would face little penalty for filing takedown claims without doing due diligence or considering “fair use,” encouraging even more abuse of copyright takedown lawsuits.
Why are these bills on the table?
They are in response to Big Content’s (.pdf) arguments that hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every year due to pirate websites. These numbers are largely unsubstantiated and rest on the assumption that if a person had not gotten a copy of a movie online, they would have paid full price for a DVD or CD.
On the other side, much of the tech world maintains that the open nature of the internet has created millions of jobs, that millions of people pay for content online and that copyright and trademark holders already have the legal tools to fight infringement.
Does the government or Big Content have a history of abusing the takedown process?
Unfortunately, copyright holders don’t always play fair. Universal Music already believes it does not have to consider fair use when sending YouTube a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The U.S. government has seized and shut down a website for a year before giving it back to a New York music blogger falsely accused of facilitating copyright infringement.
What sites are targeted?
The legislation for the most part is directed at foreign websites dedicated to infringing activities. Think the Pirate Bay, for one, which supports itself with advertising. Sites ending in .com, .org or .net generally are not targeted, but the government says it already has the power to seize and shut down sites on those top-level domains in a program known as “Operation in Our Sites.”
However, the orders to block infringing sites will go to U.S.-based search engines, ad networks, payment processors and ISPs.
What’s the status of the bills?
The House bill is expected to return next month to the Judiciary Committee for a vote or possibly more testimony. The Senate bill could either go back to committee or it could just be replaced and voted on by the full Senate. No announcement has been made.
Read more at Wired
Josh Levy, campaign manager for Free Press, said in a Tuesday conference call supporting the protest that “This is the biggest revolt we’ve seen online” against U.S. legislation.
The websites are expected to participate in the protest against the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act. They include brand names like Wikipedia, Wired, BoingBoing and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to little-known sites likes political action committee DemocracyForAmerica.
But what’s all the fuss about? Here’s an explainer of the basics of the bills, the protests and how you make your voice heard.
What prompted the protest?
*The expected protest comes despite the White House announcing Saturday it would not support the bills if they mandate changes to internet infrastructure, which was the most egregious provision in the measures that prompted the protests.
Leaders in the House and Senate also buckled to widespread pressure and announced they would at least temporarily remove those DNS-redirecting requirements. That provision would have required ISPs to prevent Americans from visiting blacklisted sites by altering the system known as DNS that turns site names like Google.com into IP addresses such as 174.35.23.56. Instead, for the blacklisted sites, ISPs would have to lie to their customers and tell their browsers that the site doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, that has serious security implications and undermines government-led efforts to prevent hackers from hijacking the net’s naming system in order to scam users. Those sites would disappear in a process that security experts said would damage internet security.
The SOPA and PIPA measures are now being reworked behind closed doors and are expected to exclude the DNS language.
If DNS blacklisting is off the table, why the protest?
While DNS blacklisting was the most egregious portion of the bill and a clear indicator that Congress didn’t know what it was doing, what’s left in the bills continue to have serious implications on the First Amendment and online freedom.
The bills give the Justice Department the power to seek court orders requiring search engines like Google not to render search results for infringing websites. (The proposals are vague and broad when it comes to defining an infringing site.)
The bills also allow the Justice Department to order internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T to block their users from visiting blacklisted sites. That would be unprecedented in the United States, though it’s a common tactic used in countries like Syria, Iran and China to clamp down on political dissent and adult content.
The SOPA proposal bars the distribution of tools and services designed to get around such blacklists. The ban could arguably cover tools such as VPNs and Tor used by human rights groups, government officials and businesses to protect their communications and evade online spying and filtering.
The proposals grant rights holders the ability to demand that judges order ad networks and financial institutions to refrain from doing business with sites right holders say are infringing.
The measures also give out legal immunity to ad networks and financial institutions that choose, without a court order, to stop placing ads or processing transactions for websites they deem are dedicated to infringing activity.
Copyright holders would face little penalty for filing takedown claims without doing due diligence or considering “fair use,” encouraging even more abuse of copyright takedown lawsuits.
Why are these bills on the table?
They are in response to Big Content’s (.pdf) arguments that hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every year due to pirate websites. These numbers are largely unsubstantiated and rest on the assumption that if a person had not gotten a copy of a movie online, they would have paid full price for a DVD or CD.
On the other side, much of the tech world maintains that the open nature of the internet has created millions of jobs, that millions of people pay for content online and that copyright and trademark holders already have the legal tools to fight infringement.
Does the government or Big Content have a history of abusing the takedown process?
Unfortunately, copyright holders don’t always play fair. Universal Music already believes it does not have to consider fair use when sending YouTube a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The U.S. government has seized and shut down a website for a year before giving it back to a New York music blogger falsely accused of facilitating copyright infringement.
What sites are targeted?
The legislation for the most part is directed at foreign websites dedicated to infringing activities. Think the Pirate Bay, for one, which supports itself with advertising. Sites ending in .com, .org or .net generally are not targeted, but the government says it already has the power to seize and shut down sites on those top-level domains in a program known as “Operation in Our Sites.”
However, the orders to block infringing sites will go to U.S.-based search engines, ad networks, payment processors and ISPs.
What’s the status of the bills?
The House bill is expected to return next month to the Judiciary Committee for a vote or possibly more testimony. The Senate bill could either go back to committee or it could just be replaced and voted on by the full Senate. No announcement has been made.
Read more at Wired
Dec 16, 2011
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens, who has died aged 62, described himself as an “essayist and a contrarian” and, as a journalist, critic, war correspondent and bon vivant, enjoyed a 40-year career as one of the world’s most ubiquitous, prolific and provocative public intellectuals.
He began as a leading iconoclast of the Left and, during the 1970s, was a voluble member of a talented and raffish gang, with Julian Barnes, Martin Amis, Ian McEwan and James Fenton, which gave the New Statesman magazine its glittery literary edge. But he got tired of British politics and, in 1981, moved to America where, despite occasional disagreements with his erstwhile comrades (as when he took Britain’s side against the Argentine junta in the Falklands conflict), his repeated assaults on such hate figures as Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger continued to guarantee him a welcome in radical circles.
All this changed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, an event he interpreted as a turning point in “a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate”. He became an outspoken opponent of “Islamofascism”, forging a breach with the Left which became a permanent rift after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. While his erstwhile colleagues were out on the streets proclaiming “Not in Our Name” (a slogan he found nauseating in its “unstinting self-regard”), Hitchens emerged as one of the fiercest cheerleaders for George W Bush’s strategy of “regime change”. To the inevitable accusations of betrayal (George Galloway described him as the “first ever metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug”), Hitchens responded with characteristic gusto: such attacks, he said, washed off him “like jizz off a porn star’s face”.
But, as Hitchens confessed in his memoir Hitch-22 (2010), there had always been a “Janus-faced” side to his personality. When he was a child, his mother told his father, during an argument over whether they could afford to send him to private school: “If there is going to be an upper class in this country, Christopher is going to be in it.”
At the time this was more her aspiration than his, yet Hitchens acknowledged that alongside the donkey-jacketed revolutionary “Chris”, veteran of the Aldermaston marches, there was the suave, good-looking and socially ambitious “Christopher” – “Hypocritchens”, as he was known at Balliol – who enjoyed the company of “confident young men who owned fast cars” and frequented the Union and the Gridiron Club.
The young man spraying pro-Vietcong slogans on car plant walls or marching the streets toting some insurgent flag, might, the same evening, be found at a Right-wing dining club happily gobbling up a pudding called “bombe Hanoi”. Friends later joked that the sentence least likely to emerge from Hitchens’s mouth was: “I don’t care how rich you are, I’m not coming to your party.”
Though he claimed to keep “two sets of books” when it came to political purpose and social ambition, his “Mr Both Ways” approach was as much intellectual as social. He claimed to be faithful to the values of “Left opposition” heroes, such as Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky and George Orwell, but was always too sceptical and independent-minded to fall for the tedious dogmas of mainstream Marxism – or any other “ism”.
He took pride in “asking annoying questions at every opportunity” and, as a journalist, made a point of going out to see things for himself, whether it was a war zone or a convention of Civil War re-enactors. Even at the height of student radicalism in 1968, he spotted, on a trip to Cuba, the oppressive side of the Castro revolution, acknowledging, when he found himself bombarded by showers of pebbles and the taunt “Sovietico” from the street urchins of Havana, that he had been granted a glimpse of “unscripted public opinion”.
The author or co-author of 17 books, as well as pamphlets and essays, Hitchens was a prolific columnist and, particularly in America, a formidable participant in public debates. He found it difficult to see a sacred cow without lobbing a hand grenade, and his more eminent targets included Mother Teresa (whom he portrayed as a fundamentalist Catholic bigot who gladhanded totalitarian regimes and was “a friend of poverty” rather than of the poor); Bill Clinton (the subject in 1999 of No-One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton); and God (the target in 2007 of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).
Hitchens’s natural pugnacity seems to have earned him grudging admiration in some unlikely quarters. In his memoir he recalled an encounter with Mrs Thatcher (whom he found “surprisingly sexy”) not long after her election to the Tory leadership; their inevitable argument ended with the future Iron Lady ordering him to bend over so that she could spank him on the bottom with a rolled-up parliamentary order paper, afterwards mouthing the words: “Naughty boy!”
It was only later, he confessed, that he appreciated the glimpse of the “smack of firm government” which he had been afforded.
The elder of two sons (his younger brother is the journalist and author Peter Hitchens), Christopher Eric Hitchens was born on April 13 1949 in Portsmouth, where his father, a naval officer, was stationed, and was brought up as “a Navy brat” in Malta and Scotland.
His father was a kindly, decent but emotionally inhibited man whose world view epitomised an old-fashioned English conservatism and whose way of showing affection to his son, while he was at prep school, was to send him complicated naval knots tied out of pipe-cleaners, which, of course, Christopher never mastered. (Later, Hitchens was much affected by the discovery that his father was secretly giving his friends Christmas gift subscriptions to his “pinko” magazine, the New Statesman).
His mother, Yvonne, a glamorous but tragic figure whose carefully concealed Jewish ancestry Christopher would discover only when he was in his 40s, eventually left her husband for an unfrocked vicar, with whom she became a devotee of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (“the sinister windbag who had brought enlightenment to the Beatles in the summer of love”), and with whom she died in a suicide pact in an Athens hotel when Christopher was 24.
Hitchens’s account of this “lacerating howling moment” in his life and his journey to a junta-governed Greece to identify Yvonne’s body is one of the most powerfully moving passages in his memoir, the tragedy compounded by the revelation that, in the hours before she died, she had tried to phone him repeatedly but had failed to get through. Characteristically, though, he still found the time to file a piece for the New Statesman on the political situation in Greece.
At the Leys School in Cambridge, Christopher discovered a passion for literature, dabbled in homosexuality and was introduced to the pleasures of Marxism by the headmaster who, in a vain attempt to inoculate him against such a heresy, presented him with a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
He developed all three interests at Balliol College, Oxford, where he went up ostensibly to read PPE, but devoted more energy to sit-in and picket line duties (as well as joining the Labour Party, he became a member of the Trotskyist International Socialists) and to cultivating friendships among a camp and reactionary circle of students and academics.
These included John Sparrow, Warden of All Souls and a hate-figure for the Left, who once mischievously ambushed Hitchens in full rant at some student demo to remind him they had a date for dinner. Hitchens’s claim, in his memoirs, that, while at Oxford, he had bedded two future government ministers under Margaret Thatcher would set off an – ultimately futile – orgy of press speculation which did little to damage sales of the book.
After graduating with an inevitable Third, Hitchens launched his career in journalism as “social science correspondent” at the Times, a “Gogol-like ghost job which I held for six months before its editor said something to me that made it impossible for me to go on working for him”. (In a footnote, Hitchens noted that the exact words were: “You’re fired.”)
In the 1970s, as well as working as a freelance, he took various “mainstream” jobs, from being a researcher for the Insight team at the Sunday Times to working as a foreign correspondent for the Daily Express, before joining the New Statesman as a staff writer and editor under Anthony Howard. At the same time he became a regular at the famous Bloomsbury “Friday lunches” at which such luminaries as Clive James, Peter Porter, the Amises (père et fils), Craig Raine and others would swap jokes and gossip.
As the decade wore on and Old Labour tottered towards the political graveyard (“Weimar without the sex”, as Hitchens described the Callaghan government), Hitchens became increasingly disillusioned with the British Left and confessed to harbouring an “odi et amo” complex about Mrs Thatcher, whom he felt was “right on essential matters”. By the 1979 election (in which, for the first time, he did not vote Labour) he was starting to feel “the strong gravitational pull of the great American planet”.
Hitchens’s decision to settle in the United States was a turning point in his life, both personally and politically. As a columnist for The Nation, he continued to fulminate against familiar targets – American imperialism, military fascism, religious fundamentalism – but his rightward political odyssey rolled inexorably on, driven by a disgust with the empty pieties of the Left and an appreciation of the dynamism of the American political tradition.
Gradually he expanded his columns to the pages of mainstream publications such as The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Harper’s Magazine, Newsday and, appropriately, Dissent. He also lectured and accepted visiting professorships at the Universities of Pittsburgh and California and the New York School for Social Research.
Hitchens’s ideological shift was driven also by a concern at the growing threat of Islamic extremism to Western freedoms. He was appalled by the “tepid reaction” of the European Left following Ayatollah Khomeini’s issue of a fatwa against his friend Salman Rushdie, and also by the events of September 11 2001 which, in his view, opened up a “whole new terrain of struggle”. In 2007 he took the oath of American citizenship at a ceremony at the Jefferson Memorial presided over by George W Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.
Hitchens opened his memoir Hitch-22 with a story about a false rumour of his own mortality. A catalogue for an exhibition of photographs at the National Portrait Gallery had mistakenly described him as “the late” Christopher Hitchens, a mistake he used as a peg to muse on the subject of mortality (it was not so much the mourners at the funeral that came to mind, he wrote, but the “steady thunk of emails into my in-box on the day of my demise”). But as he toured to promote the book, he was diagnosed with oesophagal cancer and forced to cancel the remainder of his engagements.
Read more at The Telegraph
He began as a leading iconoclast of the Left and, during the 1970s, was a voluble member of a talented and raffish gang, with Julian Barnes, Martin Amis, Ian McEwan and James Fenton, which gave the New Statesman magazine its glittery literary edge. But he got tired of British politics and, in 1981, moved to America where, despite occasional disagreements with his erstwhile comrades (as when he took Britain’s side against the Argentine junta in the Falklands conflict), his repeated assaults on such hate figures as Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger continued to guarantee him a welcome in radical circles.
All this changed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, an event he interpreted as a turning point in “a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate”. He became an outspoken opponent of “Islamofascism”, forging a breach with the Left which became a permanent rift after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. While his erstwhile colleagues were out on the streets proclaiming “Not in Our Name” (a slogan he found nauseating in its “unstinting self-regard”), Hitchens emerged as one of the fiercest cheerleaders for George W Bush’s strategy of “regime change”. To the inevitable accusations of betrayal (George Galloway described him as the “first ever metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug”), Hitchens responded with characteristic gusto: such attacks, he said, washed off him “like jizz off a porn star’s face”.
But, as Hitchens confessed in his memoir Hitch-22 (2010), there had always been a “Janus-faced” side to his personality. When he was a child, his mother told his father, during an argument over whether they could afford to send him to private school: “If there is going to be an upper class in this country, Christopher is going to be in it.”
At the time this was more her aspiration than his, yet Hitchens acknowledged that alongside the donkey-jacketed revolutionary “Chris”, veteran of the Aldermaston marches, there was the suave, good-looking and socially ambitious “Christopher” – “Hypocritchens”, as he was known at Balliol – who enjoyed the company of “confident young men who owned fast cars” and frequented the Union and the Gridiron Club.
The young man spraying pro-Vietcong slogans on car plant walls or marching the streets toting some insurgent flag, might, the same evening, be found at a Right-wing dining club happily gobbling up a pudding called “bombe Hanoi”. Friends later joked that the sentence least likely to emerge from Hitchens’s mouth was: “I don’t care how rich you are, I’m not coming to your party.”
Though he claimed to keep “two sets of books” when it came to political purpose and social ambition, his “Mr Both Ways” approach was as much intellectual as social. He claimed to be faithful to the values of “Left opposition” heroes, such as Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky and George Orwell, but was always too sceptical and independent-minded to fall for the tedious dogmas of mainstream Marxism – or any other “ism”.
He took pride in “asking annoying questions at every opportunity” and, as a journalist, made a point of going out to see things for himself, whether it was a war zone or a convention of Civil War re-enactors. Even at the height of student radicalism in 1968, he spotted, on a trip to Cuba, the oppressive side of the Castro revolution, acknowledging, when he found himself bombarded by showers of pebbles and the taunt “Sovietico” from the street urchins of Havana, that he had been granted a glimpse of “unscripted public opinion”.
The author or co-author of 17 books, as well as pamphlets and essays, Hitchens was a prolific columnist and, particularly in America, a formidable participant in public debates. He found it difficult to see a sacred cow without lobbing a hand grenade, and his more eminent targets included Mother Teresa (whom he portrayed as a fundamentalist Catholic bigot who gladhanded totalitarian regimes and was “a friend of poverty” rather than of the poor); Bill Clinton (the subject in 1999 of No-One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton); and God (the target in 2007 of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).
Hitchens’s natural pugnacity seems to have earned him grudging admiration in some unlikely quarters. In his memoir he recalled an encounter with Mrs Thatcher (whom he found “surprisingly sexy”) not long after her election to the Tory leadership; their inevitable argument ended with the future Iron Lady ordering him to bend over so that she could spank him on the bottom with a rolled-up parliamentary order paper, afterwards mouthing the words: “Naughty boy!”
It was only later, he confessed, that he appreciated the glimpse of the “smack of firm government” which he had been afforded.
The elder of two sons (his younger brother is the journalist and author Peter Hitchens), Christopher Eric Hitchens was born on April 13 1949 in Portsmouth, where his father, a naval officer, was stationed, and was brought up as “a Navy brat” in Malta and Scotland.
His father was a kindly, decent but emotionally inhibited man whose world view epitomised an old-fashioned English conservatism and whose way of showing affection to his son, while he was at prep school, was to send him complicated naval knots tied out of pipe-cleaners, which, of course, Christopher never mastered. (Later, Hitchens was much affected by the discovery that his father was secretly giving his friends Christmas gift subscriptions to his “pinko” magazine, the New Statesman).
His mother, Yvonne, a glamorous but tragic figure whose carefully concealed Jewish ancestry Christopher would discover only when he was in his 40s, eventually left her husband for an unfrocked vicar, with whom she became a devotee of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (“the sinister windbag who had brought enlightenment to the Beatles in the summer of love”), and with whom she died in a suicide pact in an Athens hotel when Christopher was 24.
Hitchens’s account of this “lacerating howling moment” in his life and his journey to a junta-governed Greece to identify Yvonne’s body is one of the most powerfully moving passages in his memoir, the tragedy compounded by the revelation that, in the hours before she died, she had tried to phone him repeatedly but had failed to get through. Characteristically, though, he still found the time to file a piece for the New Statesman on the political situation in Greece.
At the Leys School in Cambridge, Christopher discovered a passion for literature, dabbled in homosexuality and was introduced to the pleasures of Marxism by the headmaster who, in a vain attempt to inoculate him against such a heresy, presented him with a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
He developed all three interests at Balliol College, Oxford, where he went up ostensibly to read PPE, but devoted more energy to sit-in and picket line duties (as well as joining the Labour Party, he became a member of the Trotskyist International Socialists) and to cultivating friendships among a camp and reactionary circle of students and academics.
These included John Sparrow, Warden of All Souls and a hate-figure for the Left, who once mischievously ambushed Hitchens in full rant at some student demo to remind him they had a date for dinner. Hitchens’s claim, in his memoirs, that, while at Oxford, he had bedded two future government ministers under Margaret Thatcher would set off an – ultimately futile – orgy of press speculation which did little to damage sales of the book.
After graduating with an inevitable Third, Hitchens launched his career in journalism as “social science correspondent” at the Times, a “Gogol-like ghost job which I held for six months before its editor said something to me that made it impossible for me to go on working for him”. (In a footnote, Hitchens noted that the exact words were: “You’re fired.”)
In the 1970s, as well as working as a freelance, he took various “mainstream” jobs, from being a researcher for the Insight team at the Sunday Times to working as a foreign correspondent for the Daily Express, before joining the New Statesman as a staff writer and editor under Anthony Howard. At the same time he became a regular at the famous Bloomsbury “Friday lunches” at which such luminaries as Clive James, Peter Porter, the Amises (père et fils), Craig Raine and others would swap jokes and gossip.
As the decade wore on and Old Labour tottered towards the political graveyard (“Weimar without the sex”, as Hitchens described the Callaghan government), Hitchens became increasingly disillusioned with the British Left and confessed to harbouring an “odi et amo” complex about Mrs Thatcher, whom he felt was “right on essential matters”. By the 1979 election (in which, for the first time, he did not vote Labour) he was starting to feel “the strong gravitational pull of the great American planet”.
Hitchens’s decision to settle in the United States was a turning point in his life, both personally and politically. As a columnist for The Nation, he continued to fulminate against familiar targets – American imperialism, military fascism, religious fundamentalism – but his rightward political odyssey rolled inexorably on, driven by a disgust with the empty pieties of the Left and an appreciation of the dynamism of the American political tradition.
Gradually he expanded his columns to the pages of mainstream publications such as The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Harper’s Magazine, Newsday and, appropriately, Dissent. He also lectured and accepted visiting professorships at the Universities of Pittsburgh and California and the New York School for Social Research.
Hitchens’s ideological shift was driven also by a concern at the growing threat of Islamic extremism to Western freedoms. He was appalled by the “tepid reaction” of the European Left following Ayatollah Khomeini’s issue of a fatwa against his friend Salman Rushdie, and also by the events of September 11 2001 which, in his view, opened up a “whole new terrain of struggle”. In 2007 he took the oath of American citizenship at a ceremony at the Jefferson Memorial presided over by George W Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.
Hitchens opened his memoir Hitch-22 with a story about a false rumour of his own mortality. A catalogue for an exhibition of photographs at the National Portrait Gallery had mistakenly described him as “the late” Christopher Hitchens, a mistake he used as a peg to muse on the subject of mortality (it was not so much the mourners at the funeral that came to mind, he wrote, but the “steady thunk of emails into my in-box on the day of my demise”). But as he toured to promote the book, he was diagnosed with oesophagal cancer and forced to cancel the remainder of his engagements.
Read more at The Telegraph
Aug 3, 2011
Colon cleansing health benefits debunked
Colon cleansing can supposedly help you lose weight, eliminate toxins and enhance well-being. But a review of scientific research shows that claims of health benefits from such procedures may be a steaming pile of nonsense.
Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure.
Mishori, a family medicine physician, has seen people who were jaundiced or dehydrated as a result of colon cleansing. As more and more of her patients inquired about the procedures for their health, she decided to look to the literature to see whether her anecdotal evidence was symptomatic of wider problems.
Sometimes called colonic irrigation or colonic hydrotherapy, colon cleansing often involves flushing the colon with a mixture of herbs and water through a tube inserted in the rectum. Over-the-counter, self-administered alternatives come in the form of laxatives, teas and capsules that can be taken by mouth or inserted in the rectum.
"The premise that you need to do something external to detoxify is wrong," Mishori says. "The body has its own mechanism to detoxify.
Shove it
David Greenwald, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, agrees with the findings. Although colonic cleansing may sound appealing, "there is no scientific evidence that really validates that", he says.
Proponents of colon cleansing, however, believe that toxins in your gastrointestinal tract can cause a variety of health problems, such as arthritis, allergies and asthma. They say colon cleansing can help restore balance in the body.
Colon cleansing has been around since ancient times, when the procedure was thought to help the body dispose of waste and toxins. Auto-intoxication, as it was formerly called, was popular until the early 20th century, when it was discredited by professional societies, including the American Medical Association.
Read more at New Scientist
Ranit Mishori at Georgetown University in Washington DC and colleagues reviewed 20 studies on colon cleansing published in medical literature over the past decade. The reports showed little evidence of benefit but plenty of negative side effects, including vomiting, electrolyte imbalance and kidney failure.
Mishori, a family medicine physician, has seen people who were jaundiced or dehydrated as a result of colon cleansing. As more and more of her patients inquired about the procedures for their health, she decided to look to the literature to see whether her anecdotal evidence was symptomatic of wider problems.
Sometimes called colonic irrigation or colonic hydrotherapy, colon cleansing often involves flushing the colon with a mixture of herbs and water through a tube inserted in the rectum. Over-the-counter, self-administered alternatives come in the form of laxatives, teas and capsules that can be taken by mouth or inserted in the rectum.
"The premise that you need to do something external to detoxify is wrong," Mishori says. "The body has its own mechanism to detoxify.
Shove it
David Greenwald, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, agrees with the findings. Although colonic cleansing may sound appealing, "there is no scientific evidence that really validates that", he says.
Proponents of colon cleansing, however, believe that toxins in your gastrointestinal tract can cause a variety of health problems, such as arthritis, allergies and asthma. They say colon cleansing can help restore balance in the body.
Colon cleansing has been around since ancient times, when the procedure was thought to help the body dispose of waste and toxins. Auto-intoxication, as it was formerly called, was popular until the early 20th century, when it was discredited by professional societies, including the American Medical Association.
Read more at New Scientist
Jul 31, 2011
The mystery of the monumental post-apocolypse stones
The strangest monument in America looms over a barren knoll in northeastern Georgia. Five massive slabs of polished granite rise out of the earth in a star pattern. The rocks are each 16 feet tall, with four of them weighing more than 20 tons apiece. Together they support a 25,000-pound capstone.
Nobody knows exactly who commissioned it or why. The only clues to its origin are on a nearby plaque on the ground—which gives the dimensions and explains a series of intricate notches and holes that correspond to the movements of the sun and stars—and the “guides”, written in many different languages on each side, instruct a future society on how to conduct itself.
The story of the stones is just as strange as the monument itself. It’s since been covered in mystery and controversy. Books have been written, TV and press have swarmed to it and conspiracy theorists have pulled a mass of ideas for it’s use, from UFO landing sites to satanic cults ready to take over the world.
Wired magazine’s fascinating article writes:
The astrological specifications for the Guidestones were so complex that Fendley had to retain the services of an astronomer from the University of Georgia to help implement the design. The four outer stones were to be oriented based on the limits of the sun’s yearly migration. The center column needed two precisely calibrated features: a hole through which the North Star would be visible at all times, and a slot that was to align with the position of the rising sun during the solstices and equinoxes. The principal component of the capstone was a 7\8-inch aperture through which a beam of sunlight would pass at noon each day, shining on the center stone to indicate the day of the year.
The main feature of the monument, though, would be the 10 dictates carved into both faces of the outer stones, in eight languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, and Swahili. A mission statement of sorts (LET THESE BE GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON) was also to be engraved on the sides of the capstone in Egyptian hieroglyphics, classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Babylonian cuneiform. The United Nations provided some of the translations (including those for the dead languages), which were stenciled onto the stones and etched with a sandblaster.
Read the full article at Weird Wired
Nobody knows exactly who commissioned it or why. The only clues to its origin are on a nearby plaque on the ground—which gives the dimensions and explains a series of intricate notches and holes that correspond to the movements of the sun and stars—and the “guides”, written in many different languages on each side, instruct a future society on how to conduct itself.
The story of the stones is just as strange as the monument itself. It’s since been covered in mystery and controversy. Books have been written, TV and press have swarmed to it and conspiracy theorists have pulled a mass of ideas for it’s use, from UFO landing sites to satanic cults ready to take over the world.
Wired magazine’s fascinating article writes:
The astrological specifications for the Guidestones were so complex that Fendley had to retain the services of an astronomer from the University of Georgia to help implement the design. The four outer stones were to be oriented based on the limits of the sun’s yearly migration. The center column needed two precisely calibrated features: a hole through which the North Star would be visible at all times, and a slot that was to align with the position of the rising sun during the solstices and equinoxes. The principal component of the capstone was a 7\8-inch aperture through which a beam of sunlight would pass at noon each day, shining on the center stone to indicate the day of the year.
The main feature of the monument, though, would be the 10 dictates carved into both faces of the outer stones, in eight languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, and Swahili. A mission statement of sorts (LET THESE BE GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON) was also to be engraved on the sides of the capstone in Egyptian hieroglyphics, classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Babylonian cuneiform. The United Nations provided some of the translations (including those for the dead languages), which were stenciled onto the stones and etched with a sandblaster.
Read the full article at Weird Wired
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)