Ninja Monkie Bacchanal

This is a very long article, but well worth the read.  In it, a science educator goes on a journey of sorts to find out why evolution and deep time issues are not being taught in Arkansas, even though the state’s science curriculum says they should be.

In the fall of 2004, I received an e-mail from an old friend back in Arkansas, where I was raised. She was concerned about a problem her father was having at work. “Bob” is a geologist and a teacher at a science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts. My friend did not know the details of Bob’s problem, only that it had to do with geology education. This was enough to arouse my interest, so I invited Bob to tell me about what was going on.

This definitely has possibilities.  Certainly not better than OpenOffice, but it is a start.

As I was making a roast beef sandwich for dinner tonight, I noticed a rainbow-like sheen on the meat.  I have seen this before, but I have a computer with internet access in front of me. Now I can do something about solving this mystery.  I love the internet:

I have noticed that Roast Beef and sometimes Deli Ham have this rainbow-like sheen on them.  I haven’t noticed it on turkey or chicken slices, just Roast Beef and Ham.  I have asked some of my friend if they noticed it as well.  It appears that I am NOT the only one who has this same question.  Everyone I asked wanted to know as well.  Is this a result of smoking?  Why wouldn’t the turkey or chicken have this if that was the case?  Is it the marination that causes it? I would really like to know.  Please help me clear up this perplexing mystery.

The iridescence ("rainbow-like sheen") of the roast beef and ham you have noticed is due to the regular muscle fiber structure of the meat combined with water droplets to create a “diffraction grating”. The reflection of light off the water in the regular fiber grating causes separation of colors much like happens with a prism.

In the meat industry, it is known that the effect is enhanced when phosphates are used to increase the amount of water held in the meat. A dry meat surface scatters rather than diffracts or reflects light.

Equivalent poultry products typically are made from white muscle as opposed to the red muscle of beef and pork products. White muscle tissue has a higher natural pH which changes the conformation of the proteins in the muscle fibers, so a much less noticeable rainbow effect occurs. Also, these products are typically lower in salt, which affects the swelling of the muscle fibers.

You might check “turkey ham” which is made from dark meat and is more similar to pork ham in manufacture: You might find the iridescence there. An interesting experiment would be to examine each type of product under a microscope where the cause of the effect should be much more obvious.

CLICK HERE FOR IMAGE

I found this originally at Fact-esque.  It is a Washington Post article.  Time to start looking at one-way flights to Canada I guess.

t’s easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman. That’s because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America’s voting machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote count. We’ll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that. But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he presented at an October meeting of the American Statistical Association in Philadelphia.

I found this over all Dadahead today.  It might be a bit heavy for a Wednesday, but it is interesting, none-the-less.

the leaders of the [pro-life] movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex.

I particularly like the chart on the post as well.

From David Letterman:

10. Trying to fix up Condi Rice with his daughter

9. Turns out when you shoot somebody, if you’re not vice president, you gotta do time

8. Bush leaves at two every day and then it’s margaritas and Fritos

7. Set the solitare high score on his office computer

6. Wants to see if he can help Bush get his approval rating under ten

5. Too hard to give up Vice Presidential Discount at D.C. area Sam Goody stores

4. Wants to stay on the job until every country in the world hates us

3. Extra-zappy White House defibrillators

2. Undisclosed location has foosball and whores

1. Why quit when things are going so well?

This is very kewl.  It takes 10 notes and plays the first 10000 digits of pi using those notes.  It is completely geeky, but I like it.

I was reading this blog this morning and realized that I don’t have this issue.  I don’t have this issue because my wife is a wonderful woman.  She stays home with the kids.  She is a stay-at-home-mom, but even so, I don’t possess the patience or resources to take care of healthy, let alone sick, kids all day long.  After a few hours, I would lock them in a closet and called it a day. BTW, most parenting guides discourage this behavior I have found.  Anyway, my wife makes it look all so easy.  And I love her for it.

My indoctrination into the politics of sick days—my wake-up call that combining work and motherhood involved inescapable rocks and hard places—came 10 years ago when our infant son got sick with a fever the day of a presentation I had to give. I blithely asked my husband to stay home with our child. I quickly saw evidence that men, especially primary breadwinners, suffer peer pressure at work as severe as everything I lived through in seventh grade, except that our financial future was at risk rather than my slot in the popular crowd.

So, I gave my son Tylenol to hold down his fever, dropped him off at the daycare center, delivered a killer presentation and scuttled back to his classroom where they reported X. was feeling a little warm.

Since that day, I’ve always been the one to stay home with our children when they are sick. I’ve tailored my career choices so that I can bow out on a second’s notice if need be. My husband and I don’t discuss what these sacrifices have meant for me. And in truth, I haven’t forced the issue. We never imagined this type of pragmatic dilemma when we dreamed of having kids together.

Rev. Robertson is at it again.  Happy Hump Day!

[College professors and academics] are out and out communists, they are radicals, you know some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order and they don’t want anybody else except them.

UPDATE: Now it is in the news…
***********
Something is amiss in DC. I know, I know.  Something is always amiss in DC, right?  Well, this is different.  Raw Story has a story in which the President signed a budget bill that is different than the one that passed the US House of Representatives.  Big Deal, right?  Not!  This is illegal under the US Constitution.  Rep. Henry Waxman sent a letter the White House asking for clarification.  Here is the letter:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Card:

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease “durable medical equipment,” such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

Ok, by now I am sure you have heard that Isaac Hayes abruptly left the show South Park.  He claims it was for the show intolerance of religion (umm...ok), but ‘sources’ say is is related to a specific episode that lambasted Scientology, of which Mr. Hayes is a follower.  And I am not even going to get into the rumors that Tom Cruise, also a follower, refused to promote his new movie until Comedy Central (owned by Paramount, which is making Mr. Cruise’s movie) pulled a scheduled repeat of the offending episode (they did, BTW).  Whatever.

My wife pointed something out to me.  Why did Mr. Hayes not criticize the show far earlier for its portrayal of blacks?  For crying out loud, they have a black character named TOKEN!!! Oye!

LOL!  I am sure the White House is on the other side of that hole.