Bad Behavior and T's Golf

By Michael Hawkins

We shouldn’t have to accept bad behavior.

We all see it. We’re waiting in line at the check-out and there’s that person. (In an effort to avoid politically correct grammar, let’s say it’s a guy.) The cashier double-scanned something. Or an item isn’t priced correctly. Or there’s an unexpected fee. Whatever it is, that guy is there. You can see the anger in his eyes. He’s been waiting all day to lash out at someone, and this particular $8-an-hour employee is the unlucky victim.

No one says anything because, hey, who wants to join the public scene? It’s awkward. But is that so acceptable? I don’t think so.

Society has become accustomed to allowing people to act out like this. It happens every day, from Wal-Mart to Shaw’s to convenience stores to delis to restaurants. People love to treat each other like crap. Let’s get one voice together and just say ‘no’ to that sort of behavior.

Okay, that item didn’t scan in correctly and it’s taking awhile for someone to get you the right price. At no point does it logically follow that you should offer up a dish of immaturity topped with pettiness. Most of us get that, but too many have no concept of what kindness means.

And this is a two-way street. It’s usually customers treating low-level employees like hell (mostly because they can), but it comes the other way. Have I ever got the example of the century for you.

I recently went to T’s Golf in Manchester to try out a new club. I wanted to literally hit 4 balls into an empty field, using an empty tee, at a business that had literally no other customers. It didn’t take long for the owners to come out an give me an earful.

Rawn and Judy Torrington ripped into me, telling me I “should know better”, yelling at the person with me who wasn’t even playing, whining with fists clenched that I had such audacity to hit free balls into a field.

Okay, they aren’t giving things away for free. Fair enough. But let’s grow up a bit. First of all, these people charge for use of their buckets of balls, not their range. They weren’t even aware of the policies they put in place. Second, while they have an argument that I shouldn’t hit 4 balls into their empty field at their commonly empty place of business, my actions were not so unreasonable. But third, even if they were, it doesn’t matter. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. It’s a demonstration of selfishness, greed, bad behavior, horrible business sense, and immaturity. We should never accept any part of that list.

Fortunately, there’s always All-Steak Hamburger on Hospital Street, not to mention a dozen other places run by good people more than willing to take the business Rawn and Judy Torrington, in their self-centered, greedy little world, don’t seem to want (or know how to keep).

But this isn’t about my bad experience with a couple bad apples. This is about ALL the rotten trees ruining the otherwise healthy orchard.

We can solve some of our problems with businesses by not going to them (and literally every person with whom I’ve spoken refuses to go to T’s Golf). But that doesn’t solve the deeper issue. People still behave badly. Let’s stop accepting that.

If you see that guy in the supermarket or at the deli or in the retail store, don’t let him get away with it. Let him know, sans the anger he displays, that it isn’t the end of the world. He’s making an inconvenient situation into a debacle. He’s encouraging and spreading disease throughout the orchard. He’s making the world a worse place.

Let’s not accept bad behavior.

Launching a new blog

I’m launching a monthly publication for my local area which I will be distributing this weekend. In conjunction with this, I am also starting a new blog. It shouldn’t take much time from For the Sake of Science because it will only feature articles which also get printed in the paper; it won’t be the exercise in near-daily posting that is this blog.

Some issues may be covered on both my blogs, but since Without Apology is also a print publication, its articles will have to be tailored in that way, so there will at least be a differences in writing between the two.

My hope for this publication is to get an honest voice into the local public sphere. Our local paper, the Kennebec Journal, prints generally boring or bad or otherwise lacking editorials. It also refuses to use a sharp tongue when a sharp tongue is needed. I recall a piece they wrote refuting a local school board member who wanted to “teach the controversy” about evolution. The guy’s main complaint was that old creationist canard ‘Evolution is only a theory!’. They did manage to call the guy stupid (even though “ignorant” is the appropriate term), but they were wholly ineffective. The piece was filled with appeals to authority. They didn’t attempt to quickly explain any evolutionary concept. Worst yet, they said nothing of the difference between a scientific theory and a laymen theory.

So visit Without Apology if this blog gets old for you (which couldn’t possibly happen; everything on the Internet is forever, right?). If you’re a person who has come across a physical copy of the paper and you want to comment, please go to that other blog. It’s your best outlet for expressing your opinion on Without Apology.

Thought of the day

The last two minutes in close games by sport:

Baseball: Can’t really go by time, but one swing can change everything in the 9th. It’s quality.
Football: Sometimes good. Often it’s just kneeling.
Basketball: It’s team time outs, commercial time outs, more team time outs, different kinds of time outs, more commercial breaks, free throws, free throws, free throws, time out, time out, time out, free throw, commercial, free throw, commercial. Awful. Just awful.
Hockey: Utterly exciting. When can they pull the goalie? There’s such a flurry of action in front of the net! He rung the post! He tied the game! It’s the best two minutes in sports.

Really. How can anyone not love hockey?

RNAi

RNAi is an arrestingly interesting little mechanism for protecting the health of cells. The “i” stands for interference, and with good reason. RNAi is made up of a series of molecules which work to detect and destroy possible viruses and RNA which could be viruses.

It was first detected in 1986 when an attempt was made to make a really, really purple flower. The reason was purely for aesthetics, but it would prove to be far more important.

Knowing the gene which coded for purple pigmentation in petunias, geneticists made the logical conclusion and figured adding a bunch of those genes to the flowers would increase the depth of purple coloring in them. But as it turned out, they were wrong. In fact, they were remarkably wrong. Instead of deep purple flowers, they produced white flowers. Not a hint of purple anywhere.

No one had an answer to why would be. It took 12 years until researchers came up with the answer (and another 8 until they were awarded a Nobel Prize).

When viruses invade a cell, they ‘seek’ to make copies of themselves by utilizing the available DNA source. Post-transcription, this comes out with a funny shape due to the RNA making a mirror image of itself. The RNAi then recognizes this strange shape and destroys it with dicers. But it doesn’t stop there. Any sequence which comes out of the nucleus thereafter is also destroyed. This prevents any of the viruses (hopefully) from being translated and replicating (thus exploding out of the cell and infecting other cells).

Something similar happened when the geneticists tried making the super purple flowers. There wasn’t a mirror-image RNA sequence, but there was a funny sort of shape created by all the extra purple pigmentation genes. The RNAi recognized this as a potential virus and began destroying it. All of it. This meant there were no genes for purple getting translated into proteins.

Example petunia plants in which genes for pigmentation are silenced by RNAi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rnai)

Example petunia plants in which genes for pigmentation are silenced by RNAi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rnai)

So far this is pretty exciting stuff. It’s a post-transcriptional defense mechanism against viruses no one ever knew existed. But it has so much more potential than just as a passing curiosity.

Think about it. If RNAi can essentially turn off genes by destroying them through a sort of sequence-detection, then what stops it from curing diseases? This discovery has the serious potential to cure all the major ailments facing the world today: AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s. There has already been success in treating macular degeneration. This is a disease where too many blood vessels are growing in the eye. It damages the retina over time and makes vision majorly cloudy and blurry. There are simply too many genes for blood vessels being produced. But one way to stop this disease is to stop that blood vessel growth. To achieve this, a patient is given an injection which contains a copy of the gene with its mirror image (two mirror strands of DNA). The RNAi detects this misshape and destroys it. It then destroys all other likewise sequences. The same principle could be applied to any number of diseases.

There is an excellent NOVA video on RNAi which can be viewed here. It’s certainly worth watching (and only 15 minutes long).

Exemplifying the wacky right

Over at Brad Locke’s blog (which is mostly about sports, but not hockey so who cares), there’s a post about spanking. It exemplifies the wacky right.

He first quotes a discipline expert from a CNN article.

Every public school needs effective methods of discipline, but beating kids teaches violence, and it doesn’t stop bad behavior. Corporal punishment discourages learning, fails to deter future misbehavior and at times even provokes it.”

That’s all true. Striking a person is negative reinforcement and only serves as a short term solution to behavioral correction; it offers no long term benefits. This has long been known to science for quite some time. But then, the right doesn’t care about science, does it? Locke writes,

I remember one afternoon during my 7th grade science class a friend and I decided we would throw paper balls as hard as we could to each other when our teacher, Roger Chism, wasn’t looking.

The problem, though, came when I misfired and nailed Coach Chism in the face just as he was turning around. Let’s just say my school didn’t have a problem with corporal punishment. Three licks later, I learned my lesson. It didn’t provoke violence within me, and I didn’t make that mistake again.

That’s a common fallacy in this argument. The anti-science group on the right always trots out anecdotal examples (usually themselves). Notice that in the quote from the discipline expert (Alice Farmer), she says spanking “at times provokes” violence. No one is claiming that spanking = violent kids. It’s simply that spanking encourages more violence among kids.

Same thing happened when I got bold enough to talk back to my dad during my early teenage years. Again, lesson learned. A very painful lesson at that.

Haha. This goes straight to another point made by Farmer: “Corporal punishment discourages learning”. How dare a teenager have the audacity to confront a parent! Everyone knows parents are right 100% of the time. It’s also well known that parents do not need to explain their actions or words to their children because, well, they’re older and bigger. It’s sort of like how a bully doesn’t need to explain why he’s taking your lunch money. He’s older and bigger and thus right 100% of the time. Right?

But Locke isn’t done. He needs to bring out the machismo guns.

You know what? Maybe that’s what’s wrong with society today. We’ve wussiefied our discipline to the point kids aren’t afraid of getting into trouble.

Oh, those fucking wussy kids! Why don’t they fucking man up?! Stupid little pussies! Eat a SlimJim!

This guy needs to stop typing with his penis. But he doesn’t.

There is no fear.

Of course! Why haven’t all the child psychologists, therapists, experts, and, um, educated think of that! FEAR! That’s the best teaching tool there is. Well, minus the “teaching” part. “Tool” is still pretty valid, though.

And it’s not just in the homes. We see it from our athletes.

Used to, if a player got in trouble, there was a severe suspension levied. Now, not so much. Coaches make so much money, they feel the pressure to win, even at the risk of keeping a troubled star on the team with very little recourse.

Wow. Talk about your non-sequitur. Suspending a student and hitting a student are not related except insofar as they both happen to be punishments. The real problem with coaches keeping troubled stars on the team has to do with what Locke already said: so much money. There’s no “wussification” (ARRRGGGHH!! STEAK AND POTATOES!) going on here. It’s an entirely unrelated problem.

Spanking teaches violence? Whatever.

Remember, spare the rod and spoil the child. Well, into today’s translation it would read, spare the spanking and you get a spoiled brat.

So I suppose there’s a causative link (hell, I’d settle for a correlation) with brats and a lack of spanking, right? Or maybe THESE KIDS JUST NEED MORE SLIMJIMS, FUCKING WUSSIES! AAARRRRGGGHH!

In my own household, the wooden spoon was the trick. Most times, I didn’t have to use it. After a few discipline sessions, all I had to do was point to the spoon if trouble of a different nature arose. Trust me when I say that worked.

Awesome. So this guy is raising his kids by threatening them with violence, as if they’re his pets (which would be deplorable for his pets, too). This is likely to lead to adults who are less well equipped to decide what makes something right and what makes something wrong. He is FAILING to teach anything about how the world works. I hope his children go off to college where they can be around WELL educated people instead of this joke of a father.

Thought of the day

Maine is cold.

(Some thoughts are less profound than others.)

Some people are just so wrong

This is a Letter to the Editor from today’s Kennebec Journal.

I don’t know about you but I am outraged to think that a felon can vote in Maine. Isn’t it wonderful that we have the reputation of being one of only two states in the country to allow a felon to vote?

Can you imagine that a pedophile who rapes a little child can vote? And, how about the adult rapist, the bank robber, the arsonist, the killer, the guys who used a machete to hack up those folks in Pittston and all the rest of the lowlifes.

I hope the editors of this newspaper write an editorial someday about this travesty of our law. The liberals like it because most of these punks vote for them. It’s easy to know why.

I will sign a petition to get this law changed. Is there an organization out there that will start one? Is there anybody or any group that will say “enough is enough?”

Is there a politician with guts enough to stand up and be counted and start the ball rolling? If the voters of this state don’t wake up and start electing people other than liberals, we will have such a mess that it will never get cleaned up.

C’mon folks, do something!

Roland Preble

Gardiner

Despite the lazy outrage (“Someone else do it!”), I actually was quite pleased to see this letter. I wasn’t aware (or at least had forgotten) that Maine allowed felons to vote. This is excellent. Why should criminality bar someone the voting booth? Committing a felony says nothing of a person’s ability or (more importantly) right to vote. I see no good argument for it.

I do, however, see a great argument against it. We still tax felons, no? We still charge them fees for various registrations and whathaveyou. If we are going to force them to give money to the state for the benefit of the whole, we must also give them the right to have a say in what we do with that money. It is not the place of the state to permanently dictate to any person what it shall do with said person’s money. That is an unreasonable punishment. It amounts to a life-long fine. Worst yet, it strips people of certain fundamental rights. The right to vote should never be taken away from any person, no matter how heinous a crime has been committed.

But I would imagine Roland would prefer felons to vote. The vast majority of the prison population is Christian and against da gays. The whole group could be a boon for conservative issues (like bigotry and ignoring reason).

Another couple prays child to death

A couple from Pennsylvania has prayed their child to death.

A fundamentalist couple who prayed over their sick toddler rather than get medical help before his pneumonia death have been ordered to stand trial on manslaughter charges.

Prosecutors believe 2-year-old Kent Schaible succumbed because his parents chose prayer over modern medicine.

There may be some legitimate defense in this particular case, but there is a more important issue here.

Some states carve out exceptions to criminal neglect statutes for parents who rely on faith or spiritual healing.

These states (including my own) disgust me. Believing in magic is not a license to practice magic, especially when the life of another person is at stake.

PZ on Mr. Deity

Liars and the arguments they make

Awhile back there were a couple of editorials in the local paper about same-sex marriage in Maine. I have taken to ripping apart the one that is against liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness and civil rights and all things good.

Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

This is a lie. No research has been done which compares mother/father relationships to father/father or mother/mother relationships in terms of child rearing. This is just another abuse of science by the right.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

Societies have also regulated voting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil right. And that a man cannot marry his daughter goes to other reasoning than that marriage is between one man and one woman. It must. Obviously a man marrying his daughter is one man and one woman, so if we disagree that it should happen, then we must be using some other reasoning beside the one man/one woman mantra.

Marriage being a tool to ensure generational stability is a non-sequitur and bad writing.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

This is an argument against infertility, the right to choose to not have children, and marriage beyond the age of child-bearing years, too. Does the right really want to go into those grounds?

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

This is purely speculative and has no data to back it up. It is also easily countered with more speculation because one can simply say that homosexuals getting married will have no effect on a heterosexual’s decision to marry. It’s sort of like how blacks getting married didn’t cause white marriage rates to decline.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Lies. This is about Bible-based hatred of homosexual activity (and often homosexuals, despite lying denials). And if this is about ensuring society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between one man and one woman, then there should be a push to legally compel people to marry. After all, that wouldn’t be about denying the civil rights of individuals to choose to not get married, it would be about ensuring societal benefits, no?