Mommy, what were Pandemics like?

Curiously enough, in 2006 the made-up word TamiFlu became part of the household lexicon of the average news-consuming adult. The drug has proved the equivalent of Microsoft's seminal Disk Operating System for its maker (but not inventor), Roche, which could not produce it quickly enough to keep up with massive demand, driven largely by wealthy clients such as the national governments of France and the US, which are developing stockpiles in the event of a worldwide Avian Flu pandemic. But TamiFlu's ability to respond to the adaptable "Bird Flu" virus is famously uncertain - no doubt which drives a subcurrent of frustration with scientists and their inability to know everything.

Fortunately, things are not as dismal as they appear. In the makings, is what will no doubt be referred to in posterity as the Evolution Revolution, a period that will be marked as a "revolution" in the way major health afflictions are addressed.

Of course, research on the two most important forms of contagious disease, as differentiated by their agents of propogation: bacteria and viruses, is informed principally by Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution is a concept, like Einstein's Relativity Theory, that took some considerable amount of time before it won widespread acceptance and comprehension. It is only for this historical quirk, that these tour-de-force propositions continue to be referred to as "theories" rather than laws. On merit they deserve more, since they have been proven beyond the extent of, say, Newton's Second "Law" of Motion, which, by the way, is wrong.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is undisputed. And unlike the Theory of Relativity, it has had a momentous impact on our day-to-day lives: namely by extending them. Bacteria are single-celled organisms and viruses are even simpler. What they have in common is the fact that they they have the most rapid evolution cycles known. In a matter of weeks, hundreds of generations will have transpired and a new strain, impervious to existing drugs, may be the result. So in disease research, it is vital to develop an accurate model that can forecast mutations in these Wee Beasties, and thereby fuel preemptive medical measures.

The Evolution Revolution is an important revision to the Theory of Evolution that is bound to pay dividends in our ability to stop the spread of contagious diseases. One of the most important tenets in his 1859 Origin of the Species, was Darwin's idea of Natural Selection. This mechanism stipulates the occurence of a myriad of microscopic mutations, many of which go nowhere, but a few of which create successful incremental adaptations that accumulate over the millenia to assume the variegated landscape of life that we have documented in our zoology textbooks with those curiously familiar-sounding Latin names like the Proteobacterium and Escherichia Coli, not to mention that most beloved of species from the Chordata-Hominidum category: Homo Sapiens.

According to natural selection, mutations are supposed to occur completely at random. The proposition was accepted until recently as writ. However, in his 1996 tome, Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, revived the long-forgotten (at least in physical science circles) principle
known as Irreducible Complexity. His research reveals that, while many mutations do in fact proceed at random, there are important exceptions to this rule. For example, the evolution of E. Coli's flagellum, a whip-like tail that propels its miniature master through its soupy world, could not have occured through small and completely random incremental mutations; the intermediate creatures, those between unflagellated and flagellated E. Coli, would not have survived Darwin's cruel and undemocratic "law of the jungle" that presides over nature, singling out her strongest innovations to the exclusion of all others.

Darwin's logic, then, turns out to be fatally flawed: natural selection simply does not square with the survival of the fittest. Indeed, for 137 years we have overlooked the complexity of evolution. Yes, random mutations do occur and are responsible for the small, prosaic changes that are merely one facet of evolution. But now it is clear that the big leaps (the Big Bangs if you will) occur via a more concerted "directed selection", like a composer who directs an orchestra through the emotional highs and lows of a piece while allowing the individual musicians some leeway to produce their music.

Unlike the Theory of Relativity, whose acceptance had no immediate human impact apart from philosophical, it is imperative that this extension to the Theory of Evolution be implemented rapidly. The National Institutes of Health as well as most State Boards of Education are notorious for their inability to adapt to important
new scientific standards. In the long run, much of human ailment will indeed be relegated to obsolescence. But the question is: How many people must die and suffer before that happens?

America has always had a remarkable penchant for innovation and once more it is poised to lead a brave new world, this time in the field of medicine. By doing two things, we can ensure that this happens sooner rather than later. First, we ought to train our young minds in the latest scientific developments because they are the future of medical research. Second, we ought to rearrange our taxpayer funded research priorities. This will require a major overhaul of the archaic beaurocracy at the NIH so that research grants give priority to promising research on directed selection; while proposals premised exclusively on natural selection should be cut. The latter move will have the more immediate effect: instead of building stockpiles of dubious drugs like TamiFlu, we will be comforted to rely upon more perspicacious pharmaceutical remedies made possible by Intelligent Design.

Iraq Roadsigns

There is now a consensus that the Iraq project is going badly and a fundamentally new strategy is necessary. I welcome the Baker-Hamilton report as an attempt at apolitical realism. It appears to mark a turning point in the conversation about Iraq from the entrenched polemics that have been so destructive to US and Iraqi interests. Hopefully moderates will have greater influence on policy, including McCain, Biden and the generals.

Political Cover
Yes, perhaps the report does provide "political cover" to the president, the Republican Party and others. So what. More important is whether it is an honest and potentially productive attempt at mitigating the disastrous consequences of our Iraq policy. This project has damaged our global credibility and military and it has been devastating for the chronically beleagered Iraqi people. Remember them? They are the real victims of the chaos, suffering increasing civilian casualties, ethnic cleansing and meltdown of economic infrastructure.

Key Findings
The Iraq Study Group included several experienced people who have a broad view of foreign policy issues (three former Secretaries of State). They are not to be dismissed as partisan or poor judges of political realities. On the other hand, not much in the way of military expertise was directly involved. Here are the key findings:

• The US cannot win. It would require a large increase in troop levels and a radical change in the Iraqi government's policy. Since neither is feasible, they are not worth talking about.
  
• Iraqis must be forced to take greater ownership using the threat of a phased troop withdrawal by 2008. The Iraqi army will be coached by embedding up to 20,000 advisory officers.
  
• Multi-lateral international cooperation should be fostered through a regional conference that would include Syria and Iran. These talks should allow the discussion of other regional issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, but not including the nuclear question viz Iran.
  

Mythology and Pathology
The Iraq conversation will hopefully become more constructive by eliminating several problematic talking points such as:

• Manichean regimes in the Middle East: Traditional logic holds that regimes in the Middle East are either good or bad. A more nuanced understanding is necessary which is hampered by the current existential quest for an enemy. In particular Iran is discussed reflexively.
• Liberals must not rush to endorse the report merely because it repudiates many of President Bush's policies. Frustration with the President is well deserved, but it must give way to the more important concerns. The "gotcha" reflex is only satisfying to those who are safely removed from the war zone.
  

Biden-Gelb Plan
This summer Senator Joe Biden and the former President of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb proposed an important plan for Iraq. The Iraq Study Group report supports some of its points and is ambiguous about others:

1. Federalize Iraq
2. Share oil
3. Regional conference
   
4. Gradual troop withdrawal
5. Economic aid

Points 1 and 2, taken together represent a realist political solution that has unfortunately not been endorsed by the ISG.

McCain and other critics
Senator John McCain, like Biden, is always worth listening to. He is the leading advocate for augmenting the troops. The generals have mixed views on whether this is possible or worthwhile. A viable solution for Iraq must include realistic political and military plans. What is McCain's political proposal? Central to his logic is the question of whether things will spiral out of control and how bad it can get. I don't know the answer. Another point is that Iraq is now our responsibility; "you break it you bought it". We owe the Iraqis a bit of our blood and sweat now...if that will help and if they will accept it. But neither appears likely.

Some have dismissed the notion of talking with Syria and especially Iran as unrealistic and dangerous. I find this attitude to be wrongheaded and even dangerously dogmatic at worst. Senator Lieberman has been one of the more effective critics. What is ignored is the fact that Iran and the US share certain overlapping interests. For their own reasons, both Iran and the US want more democracy in the Middle East. Iran wants to empower the long-oppressed Shia populations and the US is finding out that maybe democracy is not a good thing after all.

What next?
So maybe political cover is exactly what's needed to get the conversation going. The outlines of the plan are written on the wall, and for once lets get it right and prepare for it rather than turning on each other.

• We cannot sustain this deployment forever and therefore must make the most of a bad situation.
• We need help. We cannot do it alone and at the end of the day, the consequences will reach everyone else as much as ourselves.
• Iran is no worse than our bosom buddy Saudi Arabia which is also quietly fueling the conflict. During the Cold War we talked to the Soviets all the time. Iranians spontaneously demonstrated against the September 11 attacks and are among the most pro-American in the region (in stark contrast to SA). Moreover we both want to see a stable Iraq led by moderate Shias (Muqtada al-Sadr is not liked by Iran).
  

Boogieing angels step aside, how much does my head weigh?

An uncle of mine who shall remain nameless for his protection wrote me the following:

Re: Why techies bug me.

This site asks the question "how can I measure the weight of my head without cutting it off?" The responses debate the methods of weighing and the methods of quantifying their results.

What they haven't asked is:

Why bother ? What is to be gained by finding the answer?

Why not google the question and get the answer as I did of 20 lbs on average.

Why not ask an anthropoligist?

Why not ask a pathologist or morgue worker?

Why not check the literature on neurology and anatomy and discover what has already been learned and build on that?

Why do so many techies wallow in details and keep reinventing the wheel.

Yours truly with tongue firmly imbedded in cheek,

*****

My response was predictable enough. I immediately set about the important task of determining a method.

That is too funny! To tell you the truth, I have considered this question before. I remember a long time ago Nana cautioned me not to lean my head over the railing because "90% of the weight is in the head".

I suppose it may have medical applications. You could chart weight of a particular body part during the course of a patient's lifetime. It is also a good pedagogical tool to get people interested in experimental science through some silly construct.

You are going to hate me, but I can't help it. I have two methods to offer. The first one is more accurate.

1. Suspend person upside down from a hanging scale or balance. Make two weight measurements. One while suspended freely and one with head dunked in water. The difference can be used to calculate the mass using the buoyancy equation.

2. This is inspired by your practical approach and can be done using Google and a tape measure. First measure the circumference of your head. Then find the average head circumference and mass on Google. If your head is, say, 10% larger in circumference then you have to adjust the mass by 1.10 cubed, i.e. 33%.

** rubbing hands together in delight at having solved a useless problem **

Election Day in Our Town, America

Today is Election Day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, as NPR informs me. I happen to be registered to vote here in this town where I was born, the "City of Village Charm". Mom and I walked up the hill to Buckley School, the road I walked when I was a grammar student there twenty years ago. How very suitable and small-town that seems. It is a pleasant walk, though I find there is rather a lot of traffic these days, even in the once-quiet section bordering the town of Rockville. The school wasn't too busy at half past one, and there were no students around. We spotted a neighbor examining a sample ballot posted in the entry hall as we did the same.
Voting in Manchester is accomplished through the use of those old, massive, half-curtained machines they have had ever since I followed my mother to the polls as a child. In the midst of rumor and controversy concerning the purity of the polling mechanism, I have no idea whether these machines record my vote accurately. These senior citizens who competently carry out the poll are so terribly trustable; they are a far cry from those evil, vote-rigging partisans who seem to skulk round other polling places.
No Presidential choice this year, though, of course, political analyses find connections from the sitting President to many elections on the ballot. Joe Lieberman, the incumbent U.S. Senator whose seat is at issue this year, is a famous exemplar. He has been associated in the minds of indignant Democrats with President Bush. Lieberman has shed his party affiliation after losing the Democratic primary. Even if he returns to Washington as an Independent, he will never caucus with the Democrats again (or join in any of their reindeer games). He can be found at the bottom of the ballot, the only name on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" row.
On the state level, Governor Jodi Rell is campaigning for re-election. She took over the seat when Governor Rowland was indicted on bribery charges a few years ago. She is very popular and is sure to keep her job. Mom concedes that she has done good work, and seems to be in tune with Mom's concerns about energy supplies in the state, but disagrees with her stance on an ethical misstep in her staff.
The only campaign sign Mom and Dad have stuck in their lawn supports State Representative Ryan Barry, a clean-cut young lawyer who grew up on East Center Street. He is married with two children, and his family attends their church, St. Bridget's. There's that old, small-town feeling again.
This year, Manchester is considering a referendum to purchase the southern half of the Manchester Parkade for the town. It is suggested that the 20-acre parcel could become a park, possibly with a community center, library, pool, etc. What an interesting idea.
As we left the gymnasium where the voting was taking place, we met the sitting Probate Judge and his family. Mom pretended, of course, that I remembered them (she still believes Manchester is the small town she grew up in). We finally completed the ceremony of the day by toddling home in the warmth of a late autumn day, crunching maple leaves all the way down the deserted sidewalk.
Today we completed the fundamental responsibility of an American citizen. The word "responsibility" implies a heavy, unloved chore. But responsibility, in citizenry as in personal life, carries the sweetness of a conscious life.

Tom DeLay partisan or patriot?

On Sunday I was listening to AM radio during the long drive back from Joshua Tree to Los Angeles. A talk show guested former House Speaker Tom DeLay for a 10-15 minute interview. The topic was the upcoming election for the Legislative Branch. DeLay's vital point was that the country is incredibly polarized. He predicted that whoever ended up with the majority in both the House and Senate, it would be a knife edge margin. The result will be gridlock and there is little reason to expect much in the way of progress or achievement in any direction. I found myself nodding agreement. The polarization is a true reflection of divided public opinion; it represents in large part a fundamental split over fundamental US policy regarding the so-called war on terror. DeLays' forecast if the Democrats gain power is an immediate move to pull troops out of Iraq, which would embolden North Korea, Iran, and would severely undermine the war on terror. In contrast, he describes the Republican administration as a bulwark against terrorism and threats to US security. DeLay and supporters of the current administration are missing an essential piece of the political puzzle. The only apparent logical reason for this is partisanism over patriotism.

What an accusation! Calling a conservative unpatriotic? One of the essential features of American democracy is that political leaders are tested and either removed or retained via election. The issue before the voting public is not about what should be done to improve the situation in Iraq, its about holding political leaders accountable for their incompetence and removing them from office. The current administration desperately and tirelessly bulldozes the idea that elections are a choice between "cutting and running" (Democrats) and "finishing the job" (incumbent Republicans). In truth, the elections should be a choice between retaining or removing those who designed and executed a failed policy. Democrats are not spared from this choice - the primary in Connecticut showed that the distinguised past of Joe Lieberman was not enough to forgive supporting the invasion. What is so maddening about the Republican attempt to narrowly characterize the current Iraq situation is the unapolygetic notion that the current administration is the only source of good ideas on how to solve it. HELLO! Short term memory loss? Why is there even a problem to solve in the first place? That was rhetorical. It's like a doctor that makes a spurting awful mess of a promised simple surgery and is then indignant when the patient demands a new doctor ASAP instead of believing the original doctor is the best qualified to fix things.

I could launch into a detailed argument as to how current leaders have failed the US regarding Iraq policy, but it really isn't necessary (actually, perhaps I'll do this later). By virtually any metric, Iraq is worse off, the region is worse off, and the world is worse off than before the invasion. The existence or not of liberal media reporting negative news disproportionately does nothing to change the facts of the current misery. But I digress despite intentions not to. The question at hand is, why is anyone defending those responsible for incompetent US policy? Humans are creatures of habit. Pure partisan loyalty is the only reason I can see to support someone for continued office tenure, when they have been tested and found inadequate. Real patriotism is not flag waving, attempted associations between supporting the troops and supporting policy, rhetoric about building democracy overseas, prosecuting a "war" on terror, and so on. Patriotism is honoring the institution the Founding Fathers built by exercising personal integrity via honest evaluations of political leaders based on performance rather than party. Lieberman is still in the running as an independent candidate, but I'm not voting for him.

Panthera uncia

A little digging at wiki recently turned up the information that one of our members is a snow leopard, whose official name is Panthera uncia. He must be logging on somewhere in the Kazakh or Himalaya region, or from a zoo. The Panthera family is best known for its roarers, such as the ever-popular lions and tigers. Almost everyone in the clan is able to roar, but P. uncia is a distant cousin who does not possess the pipes for it. On the bright side, this may make him better at purring. For more information on how cool purring is, check out this article on how purring in cats strengthens and heals tissue: http://www.bksv.com/2798.asp

Inadvertent Poetry

The other day I was on the line with Him (Customer Service) and I inadvertently penned the following amusing lines,

Customer service is lovely lovely
lovely, okay sir just give me
a few more seconds okay?
lovely lovely customer service,
has the phone had any physical
or water damage done to it?
just bear with me okay,
bear bare
the burden of baring with me indefinitely.

Q&A: Whats the deal with this Plamegate business?

Having wasted several perfectly good hours reading about the leak debacle concerning former Ambassador Joe Wilson and the outing of his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent I thought I might share the fruits of my efforts. One begins to wonder if there is objective truth at all. Here lies the nub.

Q: So what is the deal?
Okay, its like this: three of Bush's guys leaked the information to four journalists. Lets name names, shall we?

Leakers:

• Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State (fmr)
  
• Karl Rove, Senior Advisor to the President
  
• "Scooter" Libby, Vice President's Chief of Staff (fmr)
  

Journalists:

• Robert Novak, Syndicated columnist
  
• Matthew Cooper, Time journalist
  
• Judith Miller, New York Times journalist (fmr)
  
• Bob Woodward, Washington Post journalist

Q: Who did it first?
Here is a brief chronology:

26 Feb 2002	Joe Wilson travels to Niger to investigate uranium issue.
28 Jan 2003	President Bush gives state of the union with the infamous 16 words.
mid-June 2003	First leak. Armitage tells Woodward.
6 Jul 2003	Joe Wilson publishes NYT op/ed.
Jun/Jul 2003	Armitage tells Novak.
8 Jul 2003	Rove confirms.
8 Jul 2003	Libby tells Miller.
11 Jul 2003	Rove tells Cooper.
11 Jul 2003	Novak's column outing Plame hits the wires.

Q: Was it a crime?
"The fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified" according to Special Counsel Fitzgerald. Some debate whether or not at the time she was a NOC operative, which is dangerous undercover work. Nevertheless, it is illegal for a government official to divulge classified information or to obtain classified information by espionage. Armitage, the apparent "first leaker" will not be charged; nor has anyone else been charged for leaking.

An Open Letter to President Khatami: You Owe Me Twenty Bucks

With a spring in our step we hopped off of the 30 bus onto Wisconsin Avenue last Thursday (9/7) evening and headed east down Garfield, noting the glow illuminating the steeples of the Washington's National Cathedral. As a proud law abiding citizen, I had refused, under much duress mind you, to park illegally in Glover Park. (My sister assured me that the Zone 3 spaces near her apartment are not likely to be enforced.)

Lo and behold, upon returning to the space that I had so lovingly selected, not so much for its scenic view, but for its unique lack of parking restrictions, I quicky observed that my car had vanished!

Unflappable as ever, I cooly deduced that either the car had been stolen or DC's finest had moved it. Upon further inspection it was apparent that the latter was more probable, in view of the obscure and torn "emergency no parking" poster that now graced the telephone pole lurking nearby. I don't know when the sign appeared there other than to say that it was some time after I had parked my car. So, after wrangling with a couple of 911 operators over my not-so-trusty mobile I learned that indeed it had been moved about a mile down the street.

Needless to say the dispatcherette was cheerful, effusively apologetic and explained to me right away why they needed to move my car. Just kidding. But I put those thoughts behind me as we hurtled down the street in my silver VW (I swear I was not speeding), albeit clutching a $20 parking ticket on which the "Other" box had been checked and the words "Emergency No Parking" written in. I noted the time on the ticket was 4:08pm and speculated as to the cause of said emergency. I figured it must have been something to do with the Vice President, considering he lives in the neighborhood and has a known propensity for diabolical plots. Little did I know it was actually the Axis of Evil.

The next morning over breakfast as I glanced at my copy of the Post it hit me. The front page pictured a distinguished looking gentleman in a flowing black robe and the characteristic black turban which marks a descendant of the prophet Muhammad. The caption read "Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, speaks at Washington National Cathedral. During his visit to the capital, Khatami called for a dialogue between the Islamic world and the West. About 200 people protested outside the cathedral." The article explained further that as he spoke "hundreds of diplomatic security officials, including their own SWAT teams, surrounded the church grounds".

"No wonder!" I thought as I read on with interest, hypothesizing that the protesters had had their cars towed too. But I soon thought less of the idea when I read that they were demanding regime change in Iran. They paraded pictures of torture victims and the deposed shah, Reza Pahlavi. (Clearly it was a Persian crowd.) But it is hard to see the connection between the former Iranian president, an outspoken reformer, and these protests. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to protest against the Supreme Leader or members of the judiciary like Saeed Mortazavi who actually wielded the powers these protestors were decrying?

Similarly a handful of American politicians adapted the occasion to their own mercurial ends. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney declared that his state will not provide security for the mujtahid's visit to Harvard. Similarly Senator Brownback and Congressman Sherman burst a few blood vessels of their own on the floors of their respective chambers, citing Iranian human rights violations and, breaking new ground for absurdity, conflating Khatami with the 1979 hostage crisis.

Considering the logic of these recriminations then, I feel no shame in asking - no, demanding - that President Khatami pay my $20 parking ticket. I prefer PayPal. Moreover, the next time he is passing through Atlanta, from which green city I hail, it would seem altogether fitting and conciliatory that he buys me lunch (sir, do you like south Indian food?).