A View to a Pill

Enovid turned 50 this year -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The oral contraceptive known as “the Pill” came on the market in 1960. The Pill is a combination of estrogen and progestogen and taken on a daily schedule it creates a hormonal condition similar to pregnancy and the woman taking it quits ovulating. Taken correctly, there is a less than .3% chance of a woman becoming pregnant while on the pill. The Pill has been blamed for various things such as weight gain, acne and cancer although various types and dosages are said to eliminate or reduce those side effects. The Pill has also been blamed for causing decreased sexual desire and depression; women using it must also consider those potential side effects.

The Pill had a long and tortuous development; as far back as the 1930’s, scientists were aware that steroid hormones could inhibit pregnancy but European companies had a lock on the source of those drugs and they were very expensive at that time. In 1953, physiologist Gregory Pincus created an early birth control pill, but it resulted in bleeding and was only 85% effective. By 1957, Searle labs had corrected the bleeding problem with a better combination of estrogen and progestogen. Enovid was first marketed as a drug for menstrual disorders in 1957. In 1960, it was reintroduced at a lower dosage per pill, as a birth control pill. The drug had wide acceptance in Europe and the USA; Japan was less taken by it. To this day only 1% of Japanese women use the pill. Japanese drug approvers feared cancer side effects and speculated that such a drug might contribute to venereal disease (due to abandonment of condoms).

The Pill met with more obstacles than Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey. It wasn’t approved for married women in all states until 1965 and wasn’t approved for all unmarried women in the USA until 1972. It’s incredible that our government intervened so recently in such a personal, private matter. These were not the only slings and arrows aimed at the Pill. The Catholic Church in its 1968 papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” declared that all artificial contraception distorted “the nature and purpose of sex”. The Pill had a huge influence on our popular culture – it made sexual conduct and reproduction separate considerations. Many people have attributed the sexual revolution of the 1960’s to the Pill alone. It is true that women were soon “less chaste” after the Pill came out. In fact, the women’s movement (then termed “Women’s Liberation”) also emerged in that same momentous decade. Women were reading The Female Eunuch or going to see The Chapman Report at the theater. These actions might fall between purchasing a plastic miniskirt or a copy of the Rolling Stones’ hit single “Satisfaction”.

There were actually many other things afoot in the 1960’s – civil rights unrest, the Viet Nam War, nascent Rock’n Roll music, presidential assassinations and whatnot. It’s a stretch to hang everything on the Pill, and by the way – when we say “hang” do we subconsciously mean “blame?” It is true that Japan has had a much lower HIV rate; that’s been attributed to Japan’s preference for condoms over pills. There could be other things at play; some European countries have comparatively low HIV rates while still embracing oral contraceptives. The fact that women now have more career choices has definitely made them more “uppity”. The quality of being uppity is probably an advancement and no justification by itself for going back to the days of yore when women were to be kept barefoot and pregnant.

We have the power to revoke the Pill and say it was all a big mistake. Why haven’t we? We love everything retro, but guess what – some things really are an advancement. No need to fondly reminisce about abstinence or the rhythm method. For the Pill, we need mainly to reduce risks for cancer and depression and “Vive la Pill”. It’s here to stay, for all the freedom it gives to women and indirectly, their men.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Dreaming of a White Christmas

A Christmas that always delivers -- Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When I think about it, there are many movies I enjoy. There are several I might watch as many as five times. There are very few I enjoy watching on a yearly basis, but 1954's White Christmas is on that list. The movie is cornball and in many ways unoriginal but that is unimportant. White Christmas has catchy tunes, snazzy dance numbers and is now available in beautifully remastered widescreen digital format. When it was released in 1954, it was the first movie using Paramount's new VistaVision technology. The DVD version viewed on my 52" flat screen is colorful and very eye-grabbing.

What's not to like about this movie? Its four starring actors were at the top of their respective games. It features a music Hit Parade from Irving Berlin. It features innovative dancing choreographed by a then-unknown Bob Fosse. The dialog is campy and hilarious -- just like the actors speaking the lines. No part of the plot is very believable, but you have to suspend those types of critical thoughts. White Christmas is a movie that you watch while wrapping presents and drinking hot coco (or spiked eggnog). You look up periodically when Crosby & Kaye are doing middle-aged man drag in "Sisters" or Rosemary Clooney huffs out of town because of a misunderstanding with Bing's character (Bob Wallace).

Briefly, the movie is a romantic comedy in which then-26 Rosemary Clooney is the love interest of then-52 Bing Crosby. If you look not even closely, you'll notice that Bing's hair is dyed and he's wearing mascara to appear younger. Vera Ellen plays Rosemary Clooney's younger sister who uses her feminine wiles to ensnare the girl-phobic Danny Kaye character (Phil Davis) into matrimony. The foursome stages an impromptu show at a Vermont Lodge to help a beloved General recoup his financial losses. Dean Jagger plays the general; he was about the same age as Crosby but he was portrayed as much older-and-wiser. This movie has so much over-the-top overacting; it's fun with every viewing. Kaye is sinuous and agile; Clooney huffs and puffs with the best pouty behavior ever captured on film. All four actors sing and dance their hearts out. If ever you were to say, "That's entertainment" -- this is the movie you'd say it about. The 50's style is also fun to take in. It wasn't yet uncool to use bright colors -- can't think of the last movie I saw where someone wore turquoise-colored feathers.

The actors were all four dealing with personal issues and secret lives even as the movie was made. Vera Ellen had a life-long problem with anorexia -- she wore high collars to conceal a withered neck. Rosemary Clooney had a well-known battle with alcohol as well as a later, well-publicized recovery in AA. Danny Kaye is reputed to have had a long-term affair with Sir Laurence Olivier -- maybe the girl-phobia wasn't such an act. And Bing was revealed much later on to be "Daddy Dearest" by his son Gary in Going My Own Way. Gary's account was contradicted by brother Phillip but two other brothers, Lyndsay and Dennis, corroborated with Gary. Let he who is without "issues" cast the first stone -- the legacy of this bright musical outshines and overwhelms anything going on in the actors' personal lives.

Final note: my DVD has narrative comments by Rosemary shortly before she passed away a couple of years ago. She laughs at all the same implausibilties and has fun with the silly things; it's like watching it with your Mom, except this "Mom" actually had a starring role in the movie.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Trying on Mitt Romney's Flip-flops

Romney and his footwear of choice -- Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Mitt Romney was grilled by Tim Russert on Meet the Press today. “Grilled” is the right word because Romney was well cooked by the time Russert was finished pointing out all of Romney’s U-turns and flip-flops. First, Russert pointed out that Romney had accepted Bob Jones’ (of Bob Jones University) endorsement. Jones is a strident evangelical Mormon basher and Russert thought it curious that Romney was so desperate for endorsements. Romney tried to give it a white wash but the unseemliness still showed thru it all. Romney also had a well-publicized meeting with the President of the Mormon Church in 2005 to seek advice on running. Russert asked if Romney would seek similar advice as President, and Romney denied that he would.

Small aside to Christians, who like Bob Jones consider Mormons to be members of an unworthy cult. It is true that the stories about Joseph Smith's encounter with an angel named Moroni, and such are laughable and implausible. Christianity is also a cult – albeit more widespread, longstanding and successful. Actual historical recordings of Jesus’ words and actions, much less his miracles are very scant. His very existence is sketchy, and the leap of faith to Christianity is as big as the leap across the rocky creek to Mormonism. Glass houses, stones, you know the rest.

Now, back to Romney. He has apparently flip-flopped on every major issue since 2005. In fact, other candidates carry a pair of flip-flops as a prop when talking about him. He was pro-choice in 2002, and would now like to overturn Roe versus Wade. He was for gay civil unions as Governor of Massachusetts, and now supports a national marriage amendment. He has also flip-flopped on gun control, immigrants, and stem cells. His changes of opinion were fairly recent and very much oriented towards a presidential run. His nickname in Massachusetts was Fifi (Fee Fee) because he levied lots of fees. Now he is stridently against any tax increases.

Russert pointed out all of these inconsistencies – most caught on filmed interviews as recent as 2006. Romney tried to laugh them away or say, “a man can change his mind.” This man has apparently changed out the whole man. When congressman Larry Craig, a Romney supporter, had his problem in the men’s restroom arrest earlier this year, Romney threw him under the bus without so much as a eulogy. A nobler man might give his cohort to a chance to defend himself, and refrain from dissing him on TV. It’s not such a big deal by itself, but taken with the other facts it becomes worrisome.

Last item to mention – Romney is very photogenic. He has model looks and what Dilbert’s Scott Adams calls “senatorial hair”. Now look at three of the “generally agreed” best overall Presidents: Washington, Lincoln and FDR. None were particularly good-looking. They served up policy not GQ style. Now lets look at three of our better looking Presidents: Ulysses Grant, Warren Harding and yes, maybe, George W. Bush. What we can make out of this correlation is that looks are probably not a good thing to go by, even if the less beautiful man hurts your eyes during the State of the Union Address.

Romney is probably not the man of choice, and it has nothing to do with his religion or his good looks. It has everything to do with his flips and his flops.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Wild and Crazy

Getting small in a big way -- Picture courtesy of Scribner

by blogSpotter
I'm almost finished listening to Steve Martin's memoir "Born Standing Up". Given Martin's driven, extroverted nature the title is nearly an accurate statement. From the time Martin was in a 2nd grade school play, he craved the spotlight and performing in front of big crowds. Martin says that he was shy under normal circumstances, but audiences didn’t bother him. Other disclosures about Martin's early life were not all that exciting. His parents were Glenn, a real estate agent and Mary Lee, a housewife. He was born in Waco but the family moved to Garden Grove California shortly thereafter. Martin revealed that his father was fairly cold and distant and they had a strained relationship.

Martin worked as a teen at the Disney Magic Shop, selling magic kits. Later, he worked at the Bird Cage in Knott's Berry Farm doing a magic act that he'd developed while selling the kits. Early on, Martin wanted to be a serious magician or maybe even a singer. His singing career was blunted in elementary school -- Martin sang "America the Beautiful" for his mother and she laughed so hard that she cried. In his magic act, Martin noticed that people laughed at his comic asides and that he almost got a better audience reaction if the magic trick failed. Gradually, Martin came to see that his gift was with quirky comic irony, and not with magic. His actual emergence into comedy was slow and winding process over the 10 years following high school.

Martin studied philosophy and theater, first at California State and then at UCLA. He never completed a degree since his performing career intervened. He started out with a beard and scruffy clothes, doing left-wing political humor. By his mid-20's, he decided that the political humor was passé and limiting -- he left it completely behind. He honed a more conservative image with a 3-piece white gabardine suit and short haircut. Martin says that he was honoring the advice of an experienced club manager: "Always dress better than your audience".

Martin supplemented his meager stand-up income by working as a comedy writer for The Smothers Brothers, The Glenn Campbell Goodtime Hour and The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour. He landed 16 appearances on The Tonight Show; he was crest-fallen when he heard through the grapevine that Carson thought his humor was too silly. For several of the Tonight Show appearances, Martin was only allowed to appear when there was a guest host. Carson later came around to liking Martin's humor (by the mid 1970's) and actually boosted his career at that point.

Martin tried recreational substances on a couple of occasions, had bad reactions and never touched them again. He actually experienced repeated anxiety attacks as the result of one dalliance with amyl nitrate. He also was a very light drinker, not liking how even one drink could affect his performance. There are details to his biography that will make one envious. He knew the Eagles as they were forming their group -- even offered feedback on the group's name ("Eagles" vs "The Eagles"). He dated Linda Ronstadt at the height of her popularity and he even had Fleetwood Mac as his opening act when he first started to headline at nightclubs.

Martin's personal life has been pretty stable and undramatic, considering the turmoil of his comic persona. He's had two marriages (Victoria Tennant 1986-1994) and Anne Stringfield (2007-present). He dabbles in art and actually has a very serious side to him.

Before signing off, here is some background on his trademark slogans and tactics:
• I'm a wild and crazy guy -- he would go into the routine when his act was bombing; it frequently brought everyone back around.
• Well excuuuse me -- the finale to an act where he told the camera man before the show to ignore his pleas for a spotlight. (very big laugh-getter).
• Arrow-through-head prop -- Part of Martin's act from the beginning; a couple of club owners who didn't get his humor told him to lose it.

The memoir deals mostly with Martin's early career, although his first stint on Saturday Night Live is mentioned (along with the rock star following that resulted). All told, Steve Martin has had a terrific career and life. Someone this complex, brilliant and driven should expect nothing less.

© 2007 blogSpotter

A Roadmap for Primates?

An olive baboon contemplates the importance of being a primate -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Candidate Mike Huckabee was recently quoted saying "if you want to believe you came from a primate, that's your business". The irony here is that humans are primates. We are in the same lineage as lemurs, monkeys and apes. What features do we share with other primates? Here is a short list:

• five fingers on each hand
• generalized dental pattern
• primitive (unspecialized) body plan
• opposing thumbs
• forward-facing color binocular vision
• adaptive to many environments; not overly specialized, omnivorous
• nonaggressive physical build (no fangs, claws or hulking muscles)

The primate's "primitive" body type is what made him the master over other animals. The primate's hands were never transformed into flippers or hooves. Some mammals sacrificed their front limbs for use in locomotion. Carnivorous mammals developed dagger-like teeth and sharp talons for bringing down prey. Primates maintained their hands for multi-purpose tinkering, and their fore limbs were never sacrificed to a single-minded purpose. Oddly, two lowly non-primates, squirrels and opossums, have a survival advantage over more sophisticated creatures like horses and dolphins. Their advantage is from having digits that can grasp, like those of a primate.

What does any of this matter? It has philosophical and theological implications for the amateur naturalist such as me. Neo-Darwinists loathe believing that Evolution moves in any direction, much less in a progressive way towards an 'end game'. The pattern of Evolution suggests that there truly is a direction. Look at our taxonomical system: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Starting from species and working backward, each stratum's most recent entry is further and further into the remote past. Humans (a 'new' species) date back @ 2 million years and a new order probably hasn't occurred in tens of millions of years.

Many religions including Christianity detest believing that humans came from apes. The fossil evidence is overwhelming that we did come from apes and it doesn't particularly bother me to think we evolved that way. In your mother's womb, you progress from a zygote, to a fish-looking embryo, to a squalling newborn. That progression is more dramatic than ape evolution and it happens before our very eyes.

ON BECOMING A NON-PRIMATE

What bothers me is not the idea of 'evolution with purpose' or proximity to apes. What stokes my curiosity is how animals with which we share ancestry branched away from us at some point in time. Dogs and humans probably share an ancestor with a primitive "prosimian" mammal. Humans even share an ancestor with snakes if you travel as far back as the age of salamanders. But at critical junctures, some species forsook the very features that made them potential primates. A lizard mutant lost its legs to become a snake. A prosimian traded hands for paws. It's all neither here nor there you say -- water over the dam.

Let's move the clock forward to more recent evolution. Baboons are a large, successful breed of monkeys -- they rival apes in their intelligence, dexterity and social structure. But the baboon has a dog-like snout, canine teeth and even a bark of sorts. It's also comparatively aggressive. Gorillas are also a very recent evolution. The silverback male can tear a man from limb to limb if so inclined. What strikes me with these two examples is that they violate the "nonaggressive" criteria laid out above. It's as if the primate features serve as a sort of guideline, and straying far in any direction condemns a species to “animalhood”.

Could it be that the “lost souls” of religious stories are not figures burning in Hell, but instead they are the animals that we have as pets and livestock? If Evolution is continuing along this track, there are probably human subspecies that risk spinning away from the primate evolutionary roadmap. Humans have added verbal aggression and lying to the “fangs and claws” listed above as non-primate qualities. Lawyers and car salesmen come to mind. There are also humans who tend toward overspecialization in particular areas (avid swimmers?) or particular diets (vegans?) or particular trades. Could it be that the winnowing process continues its selection based on the primate roadmap?

THE AVATAR

My guess is that the winnowing process is still at work. In describing it, one has to be careful not to slip into the quicksand pit of racism or eugenics – I’m hoping to steer clear of that. My conjecture is that Evolution will continue to refine and define what is to become the “ultimate human”. This process might work in conjunction with man’s own technological achievements. Possibly at a time when man is nearly immortal and no longer even needs to reproduce, the ultimate human will arrive. It won’t be a race or subspecies but precisely one person. In Scott Adam’s “Dilbert Principle” he describes the concept of an Avatar – one wise, knowing man. I’m conjuring to mind a very similar thing.

Religions have this concept particularly in the idea of a Messiah. However the Avatar will most likely be a person with modest mannerisms – not any type of public, bombastic or bragging individual (primate principles, remember). This person will keep his special designation to himself, assuming that he has any outright awareness of it.

AND IN CONCLUSION…

We live in a strange world where religion and science are at irresolvable loggerheads with each other. It’s unlikely that any religion will be proven to be ‘the real’ one. Equally unlikely is that scientists will convince believers that Evolution really occurred. Theists will never convince agnostic scientists that any type of God exists. What is more likely is that each group will go confidently and serenely about its business, tuning out anyone who disagrees. And that one who possesses an ultimate Truth will go quietly about his or her business – making no waves for people who have already decided what the case must be.

© 2007 blogSpotter