News Du Jour

I usually try not to simply regurgitate the news of the day, and pour it down your collective throats here at MyndFood, but a few news stories that truly warrant mention here have been piling up in my stack of stuff. So, I thought I'd compile the various stories for you in one fabulous dish...

DISNEYLAND WEIGHS IN
Disney reported a few days ago that Disneyland's trademark ride, everyone's favorite, It's A Small World, will be taken offline, beginning in January, for ten months for some structural updates. What's on the punch list? Most notably, making the "ocean so wide" just a little deeper, and designing "more buoyant" boats.

According to Disney, in recent years, the ride has increasingly been shut down by overweight boats bottoming out. The culprit? The politically correct Disney spokesperson pointed out that, perhaps it has to do with the build up of material in the bottom of the flume due to countless repairs over the years. But the truth of the matter probably has more to do with the fact that the average male adult rider's weight has risen, since 1960, from 166 pounds to 191 pounds. The average woman has jumped from 140 pounds to 164 pounds. On average, a 25 pound jump.

In short, we're overloading the boats. And the boats are getting stuck. So now Disney is going to have to modify the ride.

How long, do you think, before Disney begins charging a premium for admission of overweight guests? Rather, would that be appropriate?

Consider this: I am not substantially overweight (the body mass index says that I could lose a few pounds, but just a few). Shawna is most definitely not overweight. Nor are either Lex or Gentry. Yet, the next time we go to Disneyland, some portion of our admission will go to cover these modifications.

Why? Should we (who are considered "fit") be forced to subsidize modifications made to accommodate overweight folks? Don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against the overweight; some of my best friends and family members are overweight (and I spend a few painful years grossly overweight), so I'm not picking at "fluffy" folks. But I'm not sure that I'm happy about subsidizing their lifestyle.

BECK SNUBS THE KIDS
Reuters reported today that soccer star, David Beckham (whose wife, as you might recall from a prior post, is the only Valley Girl I know of to have come from Britain), arriving at a hotel in Sydney Australia, snubs a group of young cancer survivors who'd gathered to meet him.

To read the story, you'd think that Beckham was a heartless jerk, who couldn't care less about the poor kids who've survived cancer.

When asked about it in a press conference a few moments later, Beckham said, "I would never have done that. Never have done, never will do. I'm more than willing to meet them wherever they want and at whatever time that they want." Apparently, he simply did not see them.

I have to ask myself, why is this news? Further, does it warrant front-page billing on Yahoo.com? Most importantly, though, I find it curious that the media is so quick to crucify Beckham in headlines. I recall a few years ago, singer Elton John, presenting an award to a young actor in Cannes, France, got upset when a reporter interrupted him, and yelled, "I'm talking . . . you *expletive*, *expletive* photographers you should be shot, you should be all shot. Thank you." I don't recall our favorite Knight of the Realm receiving too much criticism from the press (perhaps it's because his sexual orientation makes him untouchable?).

I don't think it's any conspiracy; don't get me wrong. And I don't particularly like or care about Beckham. I just don't understand why this is news; nor do I understand the selective rationale of those who publish the news.

ENHANCING PERFORMANCE
Barry Bonds was indicted a few weeks ago on charges of perjury. The indictment stated that he'd lied, while under oath, to a federal grand jury in 2003 when questioned regarding his use of performance enhancing drugs (steroids). He repeatedly stated that he'd not been provided with, nor had he used, known performance enhancing drugs or lotions.

Apparently, the grand jury has found evidence to the contrary. If convicted of all five counts against him, he faces a combined maximum of 30 years in prison.

Why does our justice system care whether Barry Bonds (or any other athlete, for that matter) uses performance enhancing drugs? We allow them to use performance enhancing shoes and performance enhancing bats. They have performance enhancing mitts and performance enhancing braces and wraps. They drink performance enhancing water, and eat performance enhancing meals. They do performance enhancing exercise and stay performance enhancingly fit.

My point? Consider this: in 1908, the major league batting average was about .245; in 2004, it was about .269. Between 1900 and 1920, there were 13 occasions in which the major league home run leader had fewer than 10 home runs for the entire season; in 1998, Mark McGuire hit 70 home runs in a single season. Why? Because, over time, professional baseball players have learned how to "enhance" their performance. And it's a good thing. We SHOULD learn how to be better at what we do (including playing baseball).

But somewhere, someone decided that creams or drugs, as a performance enhancer, shouldn't be accepted. Further, they determined that if someone used them, they should be charged as a criminal. Why? I honestly don't know. What I DO know is that the justice system spends far too much time and money on things that the American public has no problem taking care of on it's own.

The simple laws of economics say that if there's no demand for a good or service, it's price will plummet. I read somewhere that, even before he was indicted, Bond's was let go by the San Francisco Giants. Why? Because he wasn't selling anymore. Somehow the baseball loving public made known that they weren't interested in buying Bonds anymore; he had no value to them. And the powers-that-are at Giants headquarters listened (because that's what they do).

So why, I ask, does the criminal justice system care? The public has spoken; they've said they don't approve. And teams will listen. There will always (I'm sure) be a few outlaws. But by and large, most players (I'd guess) aren't going to jeopardize their "deal" to "enhance" their performance through means that we, the buyers, don't approve of.

So let baseball be.

Baboons

I couldn't resist. This, my friends, is news.

Lego-As Media?

Found this fascinating video on Yahoo! news:



Do you think those who fancy themselves "real" artists are insulted by this guy?

Jeans are Responsible for What?

Yesterday evening, Shawna and I heard a very strange news blip on the radio. It wasn't on a news station-it was some disc jockey talking in between songs, so it wasn't explained in depth, but the point was that scientists have statistically shown that white-collar workers who wear jeans to work, over the long-term, have better eyesight.

The jockey went on to explain that there was also a strong correlation between jeans in the workplace and employer satisfaction and decreased incidence of heart disease.

Here's their reasoning: jean-wearers have a tendency to get up from the desk more often over the course of a typical workday. This gives their eyes numerous short breaks throughout the day (from staring at a computer monitor), which is enough to keep the eyes from going bad.

Jean wearers, according to the research, since they get up more often, have a tendency to stop by their employers office more often, thus, over time, becoming better acquainted with him, leading to increased satisfaction.

Finally, as jean wearers tend to get up more often, they get more physical exercise while in the office, leading to cleaner arteries, and a lesser chance of heart failure.

To some degree, these are plausible explanations. But, in all cases, I think that they're a classic example of the latin fallacy in reasoning: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. What does that mean? Precisely translated, it means "After this, therefore because of this." Translated into real English, it means, "A happened after B happened, so B must have caused A."

This is a dangerous line of reasoning, although particularly effective-especially for politicians. Let me give you a real-life example, just so you have some perspective.

Imagine with me, for a moment, that I place a post on this blog, and within 2 hours of placing that post, my site count doubles, on an hour by hour basis. It would be a stretch, I think, to assume that, because I just posted, and within two hours, twice as many people are visiting per hour as has been the norm all day long, that my readers must have esp, correct? At this point, there's little correlation-in fact, there's no more than mere coincidence.

But say, hypothetically, that, as an experiment, I mapped out the hour by hour visits, and every evening, at the same time, I posted to this blog. And I tracked the visits, and every evening, almost without fail, in the two hours following the post, the number of visits per hour doubled. Would it then be safer to say that my readers must have esp? Perhaps safer, but it's still a very dangerous assumption.

The truth of the matter is, the simple fact that after I posted, hits went up does not mean that hits went up because I posted. We might ASSUME that-but there's just as much potential-specifically in this case-for that to be untrue as it is to be true.

It's entirely possible-indeed plausible-that the correlation here is no more than coincidence. It could be that most of my readers are employed is a similar capacity to mine-which means they probably get home around the same time I do, go to sleep within a few hours of when I do...which means they're probably going to be reading the blog around the same time that I'm posting to it!

The point here is that correlation does not point to causality! The economy improved a few weeks into G. W. Bush's term as President; is he the causal factor? Unlikely! Yet many politicians would use the old Post hoc ergo propter hoc in this case, to take credit.

Back, though, to the original point. In my mind, these scientific "proofs" are highly suspicious.

Allow me, if I might, to present to you a few equally plausible alternatives (at least in my mind).

Is it possible that individuals who wear jeans to work (in an office environment) are, in general, more laid back by nature? Given that, they're probably not going to feel as pressured by time lines, and will be more likely to spend more time walking around, talking to cohorts, instead of pushing to complete their work. This, of course, would have the same net effect on the employee's eyesight as alluded to above.

Further, it's entirely plausible that bosses in these type of companies are well-liked, simply because their leadership style, their management philosophy (as evidenced by their willingness to allow jeans in the workplace), is very free-very open. Freedom tends to satisfy people enormously.

Finally, though, we have the reduced incidence of heart disease. There are a couple of thoughts here. The first is, could it simply be, again, that the employee is more laid back? Isn't there a strong correlation between stress levels and heart disease? I think so. Further, jean-wearers are typically more "active" folks outside the office. Meaning that they have a great deal of physical activity. So, the wearing of jeans to work doesn't necessarily contribute to the reduced risk, but the fact that they are physical people, as evidenced by their rugged wardrobe at work, leads to decreased risk of heart disease.

My point is this: correlation has nothing to do with causality. Listen with a cautious ear to news reports ascribing a particular event to a specific cause, simply because there was some sort of correlation. Ask yourself, what ELSE might have led to this?

And for God's sake, please do not allow yourself to be conned into thinking that simply wearing jeans to work will make you a happier, healthier individual (and give you a better chance for a raise).

And, oh, one other thing that I've been meaning to tell you: since MyndFood came online, gas prices, nation-wide have, on the average, dropped by about .30 cents per gallon. Thus, I, PJ, the humble writer of MyndFood, am, apparently, responsible, for your saving astounding sums of money on gasoline!

Perhaps, to express your undying gratitude, you might want to head on over to my Amazon Wish List, pick out a book, and send it to me!