Movie: The Namesake

There was enough interest generated in The Namesake movie during its release, Allie and I felt it was worth renting it now. The movie is about an Indian family living their lives out in America. I was disappointed by this movie. Cinematography was annoyingly inconsistent. Some scenes gave too much space above or below the actors. Others where just simply centered on the scene itself, without much regard to where the actors actually were in the scene. Acting was good sometimes, but shoddy at other times.

Some of the scenes lost importance because the acting wasn't up to par. This one scene where the father is trying to have a conversation about life with his son didn't work at all because Kal Penn was trying so hard to be the teenage with angst that it actually distracted from the moment instead of making the moment what it was meant to be (and needed to be) for the film. I would say it was a case of overacting, but I think a better word for it is wrong-acting. Also, other scenes suffered from a lack of acting effort.

Editing was not well conceived or executed. The flashbacks of Gogol's character (Ken Penn) came off as just cheesy. Some scenes were awkwardly cut in order to hold off on that portion of the story until later in the movie. This, unfortunately, made the movie seem like it dragged on, with random spatterings of story telling. Overall, the story felt disjointed, without much reason for why it was edited this way.

The story itself meandered from point to point. There was no real main character, though it was supposed to be Gogol. Most of the movie seemed aimless. Character motivation was poorly executed. Again, Gogol's character kinda just took action that didn't really have a solid explanation. It made the character seem extremely superficial, even as he faced up to his heritage (which I am sure was an unintentional impression by the film maker). Well, either way the story wasn't well written.

The movie appeared to be a jumbled mess. I can't understand what many of the critics saw in this movie. It was a lackluster attempt to show something didn't really end up being all the important to the story (why the main character was named Gogol). This movie seemed to be an independent film for which the big studios wisely did not waste their money. I'm sure I would've cared about this movie more were I of Indian background, but even then I would have to admit it was not an example of good film making.

Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 3 (cutting hair makes is grow back thicker)

"Myth: Shaved hair grows back faster, coarser and darker."

My own experience on this is that it is partially true. It’s not a complete myth. Studies have shown that shaving doesn’t affect hair in that way. Nor do I think the act of trimming hair causes it to grow back thicker and coarser. I do think that how the skin surrounding the hair is treated does have significant impact. I did my own quasi-scientific study on myself when I was an adolescent. In an attempt to grow more hair body hair (being an adolescent trying to speed up the maturity process), I rubbed the skin on my chest aggressively over a period of a few months or so. In the oft chance to see if what I was doing would work, I rubbed one side of my chest more often then the other side. Having seen no immediate hair growth, I stopped this practice. It was about a year later I noticed the results. As hair did start to grow in, it only grew in where I had rubbed my skin months before. Yes, the hair on my chest grew in with the pattern I used to rub my skin. Even today, the thickest portion of my chest hair still vaguely matches the initial pattern I establish during my adolescence.

Another example of the effect of skin treatment is more recent. Although I’m not rapidly balding, I’ve always had a high and somewhat asymmetric hair line at the corners on my forehead. A few years ago, I learned that DHT levels in the skin and body can influence hair growth. It can cause hair to grow in some parts of the body. It can also cause a receding hairline on a man’s forehead too. I started a passive search for products that could affect DHT levels in the skin. In that search, I discovered Nioxin. The brand makes a claim that its shampoo can wash away DHT from the scalp. I tried it. I didn’t see any immediate results. Eventually, I decided to just to use it up. After about six months or so, I kinda started noticing what appeared to be new tiny baby hairs at the edge of my hairline. I decided to try Nioxin out for another few months. I bought more and kept using it. Over the next year, I noticed the hair growing back even more. Now, we aren’t talking about thick new grass on the field. I did perceive the start of a recovery of what I have lost over the past decade.

After awhile, I mentioned to Allie that I noticed a difference. She didn’t believe me. Then one day, she’s looking at me while we are snuggling and all of a sudden she was all like, “Is this all new?” with an amazed look on her face as she ran her fingers along my hairline. At first, I thought she was just she was trying to stroke my ego, so I challenged the comment. But I know her. She’s not the girly type that does that sort of thing. She was being genuine. Since then, my hairline has evened out a bit, and continues to recover at a slow pace.

So, from my own person experiences I can say cutting hair doesn’t change it, but how you treat the skin surrounding the hair does definitely impact it, though it takes a long time.

Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 2 (Eight glasses of water)

As a child, I remember learning that humans need to drink at least eight glasses of water each day. Nowadays, I consider this complete lunacy. In the past year, I saw one “expert” on TV have the balls to say that everyone walks around in constant state of dehydration because we don’t take in enough water. Huh? I don't know about that guy, but in American, there's not too many water-zombies waking around seeking out sources of water to quench their thirsts. I’ve even heard several “experts” declare that we should drink water way beyond the quenching of the thirsty feeling. Again, HUH? I actually did try to drink 8 glass of water for a period of time. Two things happened. First, my body often screamed at me to STOP! Second, there was no difference my health while I was doing this than before doing this or since I stopped.

So, in a poor effort to debunk this myth, it can be argued that the statement should be instead of water, we should be drinking eight glasses of fluid. Again, this is semantics since by fluid, one means water mixed other substances. Technically, mercury is a fluid, but I’d never want anything to drink that. This does mean we don’t need to actually drink all that fluid. We can get our required water in the foods we eat and other types of drinks, such as tea or orange juice. However, I still contend the requirement for eight glasses of fluid or just water is still a bit ridiculous. I’ve never seen a factually supported statement anywhere that says eight glass of anything is required for our health. I consider both the eight glass of water myth to be just crazy. I also consider the attempts to debunk the myth to be its own myth.

Medical Myths and the Myths about those myths - Part 1 (10% of your brain)

There’s a lot of interesting medical myths in pop cultural. However, from my perspective, the myths about these myths can be even more interesting. It was reported that the British Medical Journal ^[1] recently covered the topic of popular culture medical myths. There are many scientific attempts to debunk them. However, I find these explanations for things are themselves myths of sorts. So, here starts a new series of postings where I skim the surface of the myths and the myths about these myths.

As a child, I remember learning that humans only use 10 percent of our brains. This was stated as fact to me by my parents and from many other sources. I now know this is false, in a manner of speaking. I often find the explanation for why it is false to be a little dubious. Often the sited evidence as to why it is false is based on MRI or PET scans that show no dormant areas within our brains. Why is this suspect to me? Well, even though the myth states we only use 10% of our brains, it doesn’t say anything about dormitivity.

Sure, we do use most of our brains over the course of our many experiences in our live. However, at no moment is our entire brain ever fully engaged. In fact, many areas of the brain do have reduced activity. We still have access to these areas when we need them, but when we don’t need them they are not functioning to full capacity. For example, a recent study suggests the reason people think time slows down during extremely frightening experiences is because an area of the brain called the amygdale becomes more active at that time, laying down more memories during those kinds of events in our lives.^[2] The presumption from comparing this information with the debunking comments is that we don’t use all of our brain capacity all the time and that their explanation for debunking the 10 percent brain myth is not complete.

Herostratic fame of Mass Murders

I’m not expert on suicide. My life has been touched by it only vaguely (though I do have one direct encounter with a person who later committed suicide). I do know suicide happens all the time.  People seek this path for various reasons. Given this is a touchy subject; I will focus my comments on the fame seekers, particularly those who commit mass killings and then take their own life.

As morbid as it is, there are people who seek posthumous fame. Sometimes this happens by copycats in certain social circles (such as schools) after the suicide of one person gets a lot of attention. Other times there is an act to get back at society for some perceived wrong. These people seek herostratic fame (fame by doing something horror).

The first great example recorded in history was committed by Herostratus the Ephesian in B.C. 356 when he burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. His name is from where the term herostratic fame comes. When tortured, he confessed he did the deed to immortalize himself. The Ephesians then passed a decree condemning his name to oblivion in order to discourage further such fame seeking attempts. We only know of Herostratus because an ancient historian did mention his name.

Of course in modern times, we have what are called mass murders. These are individuals or groups that typically kill a lot of people in a suicidal attack. There is usually some sort of fame being sought by such people in one fashion or another. In the case of the recent attack by a shooter in Omaha, the killer wrote a suicide letter that specifically expressed his expectation to be famous after committing his heinous deed.

With this incident, mass media is finally questioning the action of publishing the names of these mass murders. A recent AP article sited a media analyst who stated that the media enabled the mass murderer to get his fame posthumously. Additionally, recent articles also have talked about the fact that the new generation growing up right now places much more importance on fame than any previous generation in America.

I personally think it is time for the media to show restraint. It is important to report horrendous events. However, I don’t know the killer. Knowing his name doesn’t change what the killer did, nor does it help me to come to terms with the event. So, why give that person the attention they crave? Why encourage further acts by other persons who are borderline. Right now, someone contemplating a similar act is emboldened by the reporting by the press about the Omaha killer.

Don’t give immortality to individuals who think it can be achieved by committing horrible deeds. One more advantage is that denying immortality to such individuals actual shows respect for the victims and their families. Giving fame to the killer is a bit like dancing on the grave of their victims.

Now, there a disadvantages to keep the name from the public. We live in the Information Age. Speculation would run rampant if names were withheld from the general public. Also, this wouldn’t discourage killers who are more interested in the act of killing rather than fame from it. So, I’m not suggesting mass murders should be completely nameless in the public forum. I suggest that the mass media itself should not name them. I think it is foolish to try to completely expunge a person’s name from the record. If someone wishes, they could look at public records for the name. If a blogger wishes, they can publish the name themself. Either way, only someone who is interested need find the information. There is no sense in feeding the information to everyone, to which knowing the name is pointless. I think this would help discourage people from seeking herostratic fame by the committing of suicidal mass murders or other gruesome deeds.

Fruitcake for Xmas

According to a recent Reuters report, a Christian biologist is suing Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for firing him because he believes against evolution (claiming civil liberties violation). This Christian "biologist" is now working for Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. This strikes me as a bit convenient. This guy gets a job at a respected institute and then reveals he believes against scientific fact after he's hired, and is now working at a religious institution? Hmm, sounds like a set up to me. I wouldn't be surprized if he applied at all the major places hoping to catch a big fish to bring this issue up (knowing that Liberty University or something similar would be available for him to fall back on). He prolly was already conspiring with his religious buddies before he even went to college to get his degree in biology.
Sorry to disappoint, a person who believes against scientific fact does not get protection under the Constitution and modern Civil Liberties as a protected class when it comes to a job that needs acknowledgement of scientific fact in order to perform required tasks, nor is someone that conspires against reality. A person can be fired for what they choose to say Not to mention the fact that believing against scientific fact precluded him from being able to perform his job at a scientific institution!
In good conscience, I don't know how he could call himself a biologist. I would go so far as to note that his biologist degree doesn't have validity if he decries the basis upon which it was based. If he really does believe against scientific fact, he should return his degree to the institution which issued it to him and obtain a new degree in Religious Studies or something.