For once, some San Franciscians are right

Surprise, surprise, a minority in San Francisco is actually right, and making itself heard.

article

An exhibit showing Chinese bodies and organs is drawing protests from Chinese-Americans who say the display of corpses is offensive to their culture.
Fiona Ma, a Chinese-American San Francisco supervisor, said Friday she is working with city attorneys to draft legislation that will keep exhibits like "The Universe Within" out of the city unless organizers can verify the consent of people who donated the bodies or their families.
"Chinese culture has very strong beliefs about death," said Ma, who represents a heavily Chinese district. "Chinese people are very private and wouldn't want to have their bodies displayed for commercial purposes."
…
The collection of bodies and organs was once used to instruct medical students in Beijing.

Yes, a San Francisco museum is displaying actual, human, once-living corpses. I emphasizes that the corpses are real because I usually have a hard time believing that dead humans would be put on display, and I assume others have the same difficulties. By the way, these bodies were originally donated for science. Makes you reconsider getting a donor card, doesn't it?

A persistent trait in civilization is respect for the dead. In other words, civilized societies will dispose of corpses in meaningful, respectful ways. Obviously, replacing bodily fluids with a plastic and displaying corpses like mannequins for the amusement and curiosity of others is not exactly respectful.
I do not believe that I need to elaborate my opinions, because (I hope) you agree.


Instead, here are 12 other things to do with a corpse:
1: throw them in the passenger seat of the car and enjoy handicapped parking spaces.
2: cut off the feet for surprisingly good doorstops. Toenails need a bit of adjustment to not scratch the door, and sometimes the big toe should be removed, but that's about it.
3: skin can be used for just about everything. Just look at the nazis for ideas (hint: very effective with #4).
4: run a few wires along a spinal cord, attach a bulb, and you have an adjustable desktop lamp. If you want to go the extra mile, you can use the skull as a lampshade; it is usually attached to the spine, so even less work!
5: got a dog? He'll know what to do.
6: Remove a finger with bolt cutters, go to Wendy's, and order chili. DISCLAIMER: SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT NOT GUARANTEED.
7: Put the tongue on a stand and spray water on it every few hours. You'll never have to lick stamps again.
8: Ever see a necklace made of shark teeth? Tell friends that yours is the victim!
9: Why use cruise control when you have a life-size autopilot?
10: put the corpse in a kneeling position, cut at the knees, and enjoy the coffee table. Perfect conversation piece, by the way.
11: if you can stab through ribs, the torso makes a wonderful knife rack.
12: play the proper "trick", and those brats will never stop at your house for Halloween again.

Mid-east has water shortage

What a surprise, the mid-east has problems getting water. Naturally, liberals around the world will demand that "evil western capitalists" (AKA: the US, and only the US) provide free water to everyone.
I have a better idea: 1 gallon of water for 1 gallon of oil. Honestly, the mid-east doesn't use as much water as the western world, so the relatively small amount of water should be sufficient. For example, mid-easterners tend to not take a bath every day, or every other day – baths can be quite rare, actually. Personally, I want my money back from exorbitant oil prices. I think that such a 1-for-1 trade is quite fair, all things considered. In fact, if you look at the price of a normal bottle of water, the mid-east is getting a sweet deal.
This, according to supply-and-demand, is perfect economics. The mid-east has too much oil and not enough water; the US has too much water and not enough oil. I admit, I may be stretching my argument a tad; but, the fairness of the trade still stands. After all, the trade cannot hurt the populace of the mid-east, because money is concentrated in the hands of an elite few. Those elites can afford to lose a few bucks, especially because much of that money is from unfair oil prices.

Your news, nutshelled

Canada is approaching dissolution, as separatists in both Alberta and Quebec grow stronger in response to the ruling Liberal party's corruption and scandals. Conservatives recently lost a semi-no-confidence vote (153 to 152, the last vote was a tiebraker by the liberal Speaker of the House), but are looking forward to the weeks or months that they now have to consolidate support in order to overthrow the Liberal government (that means some party other than Liberals will come to power, it won't be an actual revolution). Alberta, Canada's by-far most successful economy (it has more oil than Saudi Arabia) would likely support a movement to separate from the rest of Canada. Alberta is the only province run by Conservatives; everywhere else has been dominated by Labor or Liberals. Alberta is ticked off that money is being taken from it to support useless social programs in Ontario, a liberal stronghold, like a gun registry (how many Canadians actually have guns?), free daycare, and efforts to keep Quebec in Canada. If Alberta separates, it will be the most prosperous (per capita) nation on Earth. Quebec, the home of the Bloc Quebec party, has attempted to separate for several years, but did not regain momentum until recently, due to Liberal corruption focused mainly in Quebec. The Gomery Inquiry has cited $250 million abused by the Liberals (multiply by ten to convert to American proportions), but the investigation has yet to finish – this is the main scandal/corruption in Canada, though it certainly is not alone. Conservatives and Bloc Quebecies have formed an alliance that leaves them one seat short of enough votes to overthrow the Liberal government, and they will each likely gain seats in the upcoming elections.
Some wonderful summaries here and here, and The Economist has a few comments here.

France is on the brink of rejecting the EU constitution that it helped found. The "non" ("no") side is supported by 52% of those who say they have already made a decision on the referendum, and opposition parties have come out of the woodwork to oppose the referendum. Some of those parties are from the extreme right, which usually operated silently, but held rallies over the last few days; and socialist and communist parties. Many have blamed France's poor economy (10%ish unemployment, slow growth) on the cheaper labor provided by Eastern Europe. President Jacques Chirac himself blamed the former-Soviet satellites for Frances problems until he realized that France could refuse the EU Constitution. Recently, some political leaders have cited France's historic role in the world, rather than just Europe, as a reason to preserve a French identity, rather than a conglomerate European identity. Others have attacked the idea of 450 million Europeans being governed by a group of 18 bureaucrats in Brussels, Belgium.

In Germany, chancellor Gerhart Shroder is seeing his Socialist Democrat party erode. The party suffered a defeat in the powerful North Rhine-Westphalia state (the most populus in Germany) – it had 37% of the vote while the main opposition, Christain Democrats, took 45%. The Social Democrats have lost votes throughout Germany, with most of those votes going to the Christian Democrats. Analysts believe that Schroder is losing support due to his failing welfare reform programs, high unemployment, and near-nil economic growth. Over the last 4 years, German economic growth passed 1% only once. The US has 3-4% growth per year. Schroder has tried to improve the German economy by cutting corporate taxes and improving the business climate, but those efforts had no effect except to shrink Schroder's support. Schroder is expected to continue leading the Social Democrats, and his main competition is Angela Merkel, the expected leader of the Christian Democrats, who will become Germany's first female chancellor if Schroder cannot consolidate his support.
Good article on the subject.

Those are the most important stories of the day, though China's domestic problems also deserve a mention. And, by the way, make sure you watch the Star Wars Episode 3: A Lost Hope spoof. Many times. Probably the funniest 6 minutes of the year.

Britain wants to punish hard workers with more work

"Successful people: we would all be best off if, the day you retire, you slit your wrists with the remnants of your shattered dreams"
Article
Don't you just love the British?

University graduates may be barred from receiving a state pension until they are 70 under proposals from Tony Blair’s pensions supremo to solve the looming crisis.

Adair Turner, head of the government’s Pensions Commission, says lower-paid workers could, however, still retire on a full pension at 65 to reflect their lower life expectancy.

Just one little comment; wasn't that socialized medical system supposed to even out life expectancy?

Back to the point: Britain is telling successful people that, because they manage to stay healthier, they must work longer in order to support the lazy idiots who do not know how to maintain a proper diet. In the US, we reverse this stupid idea: we force the voluntarily unhealthy (like smokers) to pay more to cover the additional costs they put on the medical system. Britain should realize that the people who do not work hard enough to advance through the career ladder should work longer to make up for their lazyness.
Additionally, the change would not be based on income, or anything actually relevant to retirement. Rather, it would be based entirely upon whether or not the person went to a university. By the way, you should take a look at how Britain decides whether or not you can go to a university. I'll give you a hint: it takes the decision out of your hands and gives it to the government. Those who work hard in the British equivalent of highschool (and thus are most likely to work hard for the rest of their lives) go to college, where they work harder. It is almost certain that the college-educated are, by far, the hardest workers in Britain. If retirement age for them, and them alone, is raised, they will be punished for actually achieving something in life.

Frank Field, former Labour welfare reform minister, said: “I think the idea is wonderful, but how do you make it a practical policy?” Sir Malcolm Rifkind, shadow work and pensions minister, said: “Changing the entitlement depending on whether you went to university would not only be wrong in principle but almost certainly unworkable.”

Thank you, Malcolm Rifkind, whom I shall officially entitle "The Smart Briton". I nominate him for King of England! The current king looks like he is chronically stoned (I think he is quite racist, too), and the queen is getting too old to give the monarchy a reason to exist. Do not get me wrong, the Queen has her wits, but not in abundance.

Ironically, the wealthy are far more likely to retire earlier. They would still be free to do this but may not receive any state support until the age of 70.

There is nothing ironic about it. The wealthy can afford to retire earlier, so they will most likely do so on average, especially when government programs are as stupid as those in Britain. If you have $100 million, what can you really do with it? Buy a mansion, and it is blown up by Sinn Fein (Irish terrorist group). In fact, if you try to do anything with it, taxes cut that money into a fraction.


Personally, I do not want any government screwing with my retirement or my ability to go to college. I would rather save my own money and retire how I want to, not how some government official wants me to, because government officials only want their jobs to be easier and to garner as many votes as possible (if they are elected, that is). I do not want any part of my life controlled by some politician who cares only about himself. That is a recipe for disaster.

Spam's not just on the internet

I am not talking about food. I am talking about the "free" credit cards that I get through the mail on an almost daily basis and the "you've won something, give me all your money!" contests. It should be illegal for credit card companies to send those cards to every person in the nation. It should also be illegal to charge more than 10% interest. Just imagine how much money you would save, not to mention the headaches, if credit card companies stopped advertising altogether – internet, TV, newspapers, radio, everything. It seems like half of the non-google internet advertisements are for credit cards, and the rest are all scams.
Speaking of scams, internet access to Indonesia and the Philippines ought to be cut. Most of the credit card orders from those countries are made with stolen cards. In fact, most of the ordered items are from American companies (which then have to bear the costs of everything they sent) – and very frequently small companies that get destroyed by a single $5,000 order with those stolen cards. Yes, Indonesia and the like are hubs for stolen credit cards, not only harming the American credit-card holder, but destroying small companies. My dad owns a small business (pilots supply store, to be exact), and he gets $10,000+ orders from Indonesia at least once a weak – and the people who place the orders have a big stack of stolen credit cards that they go through, often sending about 5 different numbers in the hope that one manages to get through. If nothing else, the CIA should send operatives to take out some of those scammers. Destroy American companies and the future of the company's manager through non-legitimate methods (like competition), and you forfeit your life. I really do not care if it causes an international incident, because Indonesia has been nasty to the US anyway, even when we were saving the lives of tens of thousands after the tsunami. The Indonesian government forced our aircraft carriers miles away from the islands where relief was needed, resulting in much longer flight times (which hurt the tsunami victims), wasted resources, and putting American lives in danger. I can list a dozen other grievous offenses that should not have been ignored, but it is a waste of time. The first is enough. Indonesia is not a friend of America, it is sucking away America's hard-earned resources and destroying the finances of thousands of its citizens.
I have worse complaints about Mexico, but that is for another post.

It is past time for the US to crack down on the activities of credit card companies and on credit card fraud – of all types. Why do I say "of all types"? Because corporations commit credit card fraud, too. AOL is notorious for double-billing customers, and refusing to cancel charges months after subscriptions are cancelled. In fact, AOL made a $500 million settlement with the Security and Exchange Commission to avoid criminal charges. The Security and Exchange Commission needs a whack upside the head for letting AOL get away with stealing from customers. AOL executives should have been sent to prison. But, apparently, punishment is inversely proportional to the amount of money stolen.

If someone is going to steal from me, I at least want them to be a quality, professional con artist, so I at least have an incredible story to tell at Thanksgiving. I am talking about a real artist, the type that has almost ceased to exist. If I do not get around to it soon, please remind me to write a post about how a real con artist works. I have a few historical examples from an interesting book, The 48 Laws To Power, that I believe should be better understood. And, by the way, the show Con is disgustingly fake.

Koran desecration is a right, whether Saudi Arabia likes it or not

It seems that some Muslims are angry about alleged desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. First, I have to quote and re-phrase that quote. Original:

Muslims believe the Koran contains the actual words of God.

translates to: Haha, those simpletons think god actually cares about them. How cute!
Seriously, that looks like a stupid thing to put in an article. It seems to have the exact connotation I described.


Now, I have a knee-jerk reaction to those hard-line protstors who are torching things in the streets: YEAH! How does it feel, you assholes! You like that! HAHAHAHA!!!

Exactly.
After all the "American is the great satan, the satan I tell ya!" and burning of American flags and Bush effigies, I think those extremists deserve the chance to see how it feels. You tried to use the Koran to justify 9/11, you morons, you have no right to bitch when some troops decide they don't like to Koran.

Here is the trick, Muslim fanatics: stop using the koran to justify murder, opression, and the execution of women for entertainment, and maybe Americans will start regarding the koran in a non-negative light. For all I care, the fanaticos can burn all the bibles they want; I willll think they are crazy, but I will not care enough to do anything more than regard them as crazy. But, to these Muslims, anyone who so much as spills some grape juice on the koran should be put through Saddam's industrial plastic shredder. Feet first.


Saudi Arabia announced "deep indignation" at reports of koran-abuse. Saudis, shove it. The minute we pump oil out of ANWR at a decent rate, we are taking all of our troops out of your country. And they won't go quietly, oh no. They will destroy everything that doesn't have an American flag on it (or maybe the white flag, more as a request to not be harmed than a surrender, but we'll be nice about it). We'll be sure to bomb that House of Saud, or whatever the place is that the entire Saudi royal family goes to, several times. They deserve it. In Saudi Arabia, teenagers will grab a knifge and look for Americans to stab when they are bored. That's how extreme the propaganda is. Also, Saudis are told that 9/11 wasn't caused almost entirely by Saudis, they were told that it was either a Zionist plot, or caused by competition between US and British bootleggers (no one has any idea where that last one came from).


Now here is something from Condi Rice that really ticks me off:

Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States,

Listen, Condi: say whatever you like to Saudis to keep them happy. Whatever. The more you lie to them, the better – good rule of thumb to have. But, desecration of the Koran will be tolerated. You are NOT about to take away some of my rights (though this particular one isn't exercised all that much, it relates closely to other forms of freedom of speech), especially because Saudi Arabia is unhappy. If Saudi Arabia is unhappy, GOOD!! The angrier the Saudis get with America, the better. Remember, this is the home country of almost all of the 9/11 highjackers. Saudi Arabia's largest goal is to destroy America. And, Condi, do not call it the "holy" Koran, it is just "the koran". Unless the Koran can encourage some holiness – like not strapping bombs to your chest or car to kill innocent civilians, or killing Jews, or killing women, or killing infidels, or killing Muslims who are not in your particular sect – you know what, when you just stop killing people and using the Koran to justify it in general, the US government can consider tagging "holy" onto "Koran". At its present state, the Koran has relatively little holy to it. Hate to say that to the good Muslims, but, sorry; you are being silent while radicals are taking over your religion. Want some respect and to be separated from fanatics? Then separate yourself from the fanatics as quickly and completely as you can!


I think I am the first one to give any justification for the desecration of the Koran, or defend the right to do such, which is a bad sign. Where are the people with balls who go on the media and expose idiots for their hypocrisy?

Doing Intel Right

I meant to write about this a while ago, but I never got around to it, until I wondered why I tagged "MUST BLOG ABOUT" on the link in my favorites menu (which has about 500 links in total, so "important" and "MUST finish reading" are rather common). After re-reading a few paragraphs, I remembered how excellent this article is, and how much it actually changed the way I think.
Herbert E. Meyer on Intelligence on National Review Online

I'll quote the most-summarizing parts that I can, but don't use these as an excuse to not read the entire article. Since I quote most of the article, you're best off reading the real thing at the link, but I'll quote anyway so that I have something to more clearly reference.

Since the National Intelligence Estimates were the most important products of all — they are the judgments and projections that reflect the combined wisdom of all the dozen or so agencies that comprise the intelligence community — Casey poured a lot of energy into getting the estimates right.
My job was to manage production of these estimates, and one day early on Casey issued these instructions: "Look, I want the president to see where we disagree and to understand what the argument is about. Sometimes these guys at the Defense Intelligence Agency have a very solid point but they don't say it very clearly. They're soldiers, not wordsmiths. When they come in with a dissent, you go meet with them. Understand what they're driving at, then write it yourself and clear it with them. Then let's put the dissents in italics in the estimates so that no one can miss them."
Casey was never bothered when an estimate read like a shouting match and revealed that the intelligence community was split wide open on an issue. And if the finished product didn't reflect his personal judgment, he could always send an "eyes-only" memo to the president and know it would be read.
In addition, we often bounced the drafts of our estimates off experts from outside the intelligence community. Over the decades Casey had accumulated an astonishing rolodex of contacts throughout the world in business, politics, government, and academia. I also knew a few people. When we had the draft of an estimate in hand, we would sort through our rolodexes and then arrange one-on-one meetings with whomever we thought was knowledgeable about this particular issue. Sometimes we would meet in Casey's office — and the analysts were always circling outside, looking worried that the expert would tear their work to shreds. More often — and the analysts never knew this — we would meet with an expert in the evening, at Casey's house or at mine. On a couple of occasions I went overseas to meet with an expert whose opinion we really wanted. We couldn't show the classified estimate draft to the expert, but we didn't need to. We just walked him or her through the draft. (And since these people weren't stupid, they understood precisely what we were doing.) We would come away from the conversation either confident that we were on solid ground or queasy enough to take the draft apart to see where we might be going wrong. Every so often, we wound up shredding the draft completely and starting all over again.
Even with all this, it's possible to go wrong because we humans have a tendency to hear what we want to hear and to filter out whatever doesn't suit us. So we had an internal "fail-safe" system to minimize the chances that we would be so much in love with our own judgments that no inconvenient fact could stop us. It was called the senior review panel (SRP) and it was composed of four savvy and immensely experienced individuals whom Casey had cajoled out of retirement to lend a hand. Among the four — membership in the SRP changed over time, of course — were one of the State Department's most revered career ambassadors, an Army general who had spent much of his active-duty service in military intelligence, and a former CIA officer who knew his way around the ultra-secret world of satellites and electronic intercepts.
…
If you've been a diligent reader of recent articles and commentary about the intelligence business, you probably have the impression that collectors collect what they can, then forward their reports, intercepts, and photos over to the analysts — who then read through all this stuff until their eyeballs bleed. This is a formula for disaster. If you don't have a clear grasp of what you're looking for, it's virtually impossible to discern a pattern from the overwhelming torrent of information that's washing over you. Just imagine standing in the middle of a Wal-Mart, realizing you've left your wife's shopping list on the kitchen table — and hoping that if you just walk up and down the aisles you'll somehow figure it out.
Here's how the intelligence business really works: You start with a hypothesis, which is a leap of imagination based on your expertise, your judgment, and your "gut-feel" about what you think is really going on. Then you figure out what you would expect to find if your hypothesis is correct, and you convey all this to the collectors so they can get to work.
…
Of course, there are dangers in developing a hypothesis and telling the collectors what you want. They can try to please you by providing whatever bits and pieces they can find, even though these bits and pieces aren't an accurate reflection of the truth. Or, if the collectors cannot find the indicators you are seeking, you can cling to your beloved hypothesis and blame the collectors for their inability to find what you know is really there — rather than admit that your hypothesis is just plain wrong. It's always a judgment call, which is why it's so important that the individual in charge has not only brains, but intellectual integrity.
And sometimes, everything depends on a director who has all this, and also the courage to go with his instinct — that un-quantifiable gut feel for where the big payoff lies. One of Casey's great predecessors was John McCone, whom President Kennedy made DCI after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco. McCone was an older version of Casey — savvy, street-smart, knowledgeable about the world and Washington, deeply religious, seriously rich. The two men liked each other a lot, and from time to time McCone — frail but razor-sharp — would stop by for a chat. One day after the two had finished their private conversation and Casey had left the building for a Cabinet meeting, McCone had some time to spare and he very kindly stopped to talk with me. Our conversation turned to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and McCone told me a story I'd never heard before.

As the crisis built and as members of Congress were warning that Khrushchev was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba that could reach the U.S., the CIA bureaucracy insisted that there were, in fact, no Soviet missiles in Cuba. McCone ordered that a U-2 flight be sent over the island to find out, one way or the other. It would be a dangerous mission — obviously dangerous to the pilot, less obviously a potential causus belli if the spy plane got shot down and Congress demanded that the U.S. retaliate — and opposition to sending the U-2 was strong at the CIA and the Pentagon. McCone insisted, the U-2 flew, and when the film it took was developed and studied by the experts, there were no missiles. McCone ordered a second U-2 flight, and the opposition was even more ferocious. But he insisted, the mission was flown and — again, no missiles. I asked McCone what happened next. "Oh, my," he said. "I'm afraid I wasn't very popular in Washington that week, because I ordered a third flight." And when the film from that third flight showed no missiles, McCone ordered a fourth, and then a fifth. It was the sixth U-2 flight that found the missiles, and the rest is history.
(McCone sent the additional flights because "he knew, just knew, those missiles were there")

Intelligence isn't org charts. It's people. Put the wrong people in charge and they will screw up no matter how perfectly our intelligence community is structured. Put the right people in charge and they will overcome whatever structural flaws there may be and get the job done. The future looks very promising. President Bush's choice for the new post of director of national intelligence is Ambassador John Negroponte, one of the most experienced and effective diplomats in American history. His deputy will be General Michael Hayden, who has been running the National Security Agency and who knows the collection business upside down, backwards and forwards.
…
But if all their time and energy is drained away messing with budgets, fighting turf wars with the Pentagon and the now-downgraded CIA, testifying before the dozen or so congressional committees that have intelligence-oversight responsibilities, and coordinating the agencies that comprise the intelligence community, they won't have any time or energy left to do the one thing that will actually make a difference in the quality of the intelligence delivered to the president and his top advisers: to sit quietly in their offices, alone, with the draft of an estimate in one hand and a pencil in the other, weighing the estimate's evidence and conclusions, then matching what they are reading with their own judgment, experience, and instincts.
Their success will depend not on their administrative skills, but on their talent for "doing Intel" right. So will our lives.

OK, so that's a lot of quote.
I don't think I can write anything comparable to the above, so I won't try.

Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona

article

U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

In short, it looks like the Minutemen project was wildly successful. However, many idiots think it would be a bright idea to have an "immigrate now, registerr later/never" policy. I think that it may be about time for sizable donations to be sent to the Minutemen, or a similar group, and allow them to act as permanent border guards. That would get Congress of its ass. Anyway, it's great to see some acknowledgement that the Minutemen did a good job.

Phantom of the Opera - 7 of 7 Stars

I just rented the DVD, and it's excellent. I can't imagine what it would sound like with a good surround sound system. Some of you are probably wondering why I picked "7 of 7 stars", rather than the more traditional 4 or 5, or the occasional 10. 5 doesn't convey the difference between very good and excellent/great, while 10 is way too broad. Don't get me started on 4 stars – that leaves no room for "eh, kinda good, I guess", much less distinction near the extremes.
Anyway, Phantom of the Opera is a great DVD. The direction is magnificent (only one short clip, about 1.5 seconds long, do I think really should be removed, though it probably has significance that I don't know about), the music is unbeatable, actresses are hot, and it sounds magnificent. The movie also has a fairly well-choreographed swordfight, though that's not the most dramatic part of the movie. Phantom of the Opera makes you wonder how the daily TV soap operas survive in comparison.

In short: rent the DVD, and if you haven't set up your surround sound system yet, this is the time to do it.

Iraqi Sandstorm

some excellent pictures




When this is the worst news from Iraq, we know the US strategy is going well.

The workings of the human brain

I have always been fascinated by the workings of the human brain. Not psychology or philosophy, really, but more on the actual neurological processes and 'physical' workings, though the subjects have countless connections. So, I will devote today's post to describing the human brain. I will recommend this book, though I have read only the pages provided freely by Amazon.com.
Your brain contains around 100 billion neurons, which send information. These neurons are most densely concentrated in the outer layer of the brain, which is wrinkled in order to allow more surface area. This additional surface area is important because the brain has acute needs; the more places that chemicals can be fed into the brain, the more that can be crammed into that area. These neurons are linked by synapses – millions of billions of synapses, in fact. Thus, each neuron is only a few degrees of separation from any other (any neuron can send data to any other by routing it through maybe two or three other neurons, if not directly). These links are strengthened by repetition – indeed, many links are formed when a task is done repeatedly and the brain can make this process more efficient by forming new, more direct synapses.
Many of the brain's neurons specialize in processing of sensory information – sight, sound, taste, ect. – but the processors of different senses have linked together. Thus, taste and smell are very closely linked, while sounds can cause you to 'feel' something that actually does not exist – a Bose speaker demonstration capitalizes on this to proclaim the quality of their most expensive surround-sound system (in this case, you hear a thunderstorm and rain, and see flashes of lightning on a screen, and you start to 'feel' the moisture that would be in the air during a real storm). These links are supplemented by memory, which will fill in gaps to supplement information that is outside the norm (like hearing and seeing a storm yet not getting wet). This also allows you to 'feel' in dreams just as much as you can 'see' and 'hear' in dreams, despite what popular myths about pinching oneself claim. All humans dream, whether they know it or not – memory of dreams can fade very quickly, unless one realizes during the dream that they are dreaming (this is called lucid dreaming), in which case the memory may be preserved in a way more like memories from waking life.
The reason that humans, and many other animals, dream is not well understood – I believe animals other than humans dream because my dog occasionally kicks or whimpers in his sleep. When asked "why", the most common answer is about REM (Rapid Eye Movement, a stage of sleep that lasts only a few minutes at first and occurs several times during the night – the later occurrences last much longer –, during which the eyes move rapidly), the period during which most or all dreams are believed to occur. REM, however, has far more to do with when than why. It is during this REM period that parts of the brain activate as though the person were awake – some parts of the brain may even be more active than they are in the awake person.
Humans may dream, as Freud suggested, to vent basic impulses of the human subconscious, but this implies that only the seriously troubled dream (as they would have the strongest urge to vent), which is far from true. Another leading theory is that dreams allow a person to practice a reaction to threats. This would explain reoccurring dreams of war veterans, as such dreams may be an attempt to give the veteran a better chance of surviving a similar event in the future. This argument also is supported by the fact that it may be an evolutionary trait – more practice against threats would surely allow a person to fare better. However, this explanation also leaves much to be desired. Another theory is that chemicals produced during the dreaming process, but produced infrequently during the rest of sleep, are important to maintaining the body – such as maintaining body temperature.
It is generally believed that much of the subject matter of dreams in illogical and incoherent. Nearly all dreams last minutes (between a few and as many as 40), even though they may seem to go on for hours. The brain may draw from memories in attempts to put the incoherent subject matter into a rational context, which would explain how a dream can seem to last so long.

Back to the neurons. Your brain likes to make things efficient. Thus, it will delete memories, or reuse one memory for several similar events – this is why you can always remember having turkey at Thanksgiving but have no idea what you talked about at the table, or who you sat next to, unless everyone has the same seat every year. Additionally, there is a 'memory curve' – people tend to forget the most after a few days, and forget less per day over the following weeks and months. Repetition or reinforcement of the memory over the first few days can greatly increase its completeness and longevity – this is why cramming the night before an exam has little effect compared to a week or more of studying. Occasionally, the brain will alter a memory, and the person will be unaware of the inaccuracy, and it can sometimes create false memories. One particular test of the later included having participants (who thought they auditioned for a commercial) asked if they had met Bugs Bunny when visiting Disney World as a kid. The participants were split into groups, one acted in a commercial with no mention of Bugs, one was in a commercial with a cardboard cutout of the bunny, one read a script that mentioned the 'waskally wabbit', and one had both the cutout and the script mention. About one third of the Bugs-script readers said they remember meeting Bugs at Disney World, or were certain that they had met him; while about 8% of the no-Bugs or cutout-only group claimed to have met Mr. Wabbit. One problem: Bugs is a Warner Bros. character, and would never be seen in Disney World.



That's the post for today. Perhaps, further commentary on the subject will come soon.