San Antonio: Remember the Alamo

~Here’s part two of pictures from my recent family trip to San Antonio, Texas.  Naturally, a top tourist attraction, and the heart of the city, is the Alamo.  Here it is in all of its beat-up glory:

 

^ The area that is now Texas was once part of Mexico, and many Americans immigrated there to build farms and ranches.  They brought their slaves with them, but unfortunately for them, Mexico outlawed slavery when it became independent from Spain in 1821.  The first solution to this problem was for the settlers to declare their slaves (~5,000 by 1836) indentured servants for life.  The second solution (and for numerous other reasons) was to declare independence from Mexico, launching the Texas War for Independence in 1836.

Just before full independence was declared, soldiers from the Provisional Government of Texas seized the Alamo, which at the time was a large compound surrounded by an outer wall that would today occupy a significant chunk of downtown San Antonio (the Alamo is smack in the middle of the city).  We all know the rest of the story, immortalized as it is in American mythology: the Texans, led by Davy Crockett, temporarily hold the Alamo against a much larger Mexican army, fighting to the last man against impossible odds.  “Remember the Alamo!”

Inside, the Alamo isn’t really a museum; there are only a few artifacts (such as Crockett’s rifle) and a diorama of what the Alamo compound originally looked like.  Just outside, however, is the Museum of the Alamo, which, from what I could tell, consisted of a gigantic gift shop.  I guess it’s not history unless you commercialize it.

Interesting fact: a Hyatt hotel in downtown San Antonio near the Alamo was originally planned to be much taller than it is today, but had to be scaled back after it was determined that the hotel would cast a shadow over the Alamo.

 

^ Of course, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t seek out the nearest library wherever I go.  This is The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library, build near the Alamo in 1950.

 

^ The library from the front.  Inside it holds an impressive collection of historical documents & maps relating to the history of Texas from its years as an independent nation, including one of the original signed copies of the Texas Declaration of Independence.  The library staff and volunteers were very pleasant and helpful.

 

^ Dad again, relaxing on a bench in the pleasant garden outside of the library.  He’s a cool guy, isn’t he?

 

^ Both of my adorable parents, in front of a statue of a giant rooster.  The area in the background is an artists’ workshop in the La Villeta Historic Arts Village.

 

^ A sign on the Fig Tree Restaurant in La Villeta.

 

^ A Predator taking a break from hunting to mingle among the lowly humans.  Actually, this is a wax sculpture displayed at the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Plaza Wax Museum near the Alamo.  I wonder how the Texan (and Mexican) soldiers during the battle would have reacted to this fellow, using his invisibility shield and plasma cannon, hunting among them?  Gotta sell that idea to Hollywood…

 

^ A river tour by night.  Clearly not as popular as the daytime tours.

Pictures from both birthday celebrations to follow!~

The More the Merrier

~The furor over the recent Arizona law intended to catch illegal immigrants has largely died down over here in North Carolina, although with the election in a few days I imagine it’s still an important issue in Arizona.  Among other provisions, the new law (originally Arizona Senate Bill 1070, now the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”) requires police officers to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants, and, if they fail to produce valid documentation, to arrest them. 

Emotions on this law are very strong on both sides.  Some people say this is tantamount to racist fascism, requiring people of Latino descent – even if they are U.S. citizens – to carry documentation (“papers, please”), at the risk of arrest if they are unable to produce it.  But on the other hand, Arizona does have large and increasing problems stemming from illegal immigrants, especially with violence spilling over from the all-out war between competing drug cartels just over the border.  Many Arizona residents feel very frustrated over ineffectual federal border enforcement and increasing drug & gang violence, so their support for tough new rules is understandable.

But regardless of what you think about the new law, it’s very interesting – and revealing – to discover some of the forces behind its drafting and adoption.  As the following story from National Public Radio demonstrates, lobbyists working for private prison companies were a strong influence on Arizona legislators, “suggesting” much of what the bill would eventually become.  The reason is obvious: these companies stand to make (and now, are making) huge amounts of (taxpayer) money by providing prison services to house the many new illegal immigrants to be rounded up as a result of the new law. Read (or listen to) the whole story here:

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law

[...on the other hand, this story is from National Public Radio, which has caught a lot of flak recently over firing a contractor for his remarks on Fox News.  So if you think that because of that (and a asinine comment from the NPR CEO) NPR has lost all credibility, should lose all public funding, secretly hates America, etc., feel free to ignore the above story.  Corrections Corporation of America thanks you for your ignorance.]

Some might argue that if CCA can incarcerate illegal immigrants for cheaper than it would cost to pay for a state-operated prison, then that’s a good thing.  But that’s a very short-sighted view that ignores one of the key underlying causes of more illegals being incarcerated at all.  In this case, private prison lobbyists have pushed laws to generate more business (i.e. imprison more people) then they had been doing before the law was passed.  Regardless of whether of not CCA can incarcerate more cheaply per prisoner, it’s money that they would not get at all without the new, stricter immigration enforcement law.

Would Arizona have passed such a strict law without corporate "suggestions"?  Maybe, maybe not.  Should companies that stand to profit from certain laws being passed be allowed to influence those laws?  Absolutely not.  The bottom line: whether or not you agree with the morality/constitutionality of the new law, the private prison industry has succeeded in extracting a new and potentially very large revenue stream straight from the pockets of Arizona taxpayers.

San Antonio: The River Walk

~Last weekend, I went on a voyage to San Antonio, Texas, to meet some of my relatives, in honor of my paternal grandmother's 80th birthday.  Here are some pictures from the trip:

^ The River Walk of San Antonio.  Constructed by the WPA in 1939, this is one of the city's most scenic attractions: a series of walkways and canals along the San Antonio river.  It's lined with bald cypress trees, flowers, restaurants, shops, hotels, and other attractions.  

In the above picture, the river is only three feet deep; once a year for a week, the entire system is drained and cleaned out of the debris that has accumulated over the past year.  Apparently, riverfront hotel rooms are very cheap that week.

^ Flowers along the River Walk.

^ One thing you must do in San Antonio is take a boat tour of the River Walk.  It's relatively short and a fun way to learn more about the history and attractions of the river.  The people in the above image are all members of my extended family... 

^ ...but who's that fellow with the awesome hat?

^ This bird was eying us as we were waiting for the boat tour to begin.  I imagine he lives off of the largess of tourists.

^ One of the many pedestrian bridges that go over the river.

^ The Aztec Theater, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

^ A mural on the wall of the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center (click on it for a closer look).  It represents the meeting of cultures of America and Europe, with America on the left and Europe on the right, and the child in the middle being, of course, San Antonio.  The motto Libertatis Cunabula is Latin for "Cradle of Liberty" and appears on the San Antonio coat of arms.

^ The Rivercenter mall.  Not the largest shopping mall in San Antonio, but probably the best-looking.

^ The sign of the Rainforest Cafe along the River Walk.  What a great sculpture!

^ Right outside of the hotel we stayed at, there's a small, heart-shaped island along one side of the river, connected by a small footbridge.  Appropriately named "Marriage Island", It's among the most popular places to get married in the city, with around 300 weddings held here annually.  The above picture shows a sculpture on the island.

 ^ A sculpture of Saint Anthony along the River Walk.  "San Antonio" is Spanish for "Saint Anthony", and the city and river were named such because a Spanish expedition stopped to rest in the area in 1691 on the 13th of June, which is the feast day of St. Anthony of Padua in the Catholic Church.

^ A historical marker on a wall next to the River Walk.  "Old Mill Crossing -- Last Known Place Where Horses Drank And Forded The River.  Dedicated to the memory of our fathers.  Erected by the daughters of Texas Trail Drivers."

^ Another example of the lush foliage found along the River Walk.  Maintaining this is a lot of work: city gardeners periodically ride boats along the river and water the plants by pumping river water through hoses.

^ One of the many fountains along the River Walk.  To keep the canals from becoming stagnant, the water is continuously recirculated through fountains and artificial waterfalls.  As a result, the water does not stink, and there are very few mosquitoes (since they lay eggs in stagnant water).

^ One of the many colorful restaurants along the River Walk.

Next: more photos from San Antonio, including the Alamo and the birthday party.  Stay tuned!

The Origin of Job Interviews

~Apparently, some things were not so different back then:

Terror Management Theory

~Terror Management Theory (TMT) is an interesting idea I've run across recently in the field of social psychology.  The theory was inspired by anthropologist Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death (1973), which posits that most of what people do is done as reaction against the knowledge of their own mortality.  In other words, most of the things we do every day are ways of distracting ourselves from the idea that one day we won't be around anymore.  These actions include such trifles as civilization, culture, religion, reproduction, etc.

TMT focuses on the emotional reactions of individuals when confronted with their own mortality.  Two interesting hypotheses have arisen out of this psychological research.  The first is the "mortality salience hypothesis", which posits that as people are confronted with the idea of death (for example, news of a natural disaster, war, bombing, etc.), they will increasingly identify with their culture as a way of boosting self-esteem and thereby forcing away thoughts of their own mortality.  "Culture" in this sense refers to whatever one identifies with: nation, tribe, religion, job, sports team, whatever.  The "anxiety-buffer hypothesis" simply states that self-esteem (which is bolstered by identification with culture) serves as a buffer to insulate people against the anxiety of eventual death.  There have been a number of interesting research studies that support these hypotheses.

Some evolutionary psychologists have been critical of TMT, because it goes against the idea that behavior changes in response to environmental challenges to facilitate survival and reproduction, whereas in TMT behavior is motivated by the terror of death.  But I don't see a conflict, simply because humans occupy a unique niche in the evolutionary tree of life: we're the only creatures that have the mental capacity to be aware of our mortality.  Other animals may be saddened by the death of another, but it's unlikely that they think to themselves "Oh no, that will be me one day!"

This is hardly a new concept. The Epic of Gilgamesh concerns the exploits of King Gilgamesh of Uruk to achieve immortality after he becomes enraged by the knowledge that one day he will die (making the fear of mortality literally the oldest story ever written).  Similarly, in the first book of the Bible, man is said to eat of the "tree of knowledge" and is cursed with the knowledge that one day he will die.  Out of that impending knowledge of death and the need to "live" beyond our lifetimes we eventually get civilization, culture, reproduction, religion, work, and all sorts of other fun things to keep us from ever really thinking too much about that dark knowledge that lurks deep down  inside each and every one of us, that terrifying question: "Must I die too?"

But hey, it could be worse!  After all, do you really want to live forever?  And an immortal life would be rather dull without the very distractions people have made to avoid contemplating their deaths in the first place.  Terror Management Theory, while not perfect, does offer an interesting explanation for why people behave they way they do when they become afraid of the specter of their unavoidable death, and how this fear is exploited by politicians and other scruple-less people and groups to control the fearful masses.

So the next time you're confronted with mortality (perhaps on the news, hopefully not in your own life), take a moment to consider your own reaction and how you feel about whatever it is you identify with before and after the event.  Remember that there is no "right" or "wrong" reaction; it's simply something to be aware off.  And of course, something to do to keep your mind off of a certain concept...

Badgers?! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badgers!

~Don't let the cutesy name fool you: the Honey Badger, native to the Kalahari Desert in Africa, is one of the most fearless and tenacious land animals in the world.  See for yourself:



Sure, the hangover is a bitch, but there's nothing like some delicious, delicious adder venom to unwind after a long day of hunting and digging.

The Best Chemistry Video Ever

This requires no explanation.  Enjoy.

Super Mario Bros. Theme on Violin

~If I were an eccentric billionaire, I would hire this man (white tux and all) to play the violin for me while I play Super Mario Brothers with the sound turned off:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 8

~The next lecture in Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide is on the subject of reproductive screening. This practice is highly controversial, in some ways even more so than abortion, because it plays upon our imaginations with questions of what might be and what could be. Some people believe that failing to screen is irresponsible, while for others, the practice is horrific and nothing less than a crime against humanity.

So what is this "screening", anyway, and what's the big deal about it? Prenatal screening (or antenatal screening) is testing for diseases or conditions in an embryo or fetus before it is born. There are many ways to do this, ranging from DNA analysis of a fertilized embryo in a lab prior to implantation, to taking blood samples from a fetus in the womb, to the use of ultrasound. Broadly speaking, there are invasive procedures (which involve taking actual samples from a fetus), and non-invasive procedures (just about everything else).

The reason that people have screening performed is that it provides an enormous wealth of information on the future child. With our knowledge of genetics growing every day, screening tests allow parents to learn not only the possible medical conditions and abnormalities their future child may have, but also broad physical characteristics such as hair color, expected height, and of course gender. The ability to determine mental characteristics such as intelligence may not be far off, although the complexity of that subject merits a discussion all of its own.

Screening is most often used by affluent individuals or ethnic groups who are genetically predisposed towards a certain defect. The classic example are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews, whose offspring have a significantly higher chance than most other groups for Tay-Sachs disease, a painful and incurable genetic disorder that kills by around age four. Successful prenatal screening can prevent children from being born with this disease. Other disorders commonly screened for include neural tube defects (such as spinal bifidia) and Down's Syndrome.

So now we come to the mind-boggling ethical dimensions of this technology. The potential uses (and misuses) of this technology are tremendous. The key question is: what should we, as a society, allow in screening? Here are some questions that you should consider:

• Is there a moral difference between screening (and discarding) an embryo in a lab, and screening (and aborting) a fetus? Why or why not?
• Is it acceptable to screen for fatal genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs disease? Or should we accept and cherish all children, knowing in advance how short and painful their lives will be?
• Is it acceptable to screen for non-fatal genetic disorders? What about spinal bifida, which is not fatal but causes paralysis and requires extensive surgeries? What about Down's Syndrome?
• Should financial considerations play any role in screening? Do more affluent families bear greater responsibility to raise children with serious defects? Are less affluent families justified in choosing not to have such children because they cannot pay for the necessary care?
• Is it acceptable for would-be parents to screen for a desired gender or specific physical characteristics? Why or why not?

As you can see, the corollary to the main question of what we should allow is, where do we draw the line? We can say we don't want to allow screening based on, say, hair color, but we can hardly force a woman to implant an embryo inside her if she doesn't want to do it, now can we? Ultimately, this comes down to one more question: to what extent does that state have the right to withhold information from parents?

By this I mean that any regulation of screening will ultimately involve forcing a reproductive screening technician to not tell his or her client(s) certain information about their future child. Technicians might know the gender, hair color, eye color, height, intelligence, predisposition to Alzheimer's, etc. of the child, but should they be allowed to tell the parents all of this if it might influence the decision to have or not to have the child? Or does this kind of enforced regulatory ignorance undermine the very personal decision to reproduce in a free society?

Most discussions about screening are saddled with the historical baggage of eugenics. In the old sense of the word, eugenics was a Social Darwinist belief adopted by certain state and local governments to "improve" society, primarily through the sterilization of those deemed defective or otherwise inferior by those in power. Exactly what constitutes inferiority, and how far some governments were willing to go (i.e. Nazis) varied broadly. Today, most of us would consider the forced sterilization of certain social groups to be abhorrent, but unlike old-style eugenics, screening is (at least for now) a personal decision. Ultimately, state regulation of screening will be not about forced use (i.e. mandatory sterilization), but forced restriction (of the use of screening and information divulged to parents).

I imagine those who consider the question of screening fall into three categories:

1. Moral/religious absolutists, who are absolutely against all types of screening, period. This category also includes those who simply don't want to deal with the challenges this technology brings, and hope that it can be legislated into nonexistence.
2. Those who think screening is acceptable, but only for severe or fatal genetic conditions.
3. Those who think screening should be left entirely to parents, without any restrictions.

So ask yourself: where do you fall in this spectrum, and why? As for myself, I (like most, I imagine) fall into category 2. I don't have a problem with screening for severe defects, but I don't think people should be allowed to screen for specific characteristics or genders. My reasoning on this is not so much that it is somehow morally "wrong", but that perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to get rid of "defects" that, while detrimental to the individual, may offer benefits to the group. Consider the resistance to malaria granted by the otherwise-painful condition of sickle-cell anemia, not-so-coincidentally found highest amongst those of African descent (malaria still being a major problem in Africa). Or the surprising resistance to cancer among those with Down's Syndrome. Pardon my rapier-edged verbal wit, but I think we must be careful not to throw the genetic baby out with the bathwater.

There is another reason we ought to be very careful in selecting physical traits via screening. In his book Our Posthuman Future, Francis Fukuyama suggests after a few generations of unrestricted access to this technology, you'd be able to tell from looking at someone whether or not they're a product of screening. Will this create a sort of genetic aristocracy, with pretty, smart, healthy "genrich" on one side and everyone else on the other?

As bizarre as that outcome may sound, I believe that a discussion of screening forces us to confront a far more immediate problem. Although I have said that this technology, like the others in this course, remains the province of the wealthy, they are becoming increasingly accessible throughout the world (consider the use of ultrasound in sex selection in dirt-poor rural India that I discussed previously). Increasingly, health insurance plans, whether public or private, are offering options for prenatal screening. As access to information about our future children becomes increasingly available (and in increasing detail), we must re-examine this question: does society have any obligation to support families of children with severe genetic problems? This becomes especially problematic if the child is known to have problems in advance, but the parents choose (or are forced) to have it anyway. Many would applaud (and enforce) such a decision, but without considering whether they and the rest of society bear any obligation to help out. Do they?

In the United States, the answer is no. If a child is born with a severe defect, treatable or otherwise, it's up to the family to meet the often-exorbitant medical costs. If the family is not wealthy, health insurance/medicaid and charity may cover treatment, or it may not. This sort of thinking makes a lot of people uncomfortable and inevitably descends into political squabbles about the viability or lack thereof of national/socialized health care systems. Those who argue against such coverage for children adopt a fatalistic approach: people have been having children with problems for all of history, and society responds with charity and so forth, but it's the responsibility of the parents to care for whatever child they have. If the child receives inadequate treatment, it's the fault of the parents (unstated: for being poor yet reproducing), not the fault of the child.

Do you think this is a good answer? Does charity always meet the needs of children with medical problems? Should a child pay the consequences of being born into the "wrong" family if they need treatment but can't get it? Is that Just The Way Things Are, and The Way They'll Always Be?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as one of the world's most brilliant astrophysicists, but he developed Lou Gehrig's disease which has almost completely paralyzed him. He once said that,

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS [National Health Service]...I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Consider: if Stephen Hawking's embryo (or any embryo of a child with a genetic defect) had been screened before his birth, do you think his parents would have felt more pressure not to have him if they were not assured (via the NHS) that their child would receive care?

Or consider the case of the Girl Without A Face (no, I'm not providing you with a link. Google it yourself if you want to, but be warned: you may find your belief in a benevolent deity shaken, and find it difficult to sleep tonight). Juliana's parents are fortunate in that her father works for the U.S. Federal Government, and thus has excellent health insurance to at least partially cover Juliana's incredibly expensive surgeries, but what if he didn't have such coverage? Would it be okay, or just The Way Things Are, for her to die because of it? Or for the family to be bankrupted into oblivion?

I don't have any answers to these questions, but the increasing use of prenatal screening will only exacerbate the question of society's obligation, or lack thereof, to provide medical care for some, none, or all. We can't stick our heads in the sand by trying to outlaw screening; even if we could, it would be cruel to deny this technology to those at risk of having children with certain terrible genetic diseases. Furthermore, as with sex selection and the other reproductive technologies discussed in the course, regulating screening will only be useful if it is done internationally...otherwise, those with the means can simply travel to have it done elsewhere.

If we refuse to regulate screening at all, we may end up with "designer babies", increasing divergence in society, and a loss of genetic diversity. And if we only allow screening to be used in some ways or by some people, we must decide where to draw the line and somehow justify our decision to withhold information from parents. And as more and more information becomes available to parents, it will become harder to say we have no obligation to help the families of children who drew bad straws in the genetic lottery.

Despite all of these tough questions, remember that screening is only a tool. And like any tool, if used wisely, it can help us a great deal. Screening offers hope to at-risk families (and society as a whole) that their children can be free of hereditary health conditions that have plagued humanity since time immemorial. If given the choice between a healthy child and a child in constant pain who will die young, I think all but the most absolutist of parents would seriously take a look at screening.