So that we may start on equal footing, Bipolar Disorder is "a serious brain illness. It is also called manic-depressive illness. People with bipolar disorder go through unusual mood changes. Sometimes they feel very happy and ‘up,’ and are much more active than usual. This is called mania. And sometimes people with bipolar disorder feel very sad and ‘down,’ and are much less active. This is called depression. Bipolar disorder can also cause changes in energy and behavior" (NIMH ).  It is believed to be caused by genetic and enviromental factors, and associated with hormonal inbalances and inbalances in neurotransmitters, notably  glutamate, dopamine, and serotonin.

It should not be confused with the ups and downs that people experience regularly - the swings are dramatic, the emotions and energy shifts intense, so much so that they can result in the destruction of relationships, the loss of jobs, reckless behavior, and self-harm.  Those with Bipolar Disorder are, according to a study done in 2005, 10-20% more likely to commit suicide than the general public.

I have found that it is difficult for many people to take this disorder seriously without having experienced it, either firsthand or through a close friend or family member.  Psychiatric illnesses in general are (not uncommonly) considered narcissistic as their core, an excuse of bad behavior or self-involvement.  I have heard such responses to my recent diagnosis as "Oh, everyone’s bipolar now and then," "You just need an outlet for your creativity," as well as the suggestion to start volunteer work so I’d feel part of something important.

The greatest challenge to the Neuro-Psychiatric research community has been finding a way to diagnose mental illnesses such as bipolar, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, attention deficit disorder, clinical depression, and other such "invisible demons" of the psyche, in a way that is clear-cut and pure science.  Not just to advance the technology, but also to have hard evidence at hand to tell medical insurance companies, "See these test results?  See these scans?  This is a real medical disease, so cough up the f*ing money and cover it!"  Don’t you love it when science is on your side?

Right now, diagnosis is based primarily on observed behavior, the patient’s self-reported experiences, and the reports of family members or friends.  Though this sort of evidence may not be considered solidly scientific, a well-trained psychiatrist can discern the difference between the various emotional and mental illnesses, as well as validate whether the patient is just seeking drugs.  The rate of misdiagnosis has dropped signifigantly as these disorders have become better understood in the past couple decades and doctors are increasinly well-educated - this is also why it seems  sometimes that "everyone has it."  We have not yet reached the point of stability after a new (or better understood) disease is given more accurate methods of diagnosing.  There is always what appears to be a "boom" of newly-diagnosed patients, leading to the suspicion that the disorder is invalid, an excuse for patients and a moneymaking scam for pharmascutical companies.

The need for a medical method of proving their existance has become very important, to reduce the stigma attached to them, to gain these "invisible diseases" the attention they deserve in the scientific community, and to ensure resources and aid for patients.

How to catch an invisible demon?  The technology that has been available to us could do nothing but exclude other possibilities - test for "hypo- or hyperthyroidism, metabolic disturbance, a systemic infection or chronic disease, and syphilis or HIV infection. An EEG may be used to exclude epilepsy, and a CT scan of the head to exclude brain lesions" (Wikipedia ).

Very recently, some new research has shed new light on our brains.  As we have understood it, our brain functions via neurons, who send their information by electronic impulse.  We could test and scan these little buggers by tracking the electricity.  About 15% of our brain is made of these neurons.  A larger portion are cells called Glia.

"The four main functions of glial cells are to surround neurons and hold them in place, to supply nutrients and oxygen to neurons, to insulate one neuron from another, and to destroy pathogens and remove dead neurons" (Wikipedia ).  Essentially, they were the domestic servants of the neurons, keeping house and acting as packing material.  Subserviant to neurons, supporting them in their transmissions, the scientific community dismissed them for over a century.

Yet in the past decade, scientists have found a new way to scan the brain that proves the glian cells are communicating information on their own without electricity, bypassing the neurons entirely. Not only that, but they have the power to control the impulses traveling through the neural network.

Thank Einstein for some of this - or his brain, anyhow.  Neuroanatomist Marian Deamond was one of the fortunate scientists whose team recieved part of this late genius’s brain, that had been preserved and hoarded since his death. She wanted to see if he had more neurons that the average brain, something to clue us in to what made him different and brilliant.

Her study showed that the neurons in his brain were the same as the rest of us.  However, the non-neuronal cells were numbering twice as much as average, especially in the parietal cortex, "where abstract concepts, visual imagery, and complex thinking take place" (Fields, R. Douglas. The Other Brain , 2009, pg 7).  It was a great bafflement as to how this "bubblewrap" of the brain could possibly be involved with mental function.

"Imagine the implications.  Electrical activity in the brain conveys our perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and moods.  Glial cells perform such diverse functions in our nervous system that a vast range of brain functions might be influence by glia if they could sense nerve impulse activity.  Everything from immune system responses to infections, to insulating axons, to wiring up and rewiring the brain, to recovery from brain disease and injury might be influenced by impulse activity actng through glia" (Fields, pg 24).

Let’s not understate this:  The importance in researching glia is as vital as that for stem cells, and the potential in benefits to humanity just as great.

By using a new technique, calicum imaging, we are now finally able to learn more about glia.  In studies that have shocked the scientific world, image scans are now able to show without a doubt that there are signifigant structural differences in the brains of those with psyiatric diseases, including, but not limited to, Bipolar Disorder.  Studies suggest that an imbalance in glian cells could be the cause of mental diseases and epilepsy.  Too much, and it causes seizures.  Too little, and chronic depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and so forth will develop.  "Now it is also known that patients suffering from bipolar disorder have fewer glia in the regions of the brain handling mood" (Fields, pg 155).

I recommend that if you wish to understand the brain chemistry in further detail, Field’s book is the place to begin, being the most current compiled literature I’ve found.

Some additional new information that has come to light:  For one, in the largest study ever done on the matter, a strong family connection was found, suggesting a genetic link between schizophrenia and bipolar (WebMD, Salynn Boyles, Jan 2009 ).  This means that should one family member have either disorder, the other family members are at increased risk.

At the end of 2009, another study confirmed that genetic link, adding new fodder to the arguement that the two may be different sides to the same coin.  They call the gene involved ABCA13 (The Med Guru, Dec 2009 ).  Scientists are also finding that many mental illnesses, including autism, may be connected by a mutation on human chromosome 16.

"’This type of genetic variation is called copy number variation,’ Sebat explains. ‘It means that instead of having differences in sequence, you have a deletion or a duplication of a whole gene or genomic region. It’s not a mutation; it’s extra copies of a gene. So the dosage of the gene changes, rather than the sequence.’

Specifically, Sebat and his team found that a duplication in copy number variation predisposes someone to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - and a decrease in CNV is associated with autism " (EmpowHer, Dec 2009 ).

I looked forward to the future of these studies, which will help us understand mental illnesses in their purely physiological form, and hopefully find a medical cure.  In the meantime, buck up, and don’t stop taking your meds.

Argument 1:  Church and State
Churches and officiants have the right to choose who they will marry within their own rules. But why does one church get to decide who another church is allowed to marry? Not all Christian churches are against gay marriages, and there are other religions besides. There are even nonreligious people in this world, who marry in nondenominational ways. Set aside the issues of homosexuality, this is an instance of the state deciding what all churches are allowed to do.

Legalizing gay marriages doesn’t force the Catholic Church to marry gay people. At this time, men and women can marry legally, but the Catholic church can turn away couples living together before marriage, or some churches won’t marry a couple if either partner is not a member. They have that right. People have the right to choose the church or path that fits them.

Even if gay marriage is legalized, those unions, like any other union not sanctified by Church A, will not be recognized by Church A’s God or doctrine. Nothing forces them to.

Argument 2:  The Gender Problem
If we are to define marriage as a union between man and woman, then we will have to come up with better scientific definitions for those genders. According to researcher Eric Vilain at the University of California, Los Angeles, “the biology of gender is far more complicated than XX or XY chromosomes.”

There are 17 or so conditions that can involve intersexuality, be they anatomy, chemistry/metabolism, genetics, or (taking up very little of this list) mentally/emotionally.

From Wikipedia:

The prevalence of intersex depends on which definition is used.

According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, approximately one in every hundred births. [32] Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity.

According to Fausto-Sterling’s definition of intersex[33], on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.[33] She writes,

“While male and female stand on the extreme ends of a biological continuum, there are many bodies [...] that evidently mix together anatomical components conventionally attributed to both males and females. The implications of my argument for a sexual continuum are profound. If nature really offers us more than two sexes, then it follows that our current notions of masculinity and femininity are cultural conceits.

“[...] Modern surgical techniques help maintain the two-sex system. Today children who are born “either/or-neither/both” — a fairly common phenomenon — usually disappear from view because doctors “correct” them right away with surgery.”

According to Leonard Sax the prevalence of intersex “restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female” is about 0.018%.

To put those numbers into perspective:

• 5,493,359: Number of people in US with a known condition in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. This does not include other types of gender ambiguity.
• 2,831,000: Number of Jewish people in US (Based on The American Religious Identification Survey in 2001)
• 3,051,866: Number of adults with a peanut allergy (about the same number of children have a peanut allergy, and 1 in 4 outgrow it) (Wikipedia)
• 4,038,741: Population of the entire Seattle Metro Area (United States Census Bureau of 2003)

There are people who look, act, and identify themselves as heterosexual men or women, but if tested, their chromosomes suggest otherwise. This is a reality, it’s part of the oddity that is Nature.

A couple examples:

- Someone born XXXY, or any other variation of mosaicism can’t legally say male or female, if male and female is legally defined to be XY and XX.

- An XY person born with micropenis underwent nonconsensual sex reassignment surgery as an infant and is reared as female. Eventually she meets a man and want to get married, but both are genetically XY. Or, she identifies as a lesbian. Will they be allowed marriage because it is then an XX and XY pairing? If this person should transition back to his birth gender, things could get even more confusing. (This condition is androgen insensitivity syndrome, AIS)

The International Olympic Committee once tried to find a way to strictly define the line between men and women for the games. They figured out the high frequency of intersex the hard way. Before the 1936 games, athletes were allowed to sort themselves out. But then Hermann Ratjen cheated by trying to pass himself off as a woman and, though Ratjen lost, he set Olympic officials off on a quest for the ultimate divider of males and females. First they tried genital exams, but that didn’t work so well. They found that a lot of athletes had confusing parts. Then in 1968, the IOC turned to buccal smears for would-be competitors in female sports. The idea was to rout out anyone with a Y chromosome. That didn’t work well either; a number of women athletes had Y chromosomes because they were born with AIS.

More from http://www.isna.org/node/670

For a few years, the IOC in fact did try to insist that AIS women were men; once they figured out which women had AIS, they tried to get them to give back their medals. But the medical establishment, to its credit, rallied around these women and explained the facts of biology—especially intersex—to the IOC. And so the IOC finally gave up gender verification.

Whether or not the medical establishment rallies to explain intersex to the U.S. courts remains to be seen. If history is any guide, as gay marriage prohibitions make their way through the courts, a scientific expert here and a medical expert there will offer up one little gene or one type of anatomical tissue that might be used as a male-female sorting mechanism. But such a sorting system simply won’t accord with what people see on the outside and feel on the inside. The fact is, every anatomical bit you think of as female (breasts, XX-chromosomes, even ovarian tissue) can be found on someone who has looked and felt like a male since birth. The opposite is also true. Think about it: if sex categories really were naturally strict, we wouldn’t see so many cosmetic surgeons offering men breast reductions and offering women facial electrolysis.

Banning Gay Marriage is difficult because we cannot define male and female scientifically. They are vague categories who currently lack strict medical definition that works for all possibilities. This opens the law up to loopholes and difficult situations for millions of people across the nation, plus their partners and families.

I am more amazed at the psychology of it all than anything else.

I cannot help but feel that Palin is, unfortunately, in the way she is presenting herself and how her party is using her, becoming an insult to the intelligence of the American people. The fact that Palin can use a practiced tactics to avoid actually answering anything, and yet still be considered intelligent in the mass media just because she could complete a sentence, is scary. It’s downright disturbing.

We know that she can handle prepared speeches, and has a history of doing well in debates for the same reason - debates don’t usually have the flexibility and directness of an interview. You don’t have to think on your feet and really know what you’re talking about. Instead, Palin (can I call you Sarah?) is a good girl who cramed the night before the exam and got a passing grade just because she didn’t spontaneously explode.

Why are we giving her the piteous “Oh, poor thing, you failed so miserably, but… well… A for effort!” ?

I do NOT want my leaders given an easier time just because they’re trying. It honestly felt like, listening to the before and after analysis, that the media was practically giving her credit just for showing up.

And Biden? Shoved into an uncomfortable position by ridiculous twists in logic. Oh, she’s female, you horrid brute, stop showing her up. What? NO! She does not represent American women. She does not represent the political vagina. Please. The media lets itself be so easily lead by this sort of thing.

Do not hold back on women politicians. Yes, the reality is that we may experience more hard-hitting nit-picking than a white male. Oh well. That’s our burden, that’s our mountain to overcome. It is insulting to have a path laid out before us in the same way feminists may take issue with a man holding a door open for them. We can handle it on our own. If we cant, then we shouldn’t be running for leadership of the country.

I want the leaders of my country to be strong individuals who don’t complain about things being unfair (McCain, by the way, commented recently when asked about Obama’s lead in the polls that it just meant simply that “life isn’t fair”). I want them to handle their own battles to show us that they can also take on the burden of ours.

If she can’t handle the added pressure of being a female politician, then I do not want her. If anyone softens the path to such high places for a woman or any other minority, they are doing those individuals as well as the people they would have power over a VERY great disservice.The should have been a real debate, about intelligence and the issues. Instead, Palin laid on thick her “folksy” personality and sugar-sweetness in a blatant grab for the hearts of common America.

American politics are often a popularity contest, and this has lead us down a very scary road so far. I wish people who be less concerned about how much they’d like to sit and have a beer with a potential leader than that candidate’s actual qualifications.

Amazing how they’ve turned being intelligent into an elitist act, but having 13 cars and so many houses you can’t keep track is merely looked upon as “an example of the hard-won success of a real American.”

It taps into a very basic psychology… we don’t like to feel stupid. If we see someone in a position of power that we can relate to, we feel better about ourselves, especially if they spend all their time glorying the small town.

Small town romanticism is dangerous. It pressures us to accept the clean-cut veneer without question - because if you question those good ol’ small town values, you’re cutting into the heart of America, you nasty thing you. If we cannot question something, then we aren’t giving it air, it’s not being constantly revitalized. It festers when left alone. Small towns have made big headlines when those corruptions - child abuse scandals, school shootings, money laundering, racism and hate.

We need intelligent leaders who seriously understand all sides of the issues and aren’t going to allow their own personal religion override the facts. We need real debates where victory is only conceded when those issues are directly addresses and elaborated upon. As voters, we should be leaving those debates with a new and deeper understanding of our leader’s logic in how they address controversy and their methods in problem-solving.

The run for presidency should be hard. It should be intensive - physically and mentally taxing. We should be interested in their scores on standard tests, their physical health, their skills in foreign languages, their experience and their ability to clearly explain their positions and plans. We are tougher on job applicants than we are to the people that will be representing us on a global scale.

Don’t be so easy on them! Obama should face up to every challenge his black skin will bring, because he needs to prove that he can handle anything and everything that’s thrown at him. Palin needs to drop the helpless-maiden act and stop insulting American women by being afraid to fight a real fight…. not a fair one, not a fixed one, but a REAL fight against anything and everything that’s thrown at her.

I want strong leaders. This is a position that comes with greater rewards than any other, one that gives them more power and privilege than any other. We know that it’s a tough job. People hate you, and blame you, and may try to kill you. Psychologically, it’s a very challenging place to be, and this isn’t even talking about all the actual work involved with being the leader and representative of the Unites States. So we shouldn’t let up on the people that are trying for the job. They need our criticism, our high standards, and our brutal cynicism, because it’s what they will get from foreign countries who have no interest whatsoever in how fun they are at a bar or how cutely they can evade a question.

Gently placed leaders never become great ones, and will falter in the face of other, better-led nations.

I’m not interested in adding another brick in the wall of video game controversy-related articles, so I’m not talking about the effect of violence in games, because I like to believe that the majority of parents aren’t complete fools and know when (and how) it’s appropriate to introduce entertainment with adult themes.

Rather, I want to look at the broader changes in a society whose youth is turning in greater numbers to technological entertainment and communication.

Let’s start with those numbers.

Gamespy and eMarketer are using different studies for their numbers, but the gist is the same: 2/3rds or so are male, and the ages range is starting to spread pretty nicely, though most are relatively young. There are over 100 million gamers in the US, though I’m not sure how often those people play. How many consider themselves ‘ hardcore gamers’ and how many just play occasionally? There are quite a few types of gamers out there, and any studies on them really are still in their infancy.

Yet gaming has become not only a common pasttime, but a subculture for millions of people around the world. They connect with their like-minded peers through online PC and console games, the internet, and gaming conventions.

Just as graphic novels and comics have become recognized for their contribution to Arts and Humanities, so have video and computer games. Game studies is the inter-disciplinary approach to critically analyzing games of all varieties for their effect on people, their artistic expressions, and their technological innovation.

Game Studies is a young International journal of computer game research who seek to view games in an academic light. The article ‘Tragedies of the ludic commons - understanding cooperation in multiplayer games‘ by Jonas Heide Smith looks are games such as Counter Strike and considers their broader implications on social order.

To the young gamers of today, I say: Meet the homework of your future children.

In school today, we are reading books and watching movies that created controversy in their time. I personally had to suffer through two separate research reports on Catcher in the Rye during high school. I can imagine what our children might have to deal with.

‘Wolfenstein‘ and the lingering effects of WWII in popular culture.

‘World of Warcraft‘ as a social phenomenon, issues of game addiction.

History of early game-related trade shows and their inevitable evolution to holidays.

And the all-important, Why was the orange box orange? Required 10-page in-depth report on the hidden meanings that the authors and developers and designers obviously meant, in proper format, not including bibliography and introduction.

Or other crap like that.

Maybe student will have more options in their creative presentations. you can do an oral report, a movie skit, make a board game, or program a game that will work on all the student laptops.

There are other changes in our youth. Obesity is on the rise, and as much as we wish otherwise, it is partly due to the popularity of sedentary entertainment. TV, games, internet, and increasingly socially-acceptable masturbation, are all little steps towards making physical sports just that much less cool.

On the other hand, of course, is that gaming is providing us with a new way to educate children. Heck, not just children, but even surgeons are noticing that game play is beneficial, particularly in terms of improved hand-eye coordination and reflexes. Games are introducing generations to old stories and themes (even if things may not particularly historically accurate or relate the book versions perfectly).

We’ll be able to look back at games and see the similar veins of expression and social consciousness through history. Whether or not some academia is actually going to start breaking them down and calling a decade the Romantic Period or not I can’t say, but stories always mimic the times.

Games provide a new medium for pyschology studies, the extent of which is unimaginable. Artificial Intelligence, increasing complexity in game interaction and free play (a concept meaning that the player can go do whatever they want in the game world, devising their own sense of meaning or fun in it), and broadened capabilities in social online games… When given the oppertunity to create and live in a world entirely of their own imagining, what will result? Do we create utopias and exclusive societies, do things run the same cyclical course as historical cultures?

And will I be snickering as my kids learn how to bullshit via school papers on the topic of games, the very thing we had used to get a break from all that crap?

Another thought: Will school curricula be as adept at ruining a good video game just as they excel at making a great book boring?

Today, I’m going to research my blood. Specifically, the blood in my veins that refuses to be normal, but has instead opted for a genetic malfunction that, like a seductive whisper from inside your head, influences it to do wrong things. In this case, clot.

There is a funny term for this twisted inclination. Thrombophilia, like Thumbalina’s less lovely sister, or a disturbing perversity. According to the wikipedia article I just linked, I share this with 5-8% of the population.

Many of these have some known cause, like surgery or other situations which required a great deal of immobility. Then there is a wide array of subsets of all the different types of genetic disorders that could be to blame. In my case, I recall that they told me I had elevated levels of anti-cardiolipin antibodies.

Unless you are a medical student, most of that article sounds like latin gibberish. It even has a colorful diagram of what I assume is supposed to be what an antibody looks like. Or something like that.

What I have just told you is exactly the extent of what any doctor has ever told me. They don’t seem to understand that I don’t go to them because I am looking for more medications, but just explanation. I’m an adult, and I want to understand what’s going on inside me, in as much detail as it takes. Is having this elevated level of anti-cardiolipin antibodies a mutation/blood disorder? Or is that one aspect of a blood disorder who’s name I just didn’t catch?

I was also told: Lupus anticoagulant. This was another term dropped by one of the doctors.

In a Common Questions section of Lab Tests online for a Cardiolipin Antibody test, it says, “The [anti]cardiolipin antibodies represent a risk factor but they cannot predict whether an individual person will have recurrent blood clots or other associated complications. And, if a person does have blood clots, the presence of the antibodies cannot predict their frequency or severity.”

Another interesting tidbit: ” Occasionally, cardiolipin testing may be ordered to help determine the cause of a positive VDRL/RPR test for syphilis. The reagents (chemicals) used to test for syphilis contain phospholipids and can cause a false positive result in patients with cardiolipin antibodies.”

Okay, so if I ever am screened for syphilis, then there is a small chance that I may get a false positive because the chemicals used in the test react in patients with cardiolipin antibodies.

Good to know.

Some more from that site: There are “three classes (IgG, IgM, and/or IgA) of cardiolipin antibodies. Produced by the immune system in response to a perceived threat, these proteins are the most common form of antiphospholipid antibodies. They are acquired autoantibodies that can affect the body’s ability to regulate blood clotting in a way that is not well understood.”

Alright, so cardiolipin antibodies are something we all have and need to regulate blood clotting in a magical and mysterious way. Apparently, having elevated levels of whatever class of anticardiolipin antibody I have makes the blood prone to clot.

Is there a difference between cardiolipin and anticardiolipin? It’s used interchangeably throughout some of these articles.

“Cardiolipins, and other related phospholipids, are lipid molecules found in cell membranes and platelets. They play an important role in the blood clotting process. When antibodies are created against cardiolipins, they increase an affected patient’s risk of developing recurrent inappropriate blood clots (thrombi) in both arteries and veins.”

Let me see… Cardiolipins are molecules in cell membranes and platelets that do something magical regarding blood clotting regulation. But these guys have an evil nemesis, cardiolipin antibodies, which want to cause great clotting havoc.

“Cardiolipin antibodies are frequently seen with autoimmune disorders, such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), and with other antiphospholipid antibodies, such as lupus coagulant.”

Autoimmune disorders, by the way, “are diseases caused by the body producing an inappropriate immune response against its own tissues. Sometimes the immune system will cease to recognize one or more of the body’s normal constituents as “self” and will create autoantibodies – antibodies that attack its own cells, tissues, and/or organs.

Ohh.

Okay. So I have an autoimmune disorder in which my immune system is not recognizing my cardiolipins as part of ‘me’, so develops crime-fighting (not villains anymore) antibodies to go and take care of them.

Back to the lupus anticoagulants.

“Lupus anticoagulant is a protein that increases the risk of developing blood clots in both the veins and arteries… found most frequently in those with autoimmune diseases… The antibody is thought to be present in about 1 – 2% of the general population and may develop in people with no known risk factors… The lupus anticoagulant is one of three primary antiphospholipid antibodies that are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. The others are anticardiolipin antibodies and antibodies against beta-2 glycoprotein 1 (less common), and together they form the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (also called Hughes syndrome). A person may have one or more of these phospholipid binding antibodies. Each interferes with the clotting process in a way that is not well understood and singly or together, increase a person’s tendency to clot.”

(Also, apparently both these anticoagulants as well as the anticardiolipins can cause a false positive on a Syphillis test.)

“The doctor may also want to test for the lupus anticoagulant when a patient has a positive anticardiolipin antibody, to evaluate whether ther person has antiphospholipid syndrome.”

Okay! I think it’s coming together now.

Where both are elevated, then the person has antiphospholipid syndrome (also called Hughes Syndrome), which is “a type of hypercoagulability. Common presentations of APS include, venous thrombosis (usually blood clots in the deep veins of the legs), arterial thrombosis (usually blood clots in the brain), recurrent pregnancy losses, and low platelet counts. Other presentations include chorea and transverse myelitis” (according to the AARDA’s article on it).

I’ve got the clots in the leg. I don’t think I have ever tested low in platelets, nor had any of that other stuff (nor do I ever want to - chorea is an involuntary movement disorder and transverse myelitis is a neurological disorder involving much spinal inflammation and nastiness).

“Other common findings, although not part of the APS Classification Criteria, are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), heart valve disease, and livedo reticularis (a skin condition). Some patients report headaches and migraines. Antiphospholipid syndrome can rarely mimic multiple sclerosis with an estimated 10% of patients misdiagnosed.”

Livedo reticularis, by the way, is indicated by painful ulcers on the lower legs. I don’t have those. But they are believed to be caused by clots in the small veins of the legs, so it’s possible that in the future I may get those in my left leg.

I do have headaches and dizziness/light-headedness (there is a difference, and I get both).

Thromophilia, in any form, is a risk factor for strokes. I don’t have high blood pressure, my cholesterol levels are good, I don’t smoke, my heart is in good shape (I know because each time I go into the ER for a possible pulmonary embolism [blood clot going into lungs], they do a heart test), and I don’t [yet] have diabetes though my mom does and my blood sugar has so far always tested normal.

But I do get migraines with and without auras (visual oddities before the onset of a headache).

Okay, so I think I understand a bit clearer what’s going on. This also helps me accept what the doctors said in terms of treatment: Anticoagulant medication, indefinitely (’indefinitely’ is the word doctors use when they don’t want to say ‘for the rest of your life’).

This means warfarin (or brand names Coumadin, Jantoven, Marevan, and Waran), aka rat pesticide, the original chemical for which came from plants (now synthetically derived). It acts as Vitamin-K inhibitor (Vitamin K helps with blood clotting), has lots of fun potential side effects, and goes with pregnancy like gasoline and flame. Of course, having any sort of Thrombophilia makes pregnancy scary enough. On the upside, during pregnancy I would be taking low-weight Heparin instead.

Heparin is not particularly kosher, being drawn primarily from the intestines of slaughter animals. Among China’s other questionable exports is raw heparin from pigs (another article here), which is currently under question because it is entirely impossible at this time to say which exact animals each ‘batch’ is made from, and exactly which farm that animal came from, or even whether it was given the usual barrage of piglet immunization shots. So there have been contaminations that are sometimes lethal.

But if the source is good, then Heparin (in daily subcutaneous injections, no nice pills like Warfarin) can be used during pregnancy without affecting the fetus, and thereby help prevent those potential miscarriages.

Ultimately, I need to go back on warfarin. I’ve been voluntarily off it for about a couple years now, though I take aspirin (but not regularly enough). Aspirin works differently, but still has anticoagulant benefits, though I know that for the long term I need to move to warfarin.

Hm.

I’m done talking for today.

I think that the first thing people ask themselves upon waking is, “Who am I?” (Nar yar, anyone?) followed shortly thereafter by “Where am I?” or “What am I doing?”

But that’s just my theory.

Self identity supposedly begins somewhere around 18 months, when a woddler starts recognizing it’s own image in a mirror. While at 5 months a baby will only smile at the image as it would another baby, the mirror stage is supposed to be part of a developmental point when tiny humans start having a sense of self-concept or self-awareness. The mirror test itself has more to do with that little person first becoming entranced with their own image, as we thereafter are obsessed, then it does with the first moment a kid has a sense of “I.” A 6 month old might look at the mirror, recognize that the other wiggly creature it itself, but not have the motor skills to express their understanding.

One line of thinking suggests that when confronted with a version of themselves that they have no way of resolving with, the Ego is born, in the first glimpse of a life chained to a Self that, by recognizing it, becomes a separate identity (or several), known by its own set of virtues and vices and mannerisms. We know that in social interactions, other people see one of our Selves, and a whole lot of angst comes from not wanting to accept the fact that by having a sense of Ego, we are doomed to be eternally misunderstood.

In other words, the first moment we see ourself in a mirror (when we first separate ‘Me’ from ‘Them’), we become aware of the disconnect between the reality of what/who we are, our own self-image, and the way others see us.

Who am I? A daily mantra for the common Homo sapien.

Humans need a sense of self, as well as an idea of their place in their surroundings. Where am I, what am I doing? The need for recognized placement is insatiable. As with any social animal, humans have a flocking mentality, and will follow whoever seems to be in control, even when they are in the very small minority. We are easily predictable and easily manipulated when in large groups, and when on our own, the need to bond or feel connection with others (or, alternatively, to flee from the unfamiliar and return to people we feel will protect us) has made everything from marketing to police interrogations a blossoming science.

If you have ever read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, then you should take a look at the Robbers Cave Experiment. In a situation where there is a stronger force manipulating two weaker forces (in the study, it was the experimenters and the two groups of children, and in the book, it was the groups of children and the teachers/adults), there are but three possible results: The weaker groups succumb to the stronger influences, one of the groups will gang up on the other despite the influences (resolving the issue of conflict by removing their established ‘foe’), or the groups will become aware of the manipulation and revolt.

As individuals, we suffer similarly predictable results when we come across any situation that requires us to choose an action. We either accept outside influences (social acceptance, civil laws, fear), make drastic efforts to remove the focus of the problem to make the situation moot, or we become aware of ourselves as mice in the maze and react accordingly.

Regardless of what choice we end up making, we create some logic around our reason that makes up feel safe about the decision. Even when the result is in direct opposition to our self-identity or our perception of reality. It’s called cognitive dissonance, and it’s the fascinating psychological filter we use to reduce our discomfort when our understanding of reality and actual reality come in conflict. A 1959 study illustrates it pretty well.

Our ability to lie to ourselves, and the increasing understanding of the way we do it, is what makes us easy to manipulate.

The influence of an authority figure is extremely powerful because it comes with a built-in, socially acceptable reason: Following orders, or doing what you’re supposed to do. The infamous 1963 Stanley Milgram experiment (also see the wiki page for more details) showed just how susceptible we are to authority. ABC News did its own updated version of the experiment in 2006.

It’s incredible to think of just how many ways we are separated by the logic behind the choices we make or the perceptions we have and the actual reality of what we’re doing. Which is interesting, considering how many of us put such strong faith in our own intuition, as if it were an entity separate from all pervading influences.

It’s not our subconscious we should turn to, which is very happy as a sheep comfortably placed in its flock. We should be practicing the ability to say and do things despite how much in the minority we are. In a Conformity experiment that sought to see just how many people would give the wrong answer to a relatively obvious question just because everyone else was giving that answer, only 25% of people consistently gave the right answer.

Coincidentally, 25% is also the percentage of people who noticed what changed in an experiment studying Change Blindness, or how our minds glaze over sudden changes in the attempt to keep visual focus limited on one thing at a time.

The flocking mentality study I mentioned earlier said that it only took a minority of 5% to control the rest of the group. This is when the choice to conform or not is blatant - like in the conformity experiment, where the participants had to actually make their choice known vocally to everyone else. The experimenters also tried seeing how things changed when the participant could just write down the answer, without having to say it to the other, and the rate of conformity dropped.

I have to admire the people who had broken from the need for social conformity. It’s not an easy task, riddled as it is with a way array of sub-cultures and scapegoat groups that have just as much structure and rules as any other. Groups establish a sense of community consensus almost immediately, even when the people are only together for a very brief time. Our desire of social identity is instinctual and a potent motivation that influences just about every aspect of our lives. It’s so bad that we’ll even freeze up at helping someone when there are others around out of the fear and discomfort of doing something wrong or looking foolish.

Ever watch a lion tamer at a circus? The principles he utilizes are extremely similar to human sociology. Since birth, the lions establish their own hierarchy amongst one another, and the tamer must make it clear that he stands on top. He will do this by taking them to the cage, a territory they never enter without him being there first, so the firs rules of dominion are laid down. There are usually a few lions there during the show, and while they will all go to their places and sit, only one will actually be ‘chosen’ to do the tricks. This is the lion at the bottom of the totem pole, the one with the least social standing and therefore the most anxious to please. The scapegoat will gladly and meekly be the tamer’s ‘pet’, jumping through hoops and showing submission to curry the tamer’s favor and protection. The other lions are left alone, being beta males who wouldn’t tolerate the affront but are also content to wait out the little show.

There are numerous techniques employed to manipulating others. I mean in small, daily things. You can use compliments to control a conversation, ask questions about the other person (which not only can steer the conversation away from topics you want to avoid since people have a hard time not talking about themselves, but has the added benefit of leaving that person with the distinct impression that you are a fascinating person), you can use authority and reassurance tactics to get what you need, utilize scent to establish the impression or emotional connection you want people to make on a situation, you can even recognize the fact that people see their life stories as a series of chapters and present options to them that reflect that sense of mind.

It’s not hard to do this, but it is difficult to resist such manipulations yourself. The Sheep within us bleets loudly and blindly, and only with knowledge do we come to recognize the Wolves.

There is a bit of science to the direction someone’s eyes move depending on what they’re remembering or if they’re lying. Usually, as in the police interrogations article linked previously, you have to spend a bit of time with the person talking to them about casual, safe topics that they would have no reason to lie about (small talk) so that you get a sense of their normal mannerisms and voice. It’s the changes in these things that suggest bullshit is being produced.

Society has built-in manipulations that begin at one’s birth, all in the interest of civilization (as the current and older generations interpret that). Even the way that boys and girls are raised has a great deal of social convention and ‘normal’ choices whose logic seems completely obvious to parents. Aldous Huxley’s example of childhood indoctrination might have been a bit extreme, but not entirely without merit. What children hear in quantity will later as adults seem to them to be all according to their own internal logic - it feels right to them.

An important part of coming to recognize when you have accepted an idea that didn’t actually originate with you would be to making questioning each opinion. This isn’t about casting self-doubt, but about taking a moment to recall the origin of that idea.

Start with something simple, like food preferences. Perhaps you’ve always loathed spinach. It would be worthwhile to think back to when that feeling developed - you got sick off it once, its attached to bad memories, your mom never served it or she didn’t like it (so you assumed you didn’t). It is also important to realize that your ability to discern flavors changes as you become an adult (developing that broader palate that not only tolerates but may even enjoy beer and wine and other acquired tastes). Cilantro is a good example, as its flavor can taste rotten, soapy or metallic to one person and delicious to another, and over time how you interpret its taste can totally flip.

Another technique: Get in the habit of backing up your opinions. It’s not just useful in discerning truth, but it will make the things you say or write much stronger. Once you know what a properly researched and evidenced fact looks like, you’ll be keener on noticing ‘truths’ that are lacking.

A more difficult challenge is to look at common knowledge with a canny eye. The idea that something can be “common knowledge” and must therefore be true is misleading - it suggests that it only takes popularity for a concept to be true.

As the flocking study showed, popularity has nothing to do with each of those many individuals consciously and intelligently making a choice. It only takes a few loud, confident spokespersons to get heads nodding.

The point of these techniques is to stay aware of where your ideas are coming from and learn to sense manipulations. It’s not meant to be depressing to see all the different ways we can fool ourselves and each other - but only with knowledge of those realities can we grow stronger as individuals and honest leaders.

Or perhaps you just want to know the facts, without emotion being used as evidence.

I’ll try.

Here is a list 10 of the most basic things we should do, if nothing else, to help minimize the negative impact of 6.6 billion human beings of our planet Earth. Don’t worry, I won’t recommend meditation and power crystals, or even talk about going vegetarian. Not in this article, anyhow.

1. Buy USDA-certified organic, ideally from local growers (although very small growers do not have to comply with regulations). Yes, they cost a bit more, but on the upside, as organic produce and meat become mainstream, the prices are getting better, as are the selections. Focus your Organic shopping on meat, produce and cut flowers. If you can afford it, try slowly adding on the non-edible stuff like cleaning detergents, insect sprays, and fertilizers. If you’ve got a tight budget, here’s a list of the produce that has the least amount of pesticides.
   • Why? Let’s put aside the annoyance of smug 100% organic shoppers. Let’s even put aside the studies of what the added hormones and pesticides might do to our own bodies. The man-made compounds we use in pesticides (such as Dieldrin, 40 times more toxic than DDT) are unfortunately stable and will be around to pollute soil and water even long after humans disappear. Organic farms tend to be designed to be sustainable with better soil quality and less energy consumption than old-fashioned farms, though this is balanced a bit with the fact that organic farms are only able to yield about 60-90% of what traditional farms can. Hopefully this will improve as the technologies of Organic Agriculture develop.
2. Don’t be a lazy consumer. Buy what you need, use what you buy, recycle or reuse whenever possible, and try to avoid stuff that’s over-packaged for ‘convenience‘.
   • Why? While some companies use recycled or biodegradable materials, many of the most mainstream companies still produce packaging that just ends up taking space in landfills, those oh-so-magical oubliettes we like to put things to forget/procrastinate about. Our ability to consume is infinite, but unfortunately, our ability to remove the traces or store of our garbage is extremely finite.
3. Understand what evolution really is. Don’t get it confused with one of the Theories of Evolution (Darwin, for one). Evolution is the fact that, over time, species change, and given the right circumstances, can even change into new species completely separate from the original. Evolution as a fact of natural life has been accepted since before Darwin in the Victorian era.
   • Why? By understanding the mechanisms for evolutionary change, the importance of things like biodiversity and the biological limits of natural preserves becomes clear. In any case, we all sound a lot better when we know what we’re arguing about.
4. Give up mowing and forget about green lawns. You’re much better off changing it out for a landscaping of shrubbery and rock gardens. If you must have your green carpet, make sure to use local grass (call a nearby greenery or gardening source to ask), organic fertilizers, and electric or push lawn mowers.
   • Why? Grass is inefficient from an environmental and energy standpoint. It takes up more water, and the use of non-organic fertilizers has a severe affect on our groundwater. A standard gas mower uses more gasoline and emits more pollutants than a standard car. Many lawns are made from imported grasses, which can spread and wreck havoc on local fauna (in general, bringing in plants from other regions is always a bad idea with usually inestimable consequences).
5. Adopt. If you don’t want to hear about the Earth or animals, then at least consider how you can make a world of difference to a human child.
   • Why? There are over 110,000 children in the US alone waiting to be adopted, many of whom wait around 3.65 years before finding a home. The best way to make the world a better place is to put better people in it - and whether or not you are concerned about overpopulation, there are a lot of deserving children out there who just want a family.
6. Go paperless, whenever possible, reclaim wood, avoid rare woods. This is pretty basic, but very true. Individuals go through a lot of paper every year, businesses even more. Buy recycled printer paper for when you must print, and use digital copies for everything else. Reclaimed wood (and other architectural salvage) for furniture, crafts, building and flooring is becoming popular, so it’s becoming easier to find. Avoid rare, endangered woods such as mahogany (sorry, musicians), rosewood, teak and ebony, which cut right into the already minimal remains of old growth rainforests.
   • Why? Because even though it’s all biodegradable, trees don’t grow as fast as we can use them up. Trees glow slowly and have every intention of living for centuries, so long as we don’t bother them. When we cut down old-growth forests and rain forests, those are rare places that we will not get back without very drastic measures. Lets try not to have to go that far by being smart about it today. Fortunately, some big retailers like Home Depot have promised to buy wood only from sustainable managed forests.
7. Drive Less. Another obvious tip, and this time I won’t say why.
8. Stop being Materialistic. Most of us are, to some extent. We fawn over new clothes and fashion trends. We buy things for reasons other than function and efficiency. We collect… stuff. We want to own, not borrow or rent. If we lose one of these things, we get terribly upset.
   • Why? Oddly enough, somehow, when we stop being overly affected by inanimate stuff, we tend to be in much better moods most of the time. It’s less waste filling up our landfills, and it forces companies to really up the ante on efficient, truly useful, long-lasting merchandise instead of frilling up useless things for us to waste money and energy on.
9. Question branding. Many companies have great marketing departments that make their brand seem environmentally hip and awesome, when their practices are nothing of the kind. Marketing and indoctrination begin at birth, and the best kind succeeds at seeming like your very own conclusion. The better the federal certification and standards become for ‘green’ technologies, processes and products, the easier it will be to follow. Remember that if it doesn’t directly say it’s made entirely of all %100 ____, then it probably isn’t. It can say “Made with 100% ___” which only means that the ___ is really ____, but the product as a whole may only consist of 15% of it.
   • Why? I’m always a big supporter of people learning to question what’s given them, including their own accepted perceptions. Take anything that you believe, and think about where you got that ‘fact’, and research it. As I said before, we all sound a hell of a lot better when we know what we’re talking about. The more knowledge you have, the easier wisdom will come to you.
10. Encourage Fair Trade. This isn’t about buying imported trinkets with “Fair Trade” stamped on them. I mean consider the companies you deal with on a regular basis. The gas station franchise. The restaurants. The grocery stores. The big box stores. The clothing manufacturers. The coffee you buy. The company you work for, and all its partners. Fashion X might treat its people great, but where does it get its fabric, and who puts the clothes together? Child labor is a modern reality. Unsafe working conditions are a modern reality.
    • Why? It’s all part of that whole ‘making a better world by putting good people in it’ thing. It works in another way - discourage the people and practices that are hurtful to others. Unfortunately, the term ‘fair trade’ is relatively new and so there isn’t an official set of standards for it, although there are a few organizations that are starting this.

Part of being a citizen of Earth means becoming aware that the means don’t ever justify the ends. Nature needs balancing, and not all the debugging happens gradually.

If you don’t mind hearing it from TreeHuggers, here’s some more information on ‘going green’.

Books, those lovely houses of paper and ink, are (to bookworms like me) doorways to entire worlds where we are free to delve in deep, live intensely without embarrassment, and expand our inner, secret selves.

But authors are something else entirely.

People write for different reasons, which many be multiple or dependent on the moon phase or who knows what. Some do it to pay the bills and occasionally surprise [themselves or others] by actually coming up with something worth being expressed. Others do it because it allows them to live in those fictional worlds more completely, exercise their egos as Universe-Gods or just do what makes them feel most at home with themselves. Some people write because they feel they might burst if they didn’t just get it all out onto paper. There might be research and facts and new understandings that beg to be shared, or broad viewpoints and philosophies that need the lashing of public criticism to mature and blossom.

So I don’t really know an author by what he or she writes. I only know that, at that particular point in time (generally the year or so prior to the publication date), they had some will to express this. I wonder where they were when they came up with it, what they tended to be doing while the ideas and plots and bits of information were slowly stewing in their minds developing depth and flavor, what got them through the blocks and blank pages and long hours, and, ultimately, what encouraged them to submit it to a publisher, often several, and then usually despite the onslaught of rejections and closed doors.

Did they birth it and, seeing it in full and binded form, feel their needed release and let it go? Did they linger on it, their one published accomplishment, never or rarely putting forth younger siblings? Was it a rush, a disappointment, or surprisingly anticlimactic? If they received letters from readers, did they jolt at the experience of their first?

Something happens when we see a word in print. It becomes quotable, and quotes are the lazy man’s favorite reference. This is that, you know, because as So-and-So said, blah blah blah. When it’s a celebrity, somehow that suddenly extends to their spoken words as well, bypassing the speech and script writers. I hear the quote from the old female gargoyle, Laverne (voiced by Mary Wickes), from Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame, a lot. You know - “Take it from an old spectator. Life’s not a spectator sport. If watchin’ is all you’re gonna do, then you’re gonna watch your life go by without ya.”

Who wrote that?*

Why the heck are we quoting a cartoon statue?

For that matter, why do we quote Socrates, through Plato?

Why do we quote Einstein or Jefferson or Heinlein?

Because there is power in a written or recorded word. Humanity would not exist if not for the need for the early mother and increasingly immature infant to communicate, to connect with a child more frail than those of our ape cousins, to teach what was beyond instinct. Oral tradition, art, movement and dance, and alphabets. What we lost in blissful, ignorant instinctual motivation, we have gained in the forced development of our ability to comprehend symbols and complex visual and aural cues. It means too much to us.

Finding the quote that says what you were trying to express, but said more eloquently, and backed with a Name, feels solid. Nevermind that being a quotation has nothing to do with being factual.

The same has gone for books all through the centuries. There are The Books, of various religions and cultures and philosophies, and there are a wide array or textbooks and reference books. All of them are the compilation of an author(s) carefully chosen thoughts and interpretations. We refer to encyclo(or wiki)pedias to back up the evidence we proffer, or the analysis of an expert (whatever that means). Occasionally, a good article actually tells you the exact scientific study from whence the inspiration for their version of reality came from. They may even give details into who did it and how it was conducted, and, rather importantly, what that study was actually out to accomplish, which is often completely different than what an author might be using it as evidence for.

Maybe you’ve realized by now that I am a cynical reader who doesn’t take facts for granted. I’ve just had way too many common knowledge “facts” turn out to be total lies or misconceptions. Take Disney and lemmings, for instance. The fact that one of the most common misconceptions happens to be about lemmings, a creature that has come to symbolize mass stupidity, is hilarious.

In all ironic humor, it’s as the Buddha Gautama is said to have said, “Question Everything.”

We should question everything. I think that’s one of my favorite mottos. I’m going to be plagued with children who never stop questioning me, and I’m just gonna have to love it.

* For anyone curious, the names of the team of writers who did Hunchback can be found here.

My first admission is that I don’t really know what I’m doing. I just wanted a place to talk about the world in the way I like to hear it being talked about - journalistically, with lots of nice references and research and multiple points of view. I don’t care about what party you are, or what label you’ve given yourself. Not really. I like scientific approaches to everyday controversies, but not without humor and open-mindedness.

Water is a brilliant element. It’s insane, and therefore extremely similar to the human race as a whole. When other elements understand that to become a solid, they should gather up real closely and become dense, water says “Screw that Communistic BS” and prefers a united conglomerate of individuals with their own space, arranged in intricate and unique crystalline societies. So, ice is less dense than its liquid form. It floats.

And because it floats, we exist. The Earth as we know it exists. If ice wasn’t so particularly insane, and followed the usual protocol, then the bottoms of the ocean would become dense with ice. The surface of oceans would freeze in the cold air, sink to the bottom, and just keep stacking up, eventually turning the whole ocean into one giant frozen mass. Try having unicellular nookie in an ice cube and you’ll see why Pluto isn’t a popular Valentine’s vacation spot.

Furthermore, as many cultures have noticed, water is pretty darn moody. Taoists regard it as a great teacher of the ‘So it goes’ mentality - rather than fuss over things, rivers just keep on flowing, eventually forging a new path through or around any obstacle. Old world sailors filled literature with the ocean’s temperamental storms and sudden calms and feminine connection to the moon. Water is a purifier in many world religions, though the birth- and life- fluids in all their variety are considered both vile and spiritual depending on who you ask.

It’s everywhere, in everything, open and tolerant and nonjudgmental, just factual. Not a bad metaphorical role model. Rain, in particular, is a fact of life throughout humanity’s usual haunts. Some cultures are sad and melancholy towards it, some cherish what it means for the Earth and the harvest, and others see it as a soothing purifier. It’s the more obvious spokesperson for our dependence on H2O. It doesn’t need to be spiritual or emotional - you can express that for your own self.

Likewise, I’m not here for your enlightenment. We’re all on separate paths, our own little streams of consciousness, and we can interpret the world in whatever manner suits us. Unlike the rain, we can have opinions, we can have experiences, and we can distinguish ourselves from the other raindrops before we all splash into the puddle and sink back down into the Earth from whence we came.

Rain has many aspects: the brilliant and minute reflections of an endless cycle of infinie raindrops spread out all over our little rock in our uninterested universe.

Aspect Rain: one raindrop speaks about what it sees on its own little journey.