interiors

Dr. Sacks preferred to be an alien in New York rather than in California, he told The Calgary Herald. “Living there was too easy and too sweet,” he said. “I needed ugly and violent, ferocious and challenging. ... There is a tremendous richness of life here, Tourette’s visibly present on the streets.” Good or bad, New York.

In response to  Why Am I Right-Handed? | FiveThirtyEight : I have been aware of the strength of genetic correlations to intellectual and personality traits for over 20 years, and I get irritated by people that more recently learning of such things tending to take an "it's all the genes" mentality. One evening, after being annoyed yet again, this time by someone overgeneralizing about mental health, I went looking for such studies, but found something interesting, the placental environment. Studies of twins show the correlation with mental health issues to be strong, but one study attempted to asses the likelihood of having a shared or separate neonatal environment. The result was that if shared, the correlation shot up to ~.8, but if separate it dropped to about .3. It adds an interesting nuance to the genes/environment debate.

Sure, blame the victim, and accuse Obama for the rise of a racist, xenophobic right-wing populace. Hard to see how he actually created this problem. It is like saying gays and lesbians caused hate crimes. Trump's followers are 'loser-fascists' in ideology, and although the extremism of Trump's followers is a reaction to Obama's race and calm, Obama did not cause their extremism. In fact, the Republicans themselves do that. The Republican are to blame for the ongoing economic crisis impacting much of our country, and that, along with their own racist, hostile rhetoric, drives Trump's followers.

I responded to the NY Times article on fitness , about new competitive classes, since I have been working out for over 25 years, and was previously certified as a fitness trainer: #1: To answer the question "Can't we just work out because it feels good?"  No, we can't. Some people can, many, if not most people, can't.   I am self-driven, been devising my own workouts and targets for decades, was certified as a trainer, and have taken almost no classes, except for ballet one semester, but I acknowledge that many people require some social aspect to their routines, either a friend, a trainer, or a class. Even more so, we all have different sets of goals. For some, getting healthy is fine, but some are competitive, some are athletic, some like novelty, while others like routine.  People are different. #2: It seems many commenters are hostile to these people, berating class-takers' ambition, describing them with a variety negative terms. Some might ...

The NY Times ran a piece on daily fantasy sports , of which I felt the need to say something: #1: The skilled and privileged taking advantage of the stupid and the ill. #2: I remember being disgusted after reading how a startup founder for Box targeted the biggest losers on a poker site to raise 100K for his venture. Well, you could think him smart, or you could think him corrupt, taking advantage of the stupid and addicted, but regardless, do you want to buy anything from him, knowing that his path to success is based on taking advantage of others? Eventually, that means taking advantage of you...

A response to the NY Times article,  Is the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Over? Being concerned about the welfare of people, I see big government programs as the only viable alternative. Ceding control to the wealthy and corporations, essentially what the anti-government focus of Republicans has wrought, has only led to decreases in the quality of life for most Americans. For some of us, the favored few, the educated, those with technical skills, the wealthy, life has improved under corporatization and increasing plutocracy, as we've accumulated much of the prosperity of the last few decades. Universal programs are the only real, time-proven, option.

Molly Rookwood asked: I find it shocking that more people haven't commented on the title. I have searched through articles, and while they mention the obvious connection to Hitler, none of them ask about it in detail. WHY would he call it that, and what point is he trying to make? I can't bring myself to read the book, brilliant though it may be, because the title is too horrifying for me to move past. I think it is like satire, it that can have a double meaning, a differentiation from the original. While in one, Hitler "outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany", the other has Knausgard describing the "banalities and humiliations of his life." It is in fact a mock of Hitler. As for his point, that is the question that you need to answer, since literature is rarely so cut-and-dried as to plainly state its meaning, but provides one via interpretation. This is the quote regarding Hitler's Mein Kampf from the article that Dramatika l...