Category Archives: The Contrarian

Pride Goeth

http://childpsychiatryassociates.com/treatment-team/mary-hilliard/mary_hilliard-600  

Ask any parent of a newborn: There’s no reasoning with a fussy infant. You can either feed him, change him, or swaddle him in his comforting blanket. What you can’t do is cry louder than him to shut him up (though that would make for a great YouTube video).

Perhaps that’s the approach the House of Representatives should take when claiming their newly-won seats next month: Be the responsible parents in a nursery of crabby newborns.

Starting with the border wall. Give it to president petulant.

As much as it would pain Democrats — and delight Republicans and Trumpanzees — it’s time for the House to become the adults in the room. And loudly announce that approach.

The reason is simple math. The shutdown is not only winnowing our already-depleted confidence is public servants; it’s literally harming the people who simply want to do their jobs.

As of tomorrow, we will be one week into the shutdown. And look what it’s cost us: 380,000 “non essential” federal workers received an unwelcome vacation over Christmas in the form of unpaid furloughs. Another 420,000 had to work through the holidays, also unpaid, on a Trump promise they would get a retroactive paycheck when government reopens. Is there any promise he’s ever kept? Particularly involving free labor?

That’s 800,000 Americans held hostage by pride.

And the math gets more grim from there. In late 2017, Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings U.S. economics team calculated that the country loses $6.5 billion a week in lost productivity. We have already eclipsed the cost of Trump’s ransom note of $5 billion for his wall.

The House has an opportunity to hold a mantle it hasn’t grasped in decades: working for people, regardless of party. And considering the ransom amounts to one-half of one percent of the U.S. debt, it’s clear what this stalemate has become — an incessant backseat bickering amounting to  “Mom, he’s touching my side of the seat!” on a road trip both parents are already regretting.

So become the parents. And scolding ones, at that.

As the televised “negotiation” between Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and a mannequin of Mike Pence underscored, restrained debate does not work, either politically or practically.Image result for trump pelosi schumer pence

What the Democrats need is an unofficial spokesperson who can firebrand with the Pumpkin-in-Chief. Perhaps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamela Harris, Corey Booker, or any of the party’s young turks. Image result for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamela Harris, Corey Booker

And make it plain that the $5 billion is not for the wall, but to pacify a petulant child. In fact, officially give it a title that says just that. Perhaps the Baby Binket Bill. And in introducing it on the floor, be as cutting as Trump in its introduction. “We know the president will likely spend much of it to silence porn stars and playmates, and that the wall will be as successful as his ‘university’ and ‘charity’ — in Chapter 11. But Americans who believe in working should not be punished by a pathological scam artist.”

Sean Hannity and his colleagues at Pravda News will collectively lose their minds. The Senate would surely change the name of the bill. The president might veto it on the insult alone. Image result for angry hannity

But the statement would have already been made official — and would stick. Trump has always been canny with insults that stick (“Lyin’ Ted, Lil’ Marco). Beat him to the punch. More importantly, become the party that reclaims the high ground. God knows it’s low hanging fruit for the taking.

Swallow your pride, throw the punch, employ the people.

This is the time for resolutions, none of which we keep. Mine, for instance, will be the same I had last year: Take up smoking; try meth; and get even with that hobo.

Dems can go a step further by making (and keeping) just one:

Do your fucking job.

The Argument for Gene Editing

 

From the reaction he solicited, you’d think He Jiankui had genetically modified that giant steer Knickers — then stepped in its 40-pound droppings.

Instead, he “genetically edited” the embryonic genes of twins born to Chinese parents, one stricken with the HIV virus. Image result for He Jiankui

The outrage was swift and gasoline soaked. Jiankui faced a scientific backlash that ranged from accusations of playing God to opening the door to boutique babies.

My question: why?

I suppose its natural for humans to fear science. Look at our historical reaction to it: We executed scientists who dared suggest we weren’t the center of the universe, or that epilepsy wasn’t a demon curse. From Y2K to Artificial Intelligence to Genetically Modified Organisms to our president’s rejection of his scientists’ findings on global warming, our instinct appears to be shoot first and learn later.

Bioethicists, in particular, are enjoying their rare day in the media sun. More than 700 incensed scientists packed the 2nd International Summit On Human Genome Editing last week to give Jiankiui the what for.

And, to his credit, Jiankui accepted the heat, apologizing that his work was not peer reviewed beforehand, and acknowledging that details of his (government approved) work should have never been leaked on  YouTube.

But the reaction on both sides, while vitriolic, demonstrates the beauty of science. Imagine similar outrage within the same cult of Catholicism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, where pedophilia runs rampant and poses a far graver threat to humanity. Their solution is not to solve the epidemic, but to secretively move  priests and elders to a fresh set of victims.

That’s not the scientific way, though the perverted logic tracks similarly. Let’s look at a few criticisms of gene editing.

University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo, who helped organize the summit, issued the harshest critique of He’s work, calling it “misguided, premature, unnecessary and largely useless.”

“The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected,” she said.

According to a recent UNICEF study, globally, it is estimated that more than 1,000 babies are born with HIV every day.  Try comforting those parents with gender-based probabilities.

Next comes the “playing God” argument. Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D.,  executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society recently wrote an op-ed piece for National Geographic. This was her summary conclusion paragraph:

“Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict. We need not and should not risk these outcomes.”

The “could” argument is perhaps the most specious defense in human dialectics. The argument that a venture could go wrong negates any risk of venture. Had it held sway years before, would we have eradicated smallpox, malaria, polio and dozens of other diseases I don’t know shit about, but were apparently significant human threats (Rinderpest, Dracunculiasis, Hookworm, Yaws, Lymphatic filariasis, etc.). And the notion that we “should not” allow research is, at best, Orwellian. Image result for orwellian

Next, boutique babies. What the hell that does that even mean? That we’d  scientifically engineer our babies to be taller, stronger, have blue eyes? Who gives a shit? We want ’em shorter and weaker? We socially try to create boutique babies everyday, from elite educations to space camps to “faith-based” initiatives to de-program our kids from being gay. Don’t believe in our love of boutique babies? Walk into a Baby Gap store.

We’re already fully immersed in genetic alterations. More than 40% of the sugar the U.S. consumes has GMOs to battle pesticides — a genetic modification we embrace so bugs don’t eat our food before we do. The E. coli outbreak of romaine lettuce was caused by tainted irrigation water, not test tube tomfoolery.

Finally, and most importantly, the arguments against genetic tinkering are founded on a precariously flimsy assumption: that natural is good. Tsunamis are natural. So are earthquakes. We surely exacerbate natural threats, but we don’t predate them. Nature created AIDS (in 1959, scientists agree, when an HIV-infected chimp bit a man from Léopoldville in the Belgian Congo). Damn you, monkey scientists!Image result for monkey scientist

The legitimate criticisms of Jiankui’s discovery are based in practice, not principle. And even he agrees the practice should be more transparent, more peer-reviewed. But there’s no jamming Pandora back in her box.

Oh, and Knickers? He wasn’t genetically modified. Just a big-ass neutered male cow. Let’s try not stepping in his pies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8

 

 

 

 

Real Estate: It’s All About Position, Position, Position

 

Well, that’s one way to sell a home.

By all accounts, the Texas house for sale looked like a slam dunk: It came with a fenced yard, gleaming hardwood floors and an open-concept kitchen. Starter house, perfect for a starter couple.

But real estate isn’t exactly booming in Conroe, Texas, perhaps because the city, about 40 miles north of Houston, collects water like an aquarium. It suffered catastrophic flooding last year during Hurrican Harvey, which literally ripped nearby homes from their foundations. Like a lot of homes there, the $230,000 house got less than a thousand views on Houston real estate websites, and fewer than a dozen in-person visits in 40 days.

It’s not an uncommon problem in Conroe, where agents have had to take some unorthodox measures to put homes in the River Plantation subdivision on buyers’ radar. Among their tactics: offering $250 worth of tacos with a purchase, listing expensive-looking houses for $1 to spark bidding wars and personally posing in rooms of unwanted houses while dressed in plush panda suits.

Enter realtor Kristin Gyldenege, who decided to go a step, er, longer.

She hired  scantily clad fitness models to pose in the listing photos. In one of the images, a tanned blond woman in knee socks, black panties and an open-backed T-shirt leaned provocatively into the breakfast bar, her back — and back end — provocatively arched.

Other shots showed her climbing the stairs, perching on a kitchen counter and folding towels in the laundry room, all pant-less. Meanwhile, her male counterpart, whose bulging biceps are covered in tattoos, climbed a ladder to change a light bulb and cooked a meal in a cast-iron pan on the stove. Later, he gave the woman — now shirtless and face down — a massage.

Outrage inevitably followed, and offended viewers demanded the listing be removed from the Houston Association of Realtors website, which meekly complied. Even cowardly media outlets caved, describing the pictures instead of displaying them. Apparently, not only is a picture worth a thousand words, but a thousand canceled subscriptions, they figured.

Since The HB doesn’t care about subscriptions, we kindly make a counter-offer to southern media: fuck you. Do some real reporting.

Kristin Gyldenege launched the marketing tactic after her client’s three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in the Houston suburb of Conroe sat on the market for 40 days with no offers.

“When I found out I had 100 complaints, I’m like, ‘Sweet, that’s like 10,000 people that have seen it,’ ” Gyldenege (who goes by “pottymouthedagent” on Instagram) told reporters. “I didn’t want anything slutty. I wanted to represent a young couple who was on top of their game all the way around and who had just moved into this great house.”

She told Fox News: "Of course we needed to show off their amazing bodies and we all know that sex sells so it needed to be sexy but believable.  Something someone could see themselves in or ASPIRE to see themselves in."

Within a week, the house averaged six visits a day. The listing racked up more than 20,000 views.

However, not everyone was a fan of Gyldenege’s advertising campaign. The site removed the photos after receiving around 100 complaints.

Perhaps unaware of of her pun, Gyldenege was unapologetic, explaining that the owners approved the strategy and her job requires “doing what’s best for my client.

“In the end, that’s what matters.” Hear hear, pottymouth.

The house hasn’t sold yet, but Gyldenege isn’t worried. Square footage is good, the foundation obviously solid, and the mortgage is reasonable: 2,300 condoms a month.

Now that’s how you hold an open house.