So this changes things a bit

The Sunday Ideas section of the Boston Globe is always interesting. They've covered a lot of good shit recently.

This week they ran an article titled, Head Fake that describes new research about Prozac's effect on the brain. It turns out there is a reason that Prozac is so successful at treating depression symptoms in so many people... but its not the reason they thought.

The effectiveness of Prozac, these scientists say, has little to do with the amount of serotonin in the brain. Rather, the drug works because it helps heal our neurons, allowing them to grow and thrive again.

In this sense, Prozac is simply a bottled version of other activities that have a similar effect, such as physical exercise. They aren't happy pills, but healing pills.

Awesome! I'm no neuropsychologist, but as a psychology geek I can recognize that this is kind of a big deal. As in, this completely changes the way that we'll have to think about not only depression, but about Prozac and specifically fluoxetine (the active drug). The more we understand about the problem, the better able we are to treat it. Any any drug that actually heals the brain is ok by me.

But even beyond the obvious implications, I think this could have a serious impact on the social conception of depression and mental illness in general. Depression becomes more accessible when you talk about it in more tangible, biological terms.

"The best way to think about depression is as a mild neurodegenerative disorder," says Ronald Duman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Yale. "Your brain cells atrophy, just like in other diseases [such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's]. The only difference with depression is that it's reversible. The brain can recover."

Across the board, mental illness, from anxiety to schizophrenia, is so misunderstood on a societal level that its embarrassing. Advancements like this not only provide hope that people living with depression can recover their lives, but that one day they can get the personal and professional support necessary to recover fully. This could be HUGE!

I Get My Inspiration from the Vegan Pastries

Excitable musician: (singing) I was raised on muffin tops in the Tennessee Valley!


*There were about 5 verses to this spontaneous ballad, but I could only get down the first because it was hard to stifle laughter and type without interrupting the performance.

Overheard in JP

A group of slow talking (possibly brain damaged) guys with Boston accents discuss their favorite trilogy of action movies:

Guy #1 (impassioned): That shit is so amazing. You're watching and you're like wha-wha-wha-wha-what?? (accompanied by a remix hand movement)
Guys #2-4 (nodding in agreement): Yeah, definitely.


In Java Jo's, where magic lives and dreams come true.

Wait, did I have an abortion and not know it?

Get out your calendars!

June 7, 2008 is Protest the Pill Day '08 , sponsored by your friends and mine, the American Life League. Awesome.

Feministing covered this pretty thoroughly here, but I felt the need to add my two cents.

There are two special features on the Pill Kills website that you should not miss.

Number one is the Q&A under Talking Points. The highlights:

Q: How do you know when life begins?
A: It is a proven, scientific fact that when the human egg and human sperm unite, fertilization occurs and a new human being is created.

Where is the source for your "proven, scientific fact", eh? Also, I'm pretty sure a zygote isn't a fetus which isn't a human baby. Not even dictionary.com will tell you those are synonymous. Sorry friends.

Q: Isn’t it better to be on the pill when you
are sexually active?
A: Better for whom? The pill does not prevent you from getting a sexually transmitted disease, it is not 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and you could conceive a child who gets chemically aborted before the baby’s presence is even known to you. Moreover, sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong.

Better for me! Thanks for calling me a slut, jerks.

Q: Why does Planned Parenthood say the pill does not cause an abortion?
A: Planned Parenthood and other organizations cover up the reality that the birth control pill can, in fact, kill a preborn baby. They have a vested interest in lying to young women because they exploit them. Planned Parenthood brainwashes young girls by telling them that the pill merely prevents pregnancy, when the fact is that the pill can act after fertilization, which is when pregnancy begins, and kill the preborn baby. Planned Parenthood says that pregnancy does not begin at fertilization, but this is their biggest lie. In 2006, Planned Parenthood received over $345 million in clinic income. One-third of its clinic income is from selling birth control. Obviously, they make big money by lying to women.

Really. Planned Parenthood is making "big money"? Look, it's not like Planned Parenthood markets birth control to the vulnerable masses. When was the last time you saw a Planned Parenthood commercial during American Idol promoting intercourse? I can see it now... a 15-year-old girl lays on her bed, chewing the end of her glitter pen, then writes "Dear Diary, I really want to have sex with Johnny but I'd just DIE if I got pregnant!" Just then, the fabulous Planned Parenthood fairy godfather, Patrick, floats in through her curtained window, radiating confidence and sparkles. "Oh sweetie," Patrick coos. "I have just what you need!" and he hands her a round of birth control pills. Her face lights up and she clutches the pills to her training bra in delight. "Now the rest is up to you!" he encourages, giggling as he floats back out the window.

Wow. That'd be a damn good commercial. Call me, Planned Parenthood, if you ever want to use Patrick.

My second favorite thing on the Pill Kills website is
The Pill Kills Babies Day , a Facebook event. The early wall postings were penned by a Nicole F. with a very strange cat as her picture (not relevant, yet relevant). She's had a little too much Kool-Aid, if you ask me.

Nicole relates the story of her experience as a pregnancy counselor.

Many of the clients I saw when I was a pregnancy counselor were already on contraception. The problem was that these girls thought they were “safe” from pregnancy because they were on contraceptives. In reality, it was a false security that prompted promiscuity. Many of these girls initially wanted abortions because they were angry that their contraceptives “failed.” In the end I had to work with these girls on learning to care for their bodies before sex rather than blindly relying on contraceptives because if they continued on their path, abortion would simply become a back-up method of contraception.

Let me get this straight... girls on birth control are slutty? Ouch. Right, having sex is a risk you take. But unless Nicole and The Pill Kills offer a better alternative than abstinence, I don't see the abstinent craze sweeping the nation, nay THE WORLD, anytime soon. (I wonder though... was she actually a pregnancy counselor, or did she just get drunk and watch a Lifetime original marathon?)

How to Critique Others' Gender/Lifestyle Choices... And Fail

I don’t pick fights. Really, I don’t. I am, however, always ready to jump all over someone who picks a fight with me, especially if that person is an inconsiderate moron.

Jeff Jacoby’s opinion piece in the today’s Boston Globe, Pregnant, yes – but not a man exemplifies the writing of someone that qualifies as “an inconsiderate moron”. Jacoby writes about the contested pregnancy of Thomas Beatie, the guy who has been all over every news media outlet for weeks, sporting a beard and a baby bump.

The cutting teaser from the front page was intriguing, but unfortunately Jacoby’s article is sorely lacking in the areas of clarity and purpose. He uses the Globe as a forum instead to bash transgendered people, feminists, and “others at the cultural extreme”, whatever that means.

After discussing this piece with my roommate, I have narrowed down my major grievances to two. First, Jacoby seriously misunderstands Gender Identity Disorder and the intense and involved process of changing one’s gender.

Jacoby writes,

“But it takes more than a mastectomy and hormone treatments to overturn biology. Thomas may be a man in the eyes of the law, but she remains physically a woman, with a woman’s reproductive system, a woman’s genitals, and a woman’s chromosomes.”

He’s brief and dismissive of the years of therapy, testosterone injections, and mastectomy Thomas had to endure, not to mention the time, money and lengthy legal procedures required to become a man in the eyes of the state. It’s not like Thomas woke up one morning, and thought, “Gee, I feel like a man! Today seems like a great day to begin a life-altering, society-alienating, emotionally and financially draining process… because I think I would look better with a goatee and some mutton chops.”

Also, the phrase “overturn biology” shows Jacoby’s inexperience with the transgender lexicon. The point is not to spite God. Maybe if Jacoby exercised a little empathy and sat down with Thomas for a beer (because that’s what men drink), he wouldn’t come across as such an ignorant jackass.

My second grievance is with the two recent news stories Jacoby includes as some kind of evidence for “taboos and moral standards.” Jacoby mentions a story about incest and another about polygamy and possible statutory rape. What does any of that have to do with Thomas being pregnant? How does incest and polygamy relate to transgender issues? IT DOESN’T.

Jacoby has confused SEX issues with GENDER issues. Yes, there are cultural taboos against incest and polygamy. No one is refuting that, least of all Thomas. But more importantly, incest and polygamy are not even issues in Thomas’ case!

For some reason, Jacoby finds it appropriate to lump Thomas in with perverts and criminals, and then insults transgender activists.

He writes:

“Increasingly, though, anyone who upholds those taboos and standards is denounced as a narrow-minded bigot, while those who defy them are celebrated for their nonjudgmentalism and tolerance.”

No one is applauding the incest! No one is defending the polygamists! That behavior is recognized as criminal. What is NOT criminal is identifying as a man but choosing to keep the female equipment. A penis makes a person male, but it does not necessarily make them a “man”. No one, especially an insensitive jerk like Jacoby, has the right to define how a man should live his life. A little gender-bending never hurt anyone anyway. It just pissed off, appalled and frustrated the hell out of a lot of “narrow-minded bigots”, as Jacoby says.

I think the moral of this story is, a little empathy goes a long way. Yes, this story has been sensationalized and has become a bastard form of the truth, but I don’t blame Thomas for that. He is not the one who ran headline after headline of “PREGNANT MAN”. If Jacoby wants to be mad at someone, I suggest he turn to the poor journalism, shoddy source checking, and profiteering of the editors and writers who chose to represent Thomas in that dim, freakish light that sells news so easily.

My advice to Jacoby is this: The next time you sit down to write a sarcastic, insensitive opinion article for a major newspaper, at least have the decency to do your homework on the subject to retain any semblance of journalistic integrity, instead of abusing the reader with ignorant whining.

Go ahead and tell him yourself jacoby@globe.com
I know I'm going to give Jeffy a shout-out.

Don't leave the room!

Study: 93% Of People Talked About Once They Leave Room

LOGAN, UT—From body odor to personal-life details, the groundbreaking study revealed a laundry list of things discussed once most people leave the room.

hahahahahahahhahah

The Onion is amazing. I cried while I read this. The best part? "23 percent mouthed the words 'what the fuck' to others in the room as the door was closing."

Perspective a la Starbucks

I have to admit that I love eavesdropping. Like a lot. Its an activity that goes hand in hand with people watching. I consider myself to be fairly observant and a pretty good investigator and I generally am able to find things out about people pretty quickly without even realizing it. Sometimes its actually an embarrassing and creepy thing to admit... especially when meeting people that I have already stalked extensively on facebook or otherwise. Playing dumb usually does the trick, so inside I can secretly give myself a high-5 for correctly conjecturing their sexual orientation, favorite color, preferred mode of travel, etc.

So... this evening I was in Starbucks with a chai and my portugues workbook (which I have recently become self-conscious about because someone commented that it looks like a child's coloring book), and I happen to sit near two women having a very animated conversation. Fortunately, they were not talking about their children or their children's teacher/coach/babysitter, but they were talking about the financial mess that they had to deal with during and after their divorces. One woman seemed to be a college professor of some sort whose ex-husband was a writer. As far as I could tell, they were engaged in 1999, married soon thereafter, and opened a joint checking-savings account. Between the two of them, they were making over $150k a year, but little did she know that her husband was secretly siphoning off large parts of her salary and depositing them into a regional bank account in Illinois that was in both his and her name (I think they were living in Boston at the time). They were married for about 5 years when she began finding out about the different bank accounts and some other things... I won't go into all the gory details but I believe there was a mistress for a short period of time and also some freelance writing that he published in her name for some reason...

In any case, the conversation concluded with one of the most depressing interactions I have ever heard (in real life):

Woman #1-- "... It's just so disappointing because when we met I thought he was the greatest guy in the world, that I was lucky to have him. He was my best friend and I really thought we were in it for the long haul... I thought we were soul mates."

Woman #2 (who happens to be Russian)-- *nodding enthusiastically in agreement* "Yes exactly! We call it (some word in Russian)... I don't know how to translate it."

Woman #1-- "Oh right, (derivative of Russian word), to be meant for each other... exactly."

Ok thats not verbatim, but its close. The scariest thing is that they talked about their divorces and extreme financial troubles so matter-of-factly. Like its something that is inevitable, that happens to everyone. Clearly they are both highly intelligent and independent women (the Russian lady was talking about being court mandated to split the royalties from her book with her ex), yet they were unable to avoid these catastrophic events. For awhile I've been thinking that marriage sounds like more trouble than its worth, and now I've come to see that joint bank accounts spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r too. Great.

One more reason to die a virgin. I'll post the full list one day, don't worry.