The Sunday Star Tribune’s Opinion section features my story on teaching in north Minneapolis public schools. With it comes a mix of difficulty, sadness, and hope.
My hope is that you get something out of it:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/206024561.html
have a blessed Sunday,
-Brandon
I write on this blog about reaching new plateaus. The Dutch company Mars One wants to take humanity to new planets.
I wrote a couple months ago about this extraordinary mission which I believe has the power to change the world. The whole process of choosing the astronauts, training them, the flight, and then life on the Red Planet will be televised. Suddenly practically everyone in the world will have something in common with everyone else as we’ll all tune in. You could ask a random dude from Australia about it and strike up a conversation. I can’t imagine a better way to bring the planet together than to give all of us a common focus outside of ourselves. Ethnicity and borders mean nothing in interplanetary travel.
Because of all this, the ones chosen to go on this journey will be celebrated more than any celebrity in history. The interesting part is that anyone can apply. As long as your are 18 and can pony up $38, you can put your hat in the ring to be an astronaut, pioneer, and celebrity all in one. You’ll have competition, though. Tens of thousands have already applied.
Click here to do so OR to just check out some of the videos of other applicants.
Just remember what they say: once you go Mars, you’ll never go back.
Seriously. There’s no return flight back.
This makes the videos all the more interesting because those starring in them are individuals unlike most. They are both extraordinarily adventurous AND detached enough from the usual attractions of life: trying new foods, falling in love, raising kids, going to movies, sporting events, and concerts, attending religious activities, travelling the globe, etc., etc., etc.
Some of the candidates–not surprisingly–are characters, those who you might expect are a little anti-social and perhaps without a lot of personal ties to Earth:
Others, though, are surprisingly personable, and it’s these folks who really make me think. To see someone like them advocate for the chance to leave Earth and never return confuses me–to the point where it actually troubles me a little. How can you just leave all this behind…forever?
For me, it would take never-before-attained courage to go on this mission. I’d cry before the departure saying goodbye to everyone. Just as significant, I’d probably shake philosophical trembles as the world as I knew it would be altered not just literally but by way of an adjusted perspective on what I deemed as truth and the meaning of life.
I wouldn’t have the guts. My hats off to those who do.
-Brandon
With all the reality TV such as “My Strange Addiction”, ”Celebrity Rehab”, and “Hoarders”, there’s never been a time when addiction has been more widely observed.
Additionally, I’ve noticed from scientific and popular media a push for addiction awareness and the advocacy of treating it as a disease. Recognizing the evidence from brain scans, and after decades of observing the behavior of those addicted, some of these advocates even go so far as to criticize 12 Step programs for focusing on a spiritual solution rather than emphasizing addiction as a physical phenomena.
Here’s an example of this push from the organization, BeSmartBeWell.com. It dispels of the idea that the addict is a bad person by portraying them as having a disease:
Now at the same time, we have intelligent and leading voices pointing out the other side of the coin. Calling addiction a disease can give an addict an excuse for their behavior. “I can’t help it. I have a disease.” Also, how can it be a disease if all one has to do to stop it is not do something–drink, shoot up, gamble, etc? It rubs people the wrong way giving it the same label as someone with multiple sclerosis or cancer.
And Bill Wilson himself, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, said this at the National Catholic Clergy Conference on Alcoholism in 1961:
“We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity.”
Weak-willed or victim of a disease?
So it seems today that we roughly have three groupings of how to address addiction: this new wave of promoters for addiction as a disease; those who espouse 12 Step solutions (usually the addicts themselves) with the emphasis on a spiritual solution–some of whom call addiction a disease and others who don’t; and last, those who think addiction is simply a matter of making bad choices.
Where do you stand?
Like many issues it has become one of extremes, each side reacting to the other by going further apart. As such, there has become this polarized debate suggesting that addiction has to either be a disease or a choice.
Personally, I toward a combination of the two, and as such, I advocate for neither. And let me next get out of the way that at 23 I got my second DUI, went to treatment, cleaned up my act for 6 months, then bounced in and out of sobriety for a few more months before taking my last drink/drug right after my 24th birthday. I’ve been clean now for 7 years.
To me, it seems that the TIME magazine article linked above as well as the video come from people who recognize the malady of addiction as being more than simply a bad choice. There is something unique in the addict’s brain, a physical/mental peculiarity. I agree. But to drive this point home, they leap to calling it a disease, and this I don’t agree with for the reasons given by the skeptics.
I don’t agree with the skeptics, though, that addiction is simply a choice. Because even if an addict makes the decision not to act out on their problem behavior, you’re still left with an individual with the same brain anomaly that is evident regardless.
I think the answer lies in the middle: addiction as a non-disease physical phenomenon
In all, though, I think it’s great that popular recognition grows when credible voices get behind the idea that addiction is more than a choice. With greater acceptance of this comes better approaches for those suffering–whether it be an addict’s family trying to cope or a judge looking to sentence a repeat drunk-driver.
-Brandon
I bumped into a cool site that lists the scientists whose discoveries have saved the most lives.
There are over 100 scientists named and divided into “clubs” such as the 100,000 club. I’ll share a few here and encourage you to check out the rest right at ScienceHeroes.com.
Coming in at the “bottom” with an estimated 50,000 lives saved are Edward Patrick and Henry Heimlich. (I bet you can figure out what they figured out.)
The Heimlich maneuver.
Samuel Kountz, the first African American transplant surgeon, pioneered kidney transplants. His work is credited with helping save the lives of over 227,000 people.
Swedish engineer, Nils Bohlin, worked for Volvo to improve the seat belt and his design has saved over a million lives.
Russian Vasilii Kolesov endured incredible conditions in war ravaged Russia throughout the first half of the 20th century. Then, in 1964, he performed the first bypass surgery on a human. Lives since saved using this technique: 2.6 million
Canadians Frederick Banting and Charles Best have saved over 16 million lives for discovering insulin.
And Christian Zoeller’s tetanus vaccine has saved over 52 million!
Topping the 100 million mark, Polish immigrant Abel Wolman and American Linn Enslow are credited for saving 177 million lives due to their discovery which, according to Life Magazine in 1997, was “probably the most significant public health advance of the millennium.” It was purifying water via chlorination.
Finally, we go into the billion club.
German Richard Lewisohn and Austrian Karl Landsteiner ”teamed up” to perfect blood transfusions. Landsteiner discovered blood types, and later Lewisohn devised the method which has been used to save an estimated 1,094,000,000 lives.
Last but certainly not least, Germans Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch worked together to “fix” nitrogen, meaning taking nitrogen from the atmosphere and getting it into usable form for fertilizer. After countless experiments, Haber discovered a process for synthesizing nitrogen-rich ammonia. Then Bosch used his skill to allow the method to be used on a large scale. The Haber-Bosch process is still used today (discovered in 1909) and is responsible for allowing the population boom of the 20th century. The site states, according to author Vaclav Smil, the Haber-Bosch process “has been of greater fundamental importance to the modern world than…the airplane, nuclear energy, space flight, or television.”
Lives saved (or perhaps better stated: made possible): over 2.7 billion.
We honor the guy who jumped in front of the subway to save another person. We celebrate the pilot who landed a hobbling aircraft to safety. We don’t know who any of these scientists are.
It is a bit of apples to oranges, though. These scientists didn’t risk their lives (that I’m aware of) to create these breakthroughs. We can also better relate to the experiences of these two men, because easier to imagine our response if seeing someone on a train track or if a plane is going down. The courage and “keeping it cool” these two must have had! Finally, the numbers for the scientists are huge because they keep growing. They have a sort of “residual life-savings” continuing to pay dividends as we keep using their inventions.
Nonetheless, the stories of these scientists are full of blood, sweat, and tears. Some conducted literally thousands of experiments. Their determination helped us all to grow up in a better world that might never have been so if not for their efforts:
Wolman Abel
Linn Enslow
Vasilii Kolesov
Samuel Kountz
Charles Best
Frederick Banting
Richard Lewisohn
Karl Landsteiner
Henry Heimlich
Edward Patrick
Nils Bohlin
Carl Bosch
Fritz Haber
Thank you, awesome scientists, for helping humanity reach new plateaus,
-Brandon
The human body is a mystery. Phenomena occur all the time that have doctors scratching their heads. A friend of mine recently had a golf ball-sized tumor in his brain dissolve after plaguing him for seven years. He was elated; doctors at the Mayo Clinic are stumped.
You might think, though, that something as standard and simple as a broken leg would be pretty well understood. But on Sunday during a college basketball game, Louisville player Kevin Ware snapped his leg in two places. It didn’t occur when someone landed on him or by him jumping to save a ball going out of bounds and hitting a bench. He simply long-jumped toward an opposing player shooting a basket. As soon as he landed, snap.
Beware: this video shows a leg breaking:
(If HD is working slowly for you and/or CBS censors the above clip on YouTube for copyright, here’s a backup to watch:
According to the story on TheWeek.com, open fractures, where the bone is exposed to air, are exceedingly rare even in violent sports. In basketball, this may be the first occurrence of its kind. Ware snapped his lower leg bone (tibia) in two places. How did it happen?
Some doctors theorize that Ware had existing, though unnoticed, hairline fractures in his tibia. Another physician wondered about vitamin deficiency. Other doctors point out that even given the above two variables, a “perfect” landing would be necessary with enough forward momentum and a locked knee and ankle.
It’s funny how fickle our bodies can be. People have survived devastating car accidents virtually untouched. Collegiate athlete Keven Ware snapped his leg performing a routine jump.
On another note, and as exemplified by the video stills above, the reaction of the players is also intriguing. So affected they were by the sight of their teammate’s dangling leg, that they simply fell where they stood and sat in despair. After a couple seconds, they were told to get back on their feet. And a few seconds after that, they jogged over to Ware to offer their support. Meanwhile, as Ware had jumped toward his bench to make the play, his teammates there had front row seat to the traumatic snap. And rather than a response of instant assistance, they reacted in a somewhat opposite fashion: crowding back and away from him.
On top of the event being very uncommon, it was a moment to look at the psyche of those who witness a gruesome sight, a look at how disturbing it can be to see your peer go through something so horrific, and finally a chance to see teammates rally for their fallen brother. At the time of Ware’s injury, the score was 20-21. Louisville went on to win the game by 22.
-Brandon
In the future, we might be able to worry about one less thing: extinction. This goes for species whose numbers are currently low, but also for those which no longer walk the earth.
Advances made now allow scientists to clone animals without even having an intact cell from that species to work from. I can’t explain the process in depth, but one method is mentioned here as “using genetic material to create hybrid cells to clone from a closely related species.”
Through this method, embryos have been created for a recently-extinct Australian frog. In another instance, an extinct species of ibex was re-birthed from a surrogate mother of a related species. Unfortunately, the process has come with difficulties. None of the embryos survived, and the infant ibex had lung deformities so survived just seven minutes.
Creating life just to have it suffer and die is unsettling. I can understand people’s distaste for this “playing God”. In the end, though, I believe cloning will be perfected and become a regular part of humanity’s technological repertoire.
If so, think about the consequences. Being alive to see the day when a woolly mammoth or saber-tooth tiger is walking before your eyes won’t be referring to going back in time, but something to look ahead to. But besides seeing animals from the ice age, a huge benefit of this technology is that we won’t necessarily have to pay for our mistakes should we over-fish or hunt a particular species.
The flip side here is that this ability will enable humans to act recklessly. If there’s a way to resurrect a species, why worry about it going extinct? But a give and take comes with every new technology. Social media allows us to connect with more people while enabling us to never leave our homes. The Internet allows people to collaborate in ways never before possible to create and produce whether good or bad. Calculators have enabled people’s math skills to suffer.
In all, despite the potential negatives and unanswered questions, I’m looking at the possibilities of how this technology can help our world.
Check out this site from National Geographic that offers a ton of content on this topic. It’s the cover story of their April issue:
Click the cover to read about the animals science may be able to bring back.
Along with photos of potential species to resurrect and a pro v. con argument, here’s a video breaking down another method to bring back the passenger pigeon:
What are your thoughts on cloning and so-called deextinction?
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
Each high-profile court case in America provides a stage for the media and public to act out their stance on justice. This time, the noteworthy performances were the cheers on Twitter and the angry reaction from many toward CNN’s own reaction to the verdict.
Knowing the outline of the case, there seemed little doubt that these guys were guilty. I think most people watching felt the same. But when the verdict was announced, I saw no reason to cheer.
A lot of people did, though. And they did for two reasons: 1. punishment is necessary in America for the righteous to be vindicated. 2. Many attached this case to other social issues such as athletes not being above the law and women’s rights.
People and media revealed the extent of this attachment by cheering the punishment and by refusing any empathy for the perpetrators. In fact, those who did were attacked.
CNN’s journalists expressed considerable, honest concern for the boys after the reporter on the scene was moved by the tears and sorrow from the perpetrators. But doing so kicked a hornet’s nest all the way from the New Yorker to Jezebel to Gawker to the Huffington Post to Slate.
I watched the footage of CNN’s coverage on yet another site that was lambasting it. I watched it expecting the hosts to fawn over these guys in some melo-dramatic soap-opera-ish fashion. But all it was, was two women showing concern. How could you not? The boy’s formerly-jailed father announced his failure as a dad and for the first time said to his son that he loved him. This same boy broke down in court when apologizing.
But there’s little room for this when such gripping issues are seen to be in the balance. And when justice got it right, the Tweets took off:
“Too much sympathy in court being shown for these disgusting little rapists. It is not a tragedy when a rapist is found guilty.#Steubenville“
“When I was in college guys used to joke ‘passed out equals consent’ and it made my stomach turn. So glad for the Steubenville verdict.”
“There are a lot of tears in the courtroom. Wonder where the tears were for the victim that night? #Steubenville“
“CONGRATULATIONS, JANE DOE! Justice in Steubenville is in your favor! Next stop: civil court!”
“Solidarity w/ Jane Doe. Happy for verdict, but it doesn’t stop today. She has to live with this when media coverage stops. #steubenville“
“Don’t feel sorry rapists: Stop airing the men crying. Those were adult actions, they should’ve been tried as adults.”
“‘Those poor boys’ lives are ruined!’ — exactly what you should not be thinking after the#steubenville guilty verdict.”
All this hate toward these two guys–all the intolerance for any concern for them–is fear concerning America’s past of seeing jocks get away with crime and discrimination against women. This makes sympathy for the perpetrator translate into being in favor of letting athletes get away with whatever they want, and is seen a fight against women’s rights.
Some might say I just don’t fully appreciate the long and arduous uphill climb for equal rights. But I don’t think that appreciation for justice means taking pleasure in another’s harm. And I know in my heart that it’s the admirable thing to feel for even those who do bad things. In this court case, though, that capacity has been shut off. It’s ironic that in a case where two boys violated a girl’s humanity, so many are out there to take away theirs.
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
The story might seem a bit ho-hum at first: a bank decides not to lend to businesses it deems unethical.
But hold on. How do you interpret the actions of a big bank not lending to certain businesses? -Is it smart business? -Discriminatory? -Their right?
This story slides down the razor’s edge of opposing ideologies. What I mean is that one can easily look at it a few different ways. As such, it’s a great exercise in better understanding–even empathizing–with where people you disagree with come from.
Plus, this story comes from Minnesota’s own Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, and is about Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank.
Let’s dice things up.
The article explains that CEO, Richard Davis has led a policy of foregoing business to entities they deem as unethical.
U.S. Bank CEO, Richard Davis
Such businesses include: illegal gun makers and gun sellers, gambling websites, massage parlors and spas where sexual activity is permitted, drug paraphernalia-related companies, adult bookstores, and adult entertainment operations. Citing a “what kind of world do you want your kids to be brought up in?” kind of thinking, Davis defends his position as beneficial for the long-term, though it costs them money right away.
How do you interpret this? Additionally, how do we think others might? This is where the story gets interesting:
1. Social conservatives might see this man as doing the morally right thing: foregoing immediate profits for the sake of denying companies who partake in vice.
2. Liberally-minded folk might see a stodgy conservative holding his views at the expense of others, interfering with a small business’s right to exist just because they are doing, what in his mind is, “wrong”. It’s an example of big business pushing their weight around, and we should watch this (or perhaps even enforce otherwise) as he shouldn’t be able to discriminate in such manner.
3. Right-leaners would combat such an intrusion from #2. Claiming their own ideological stance of private property rights, they’d defend a business’s right to do with their money as they choose.
4. Libertarians would agree with #3, but might add to it that where there’s a market, there’s a need. Thus, though you might find the activity unbecoming of you, it doesn’t mean you should deny this market its lifeblood.
5. Coming full circle, and in an age when big banks are getting a bad rap for being fat cats without conscience, a Left-leaner might also see this stance as admirable. It’s a rare instance where big business is putting people before profits. (Just don’t get too zealous or we’ll slip into #2.)
With the “people before profits” ideology and the social conservatives, this story could produce some interesting bedfellows. It’s interesting to notice this and to recognize how folks with differing viewpoints might react because from this we can see where ideologies overlap, where people’s hearts are, and where they come from.
In all, it helps us understand each other a little better.
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
Sure, we all know Smith and Johnson, but what about the rest of the top ten? A surprisingly cool website, names.whitepages.com, gives us a look at all names–first and last–in the U.S.
This site really breaks things down, too. Type in “John” and we see that it is the most common name in America, that over 4 million men have that name, that is originates from the Greek Iōannēs, that northeast America has the highest percentage of Johns, and that the name is way more common with old men than with children.
How about a less common name like Miranda? It’s the 711th most popular in America:
#710Andres
#711Miranda
#712Neal
North Dakota has more Miranda’s per capita than any other state. Half of all Mirandas are 0-12 years old. And it originates from the Latin “mirandus” meaning “admirable, lovely”.
Let’s try one more. How about Brandon? 
Any guesses on how popular this name is? Top 50? Top 100?
Not quite:
#150Walter
#151Aaron
#152Brandon
#153Frances
#154Leslie
Utah has the highest Brandon per capita
But this is America, the melting pot. Let’s look at some names associated with minority populations:
Going down the list, the first one I found was Jose at #43:
#41George
#42Gary
#43Jose
#44Anthony
#45Melissa
Then I decided to go fishing and typed in some typical ethnic names. The first was Fadumo which is a female Somali name. All the Fadumos on America only add up to be ranked #11,875:
#11,873Azadeh
#11,874Crissie
#11,875Fadumo
#11,876Jamesetta
#11,877Janece
And in case you’re looking for a reason to call Minnesota #1, rest assured knowing that there are by far more Fadumos here than in any other state! Whoo hoo! Of the 648 Fadumos, Minnesota has 256 of them.
How about the female Vietnamese name, Trang:
#2,081Migdalia
#2,082Buck
#2,083Trang
#2,084Anabel
#2,085Stacia
California, had by far the most Trangs.
And lastly, how about the Russian boy’s name: Sergei
#5,377Assunta
#5,378Miesha
#5,379Sergei
#5,380Kenji
#5,381Sina
Interestingly, Alaska has the most Sergeis per capita. Perhaps they swim the Bering Strait.
Let’s wrap up this blog with the top ten most common first names in America:
#1John
#2Michael
#3James
#4Robert
#5David
#6Mary
#7William
#8Richard
#9Thomas
#10Jennifer
Only two women’s names. I guess parents are more original when it comes to naming their baby girls.
And we conclude with the top ten surnames in America:
#1Smith
#2Johnson
#3Williams
#4Brown
#5Jones
#6Miller
#7Davis
#8Wilson
#9Anderson
#10Garcia
#11Rodriguez
Okay, so I made it 11. I wanted to indicate that the U.S. is demographically amorphous. One wonders how these lists will look in 50 years. Looking at the evolution of first names on this site, we discover that though there are many Georges out there, few are between 0-12 years old.
But popularity of names is just one aspect of this site. It also gives you etymology and meaning. What’s in a name? Go and find out! Great for looking for baby names, expectant parents.
The last thought I had was: wouldn’t these lists make great Scategories categories?
to being #152,
-Brandon
Finally, we get the answer to the question we’ve all been dying to know: how much are my body parts worth? And we get the answer is this awesome infographic courtesy of medicaltranscription.net.
Before we take a look at this masterpiece of body pieces, though, it’s worth noting the thoughts and issues this graphic brings up:
First, in case you didn’t know, it is illegal to sell or buy a body part. This law is designed to 1. prevent people in duress from being tempted to sell, 2. prevent people from profiting by preying on these folks, and 3. keep the wealthy from having better access to life-saving organs. Few people disagree with these well-intentioned arguments.
But on the other side of the debate, while enforcing a law designed to improve society, the legal system is killing people–lots of them as you’ll see below as people die in wait for organs that won’t come. An organ market would presumable solve this.
This is one of the toughest issues I know to take a side on, and this infographic is an interesting–if not just entertaining–examination of it:
Let me finish by offering this kicker: science is working to grow human organs. If technology allows, we can stop debating about organ markets because there will be no need for anyone to sell their organs. It’s one example of how technology could solve the problems which we rack our brains over deciding where to draw the legal line.
No more problem = no line. :)
But though this technology takes the thought-provocation up a notch, we’re still a ways away from growing a kidney or liver. So in the meantime, ponder the need for more organs in our world, and if so moved, donate your body after death or write your legislature to legalize markets, or not. The idea of being able to buy/sell a heart is kind of weird.
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
