Making scents of tea olives

The tea olive or , Osmanthus fragrans is a wonderfully aromatic plant, particularly when its scent is captured by the evening breeze. I have been stopped in my tracks upon detecting this olfactory ambrosia in the air. What amazes me is that some people cannot smell it at all or only can detect the slightest ghost of a scent.

Each of us has a unique olfactory repertoire that is genetically controlled and reflects an evolutionary heritage. In my family, my father and I can smell the tea olive but my mother cannot, nor can my boyfriend. My mother and boyfriend have genetic histories tied to the British Isles on both sides of their families across multiple generations. So, while I share in this heritage via my mother, I also share my father’s genetic heritage, which is half Croatian. He and I share certain physical traits that are sometimes associated more with Asian populations. This reflects the fact that Eastern and Central Europe were part of a geo-genetic pathway between Asia and western Europe in recent human evolution (circa 100,000-45,000 years ago). For a few genetic maps, see here and here.

How does this relate to the tea olive? Well, its origins are Asian. In China it has been cultivated for thousands of years and the varieties there are far more aromatic than the ones we find in the US today. If our olfactory repertoires are the product of continuous adaptation to the environment, we can assume that specific odors are more powerful to some than to others by sheer nature of evolutionary heritage. Thus, if Asian populations exploited the tea olive as a resource throughout recent evolution, the ability to detect the tea olive via olfactory pathways would increase via selection for more receptors that detect this particular molecule. In populations other populations, those receptors would not be selected for and would remain at a lower frequency, or be absent altogether. This results in those people having only a minor ability to detect the scent in high concentrations, if at all.

For those of us that can detect this scent, Asian heritage or not, we’re lucky to have those receptors!

The Complexity of Obesity

In reading Children, eating disorders, and fat: striking a balance in the classroom by Kevin Beck, I felt inspired to make a comment on a growing body of scientific, pop, and blog discussion about the obesity issue and the end goal of this discussion. I hesitate to call obesity an epidemic because no consensus of data point to a disease origin of obesity (despite some interesting work on viral etiologies). Nevertheless, the rapid increase in the proportion of the population that is obese is of concern because it indicates a massive change biocultural shift.

Obesity is complex system that cannot yet be understood as a whole but the constituent parts of which can be explored more deeply. While researchers are diving into complexity as a field of study, our shift from the micro to macro levels of inquiry is still in its early days. In additional to viral etiologies and other classic gene approaches, the study of gut flora and fetal programming are promising approaches to some cases of obesity. On the cultural side of things, the removal of sodas and snack machines from schools, implementation of nutrition education programs, and healthy school catering options are working on the preventative level. Of course, physical exercise and active living are ever present in health recommendations. In short, there are many pathways to arriving at the answer but does one answer fit all?

Perhaps the individual struggling with excess weight (let alone medical or morbid obesity) is lost in this fray. With any complex problem, more attention is paid to the problem as an entity in itself and the individual is a subject and sometimes a treatment by-product of the emerging knowledge system. The individual may be socially and medically stigmatized and that lived experience, regardless of the cause of excess fat, must be the core of the focus.

I find it hard to support efforts to promote fat awareness without critical context. I do agree that there are overweight people who are healthier than their slim counterparts. One can eat poorly and maintain a good body weight but have the same set of health problems as a person with excess weight. One can eat an unhealthy diet and take little to no physical activity but not be overweight. This individual is more subject to the complex of health problems increasingly associated with obesity than a person who happens to be over-nourished (and overweight as a result) but who is active and eats well. Having tipped my hat to the synergy of diet and activity to health regardless of body weight, I worry about our orientation to food in general.

As animals, humans are biological members of various ecosystems to which we have adapted (and that means genetically and, by extension, biologically and physiologically). But, as humans, we are also members of a unique cultural environment which has played an important role in our genetic evolution as well. Bearing in mind recent cultural changes (10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture to 5000 or so years ago with the emergence of complex societies around the world), we must become more proactive in accepting our new relationship to the environment, our culture, and our bodies as energy producing and using machines. From where we are now, how can we moved forward?

The move toward local consumption and designing living spaces that promote activity are great steps to naturally maintaining our evolutionary needs as active foraging animals as well as our emerging cultural needs to stimulate economies, live responsibly, and rebuild our disturbed habitats.

There is no one solution certainly, but I would rather see a positive focus on life rather than interventions, treatments, diagnoses, finger-pointing, stereo-typing, and medical labelling. I would like the enjoyment of food and physicality to be emphasized in the education of future generations. This will make a tangible directional change with an emphasis on the positive rather than biomedical intervention and psychological buffering.

Dignity in death

We have quite a lively debate in the western world surrounding the right to die. And, the right to choose one’s own death. Many cultures allow, or insist, an elderly person to take action in this regard. One striking example is the Aymara. A documentary on a valued elder, Alejo Mamani, depicts his struggle with clinging to life for the sake of his daughters who have not married well and the leadership of his community on the one hand, and his desired to ‘go to the cliffs’ and join his lost peers. He struggles with possession but, to a western audience, we view his struggle as psychological, the internal war between the will to live and the desire to die because the future seems empty. This is a struggle that some elderly face as they watch their spouses, siblings, and friends die and find they do not have the energy to, yet again, build a new life with new people in it.

Here, in the west, for some reason, we believe that individuals are not capable of making these choices for themselves. I understand that in many cases, the desire to die might be temporary and born of pain (physical or emotional) that will fade. Sometimes we do hit those patches where the outlook is bleak and pulling through those times with the support of a community of a sort is all that is needed to find the joy in life again. But, there are many cases where a person legitimately has looked around and ahead and made a decision, not out of pain or loss, that their time is over.

The right to die with dignity extends to a narrower set of circumstances in the sense that the gray area in assisted suicide is tied to those with terminal illnesses. Rather than waste away from cancer or some other debilitating conditions with artificial support and no available treatment, some would rather select their time when conditions dictate. Very few people want to die full of tubes in a hospital. The story of the widow, Madame Gaillard, who raised Grenouille in Suskind’s Perfume: the Story of a Murderer is profound. M. Gaillard worked hard to avoid the nameless, mass death that her husband suffered in the hospital (l’hotel de Dieux) but did not avoid it and ended up buried in a mass grave after living far longer than she had desired in life.

This morning I saw an article on the BBC that lowered the threshold for indignity in death. A woman who collapsed on her way home was defiled while a group of bystanders observed. She died. Her last experiences in life were to have a cold bucket of water thrown over her body and then to be urinated on and covered in shaving foam. There are no words to express the sadness I felt in reading this. Goodbye cruel world.

The family holds the young man who committed the act (for a youtube video) and all who watched and laughed as equally responsible. Rightly so. The perpetrator’s three year prison sentence should be shared with any and all who watched and did not intervene. Complicity is, to me, as great a crime. Actually, I could argue it is greater because by observing and not intervening, one sanctions the behavior and justifies oneself as not responsible by lack of action. This goes back to the definition of evil that I talked about in a previous blog.

And so begins The Tempest, one of my favorite plays and the tale of many things including a deformed, rejected, and misunderstood Caliban: O brave new world that has such people in’t.

One has to be brave with such people in it…

Critical Politics and POVs

How do you remain critical and be affiliated at the same time? I don’t think you can but it is an appropriate thing to contemplate as we celebrate the birth of the nation. Regardless of political affiliation, today is a day that can be politics free if the focus is on the revolutionary spirit and the idea on which this country was formed–a new type of government in the modern world with no monarchies or religious influence. We can leave behind how far we have moved away from those ideals in the this difficult era of conservative Christian over-influence and think about pioneering individuals with visions of a new society that had a bit more unity in politics that we do today.

I feel that far too often the average American makes decisions based on a party or “leaning” orientation, rather than on the merits or demerits of the issue itself. Rather than critically thinking about immigration or tax hikes or budgetary items, the instinct is to go with the majority of those with whom one generally agrees. Specially, if I identify as a liberal, I make decisions based on the “liberal” point of view or am more swayed by those arguments. (By liberal, I am using the modern association with the term, not the historic). Likewise the other way round.

I find myself defending my position on issues sometimes because I choose not to get caught up in partisan views. I would rather contemplate the issue and have a careful ignorance of pundits and politicians so that their views are fresh to me. I like to hear balanced arguments (e.g., one for immigration laws and one against). So, sometimes my critical review of the issue finds me at odds with the group towards whom I generally orient.

A friend was telling me that a former interest in politics and activism in certain areas started pushing her thinking and decisions toward a particular interest group/political party. She found it increasingly hard to separate the party from the issues. She ended up leaving behind a potential career in political science to regain her perspective. I found this interesting because I was unsure if my approach to politics was misinformed, immature, or otherwise ignorant. It may be, of course, but I felt a certain amount of validation from my friend’s experience.

I wish everyone would weigh a variety of arguments around an issue, separating as much as possible the fact from partisan projection in order to arrive at a point where a critical assessment of the issue is possible. This would truly be an informed opinion. The hardest part for most would be to take the chance that the final decision might be at odds with one’s normal affiliation.

It isn’t always possible to make a clear decision. I find myself having this problem with the immigration bill that Bush proposed. I see many sides of the argument and while I tend toward opposing it, I do see the value of dealing with the illegal immigrants we currently have in the country who are working hard and contributing to the economy. I worry though that the end result is to institutionalize the exploitation of guest workers. I also worry that an immediate amnesty and residency would be hypocritical and violate the rights of those waiting to enter the country legally (let alone increase the potential for illegal immigration). I think it might create more problems than it would solve the current ones. I only raise the issue because I recently was told that my leanings away from the bill were ‘conservative’ or right wing.

And, that label on my opinion is what worries me. A label on any opinion worries me because humans are social and susceptible because we want to be liked and have a sense of belonging. Part of identity is a political orientation. Once a label is placed on something that conflicts with one’s sense of self and community, it is hard to separate the label from the issue. While I know that some people are always hard right or hard left on all issues, others may be more variable depending on whether the issue is social problems, civil rights, gun control, abortion, and so on.

I don’t like being accused of having an affiliation or orientation when I have carefully considered something free from partisan politics (as free as anything gets). Maybe it is the ignorance of a non-politico and if I were more involved in political blogs and the like, the more my views would be shaped and matured. Then again, in this regard, I think I am happy enough being unshaped, even if I find myself at odds with those close to me from time. to time.

Data, Central Tendency, and Normalcy

In exploring some old data recently to see if it was publishable, I began to contemplate the things we take for granted in scientific studies. Statistics are so commonly used today that any paper is expected to have a smattering of tests and the all important p-values. (The incorrect use of alpha as inter-changeable with p-value is an irksome issue but one that has been explored by others.) Canned programs like Systat, SPSS, and even SAS or Minitab enable quick data analysis, which has revolutionized many fields of study. As the scientific community continues to grow and the pressure to get grants and publish increases, we should be more concerned the level of statistical knowledge our peers and students have. Knowledge of the software is not knowledge of statistical theory. I would hazard an argument that the latter is more important than the former.

Take for instance, the issue of sample size. In some fields, small sample sizes are all that is available. Take paleontology for one of many examples. You can’t create fossils. Yet, a sample size of at least is 30 is necessary to approximate normalcy and meet the assumptions of the Central Limit Theorem. I talked about normalcy in the socio-cultural sense before but, here, normalcy refers to a distribution of data. Without a normal distribution (or a tendency toward it, at the very least), one cannot accurately estimate population parameters. While non-parametric statistical analysis has developed tremendously throughout the years, it is often viewed as a weak version of the more powerful multi-variate analysis. How many people take the time to test whether their data are normally distributed before they run their factor analysis, discriminant function, time regression, and so on?

There are many ways to analyze data and statistics are a powerful tool but every single test has a tremendous number of assumptions and rules. We can’t reinvent the statistics wheel with each study but how do we know that each published study has contemplated the underlying assumptions of the tests they have used and if they are the most appropriate tests? We don’t. Quite simply, we rely on three things. We trust that our colleagues adhere to professional ethical standards. In cases of honest error, the peer review process identifies problems. Lastly, if the other two fail, the scientific method with a specific emphasis on replicating results, is the ultimate failsafe. Unless the topic is a hot one, that ultimate failsafe may take time, lots of time.

What do we do before results are replication? Think critically. Treat everything that is published as if one is the peer reviewer. Any gaps in reporting or unanswered questions should raise flags that perhaps the study at hand may not be the best one to cite in one’s own paper without some discussion of the problems.

Thinking critically requires extra time, precious extra time. But, I think it produces a better, stronger community that fosters greater attention to detail and better results overall. I would like to see more of it, as opposed to the sloppy lit reviews, hurried and often trite uncritical discussion of methods, discriminating presentation of results that disguise true problems with the study, and overblown conclusions.

Justice and Civil Court/Chicken and Egg

The inspiration for this column comes from the recent probation of six teenagers guilty of drunkenly trashing a house in Haddonfield, NJ while the owners were away. The full story behind the $18,000 worth of damages is just as disturbing as the verdict. Not only are teenagers seeking extreme and dangerous levels of intoxication, they are doing so on other people’s property with a complete disregard for law, order, civility, citizenship, and personal safety. These kids are guilty of illegal entering, underage drinking, and property damage (the most extreme instances of this include ejaculating on stuffed animals, defecating on a Steinway, and spraying urine over furniture).

Why? One answer might be boredom. I watched Jesus Camp a few days ago, a documentary on fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. One little boy, Levi, said he turned to Christianity at 5 years old because he was bored. That seems a bit simplistic given the extremely stimulated and entertainment-driven society in which we live.

One parent whose boy stomped on a video game, offered an explanation after saying he was disappointed as a parent.

“Maybe it’s this society run amok.”

In previous blogs on “mom” culture and narcissism, I wondered if children are increasingly find themselves the center of the universe and mothers experiencing an oppressive radical extremism of the 50s housewife syndrome. Parents may argue that so much of the child’s daily experiences lie outside the home environment–and that even if you ground the child from social activities, the school environment is not within the realm of control. This, then, is where society takes a collective responsibility for social control. Hey, even fish organize themselves to rules and punish the disorderly!

Judge Di Camillo, who heard the case of the Haddonfield teens, decided to give them each one year of probation and to fine them the amount of damages not covered by the home owner’s insurance policy. That sum, that fine, totaled $750…that is, a combined total of $750 to be split by all six teenagers (5 boys and one girl). So, now I know that if I am teenager and engaging in criminal behavior, I can essentially not pay for my crime literally (after all, these kids are blowing that kind of money on their parties anyway) or figuratively (no jail, no permanent record, no school expulsion). The homeowner in this case has to eat the cost of a skyrocketing insurance policy following an 18K claim, deal with replacement of goods and repairs to her home, endure on-going harassment from teens (and angry parents whose kids were arreseted), and live in a community with no justice. As for the kids, they didn’t even think to apologize, nor were they directed to by the judge.’

As the fourth teen faced him, DiCamillo asked, “Do you think it would be a good idea to apologize?”

Worse still,

DiCamillo asked them and their parents if they wished to make any other statements. They all said no.

Only one parent made an apologetic statement in court.

Then his father stood and said, “I’d like to apologize as a parent to another for the conduct of my child.”

What is wrong with this judge? These children deserve to have their futures compromised. They deserve to live with the penalty and stigma of their crime. They are in high school, not grade school. They know better and are brazen about their antics, posting them to the web in pride without even attempting to hide their identities. These children are not first time offenders, just first time defenders.

This leads me in a bit of a long-winded way to the chicken and the egg.

Attorneys for some of the families asked the judge to order that the guilty pleas could not be used in any civil lawsuits that might arise from the vandalism.

The judge declined to consider the request yesterday.

Clearly, these lawyers know that the slap on the wrist with a silk ribbon (to modify the phrase) may prompt the justifiably angry home owner to consider the civil justice system on which this country’s legal system thrives anymore. They should be afraid of the consequences of such a suit. We have a problematically burgeoned civil legal system in the US but, in this case, maybe there is justification. When the criminal (juvenile here) system fails to deliver justice, the civil system provides an recourse.

Did the civil system develop because the legal system was backlogged, corrupt in places, and failing. Or, did the civil law system develop for profit but now serves a backup when justice is not met?

The Future of Catholicism

The increasing numbers of Catholics in developing nations in Africa, South America, and Central America weighed heavily on the last papal election. Many were arguing for the new leader of the Roman Catholic church to be representative of the largest areas of growth in the church. Of course, on the one hand this makes perfect sense. A church should be reflective of its constituency. Perhaps this might be construed as a reward for getting the most numbers? Seriously, it doesn’t make sense on the other hand if you consider that the church is not a democracy (well, if democracy resulted in the electorate being demographically representative of the majority people, we would have a lot women in office and people with less money to boot!). New popes are chosen for a variety of reasons. That said, a very strong contender for the papacy was a Nigerian Cardinal. I believe there was also a strong contender from S. America.

Clearly, the face of the church is changing, both figuratively and literally. If we view the modern state as descended from amalgams of kin-based networks settled into agricultural enterprises but with labour specialization and complex economies, we can see that the state must assert a national-level allegiance above and beyond local concerns. The church (any organized world religion for that matter) was formed based on a common belief so differences are already eroded. Theoretically. Actually, perhaps really. With a shortage of priests in North America and an abundance in developing nations, priests are increasingly sent on international rotations to pastor a community waiting for a new priest to be assigned to them. This is globalizing the church in a positive way that results in breaking down stereotypes and boundaries between and within cultures. In a somewhat ironic twist, one could say that America is being missionized by the nations that were originally missionized by European colonizers!

There is a slight problem, this increase in Catholicism is part of a larger interest in Christianity in the global community. I say problem because I wonder what is attracting converts? It can’t be due to missionary frenzy. It must have something to do with the central message of the faith and perhaps concepts of afterlife and reward.

In particular, evangelical Christianity is making the strongest gains in developing nations. Evangelical Christianity is a conservative and fundamental wing of Protestant Christianity. Freston argues in his text Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that the religious significance of global expansion of Evangelical Christianity has been explored but little attention has to other implications of this growth. His interest is politics and how that interacts with Evangelical Christianity in these developing nations. My interest is the appeal, greater appeal, to these nations in the more conservative aspects of Christianity. Catholicism is not liberal enough compared to the evangelicals.

While John Paul the II was considered by some to be very conservative, there were innovations in his papacy as well. His successor was meant to set the tone for the future. He chose a rather elderly successor which was interesting because he was clearly not setting an agenda for the next 2+ decades. He clearly chose someone who was more conservative than him (but who has not played that out as much as expected in the papacy) who would continue certain of his agendas and set a new pace for the next Pope. Perhaps JPII knew the future was less certain than when he started. The global community changes very rapidly and the resurgence of Christianity, and the particular interest in conservatism in developing nations, may present a dilemma to the Roman Catholic church. To keep the numbers and not lose them to evangelicals, the church will have to become even more conservative beyond the issues that appeal to conservatives already (birth control etc). At a time in which the church was experiencing increasing pressure and Rome was finally regularly addressing (but not capitulating to) and contemplating long standing issues in the liberal side of the Roman Catholic church (celibacy, female ordainment, birth control), there is an equal pressure to keep the numbers up. This might mean a shift away from some progress that has been made in recent years and reversion to a more rigid stance of the past.

This is a very complex time for the church, particularly in America with the sex scandals and resource (human and economic) losses associated with them. This and conservative politics, military actions and wars, mission and charity works, a fairly new pope and modernization/globalization buzz like flies around the face of an old entrenched religion. On the level of the individual, there is ritual, belief, community, assurance…but an individual in a church is a member of a larger community. As such, individuals should think about their larger communities and the decisions being made that affect them.

I don’t claim to be an expert on these issues and only have a smattering of knowledge about the details of the growing evangelical movement and recent church politics but I am fairly well versed in religion and Catholicism. This is really just questioning if there is a turning point in the Church that is quietly being overlooked. If so, it might be to late to contemplate the path not taken if the church does respond to the numbers game.

Tomatoes

Tomatoes are such a perfect food.

Sadly, many people strongly dislike them. I can’t imagine why. They are the perfect evolutionary color–a bright red when ripe to attract vision-oriented primates. They are loaded with nutrients and a vital part of a healthy diet. They are also so versatile–great raw or cooked, on their own or with other foods. Tomatoes are one of the few foods we eat that are great in any stage of readiness. Canned, freezing, stewing–all only serve to enhance their nutrient output. I would go so far as to argue that tomatoes are intentionally begging us to eat them by being so accommodating to all the various methods modern humans have invented to process food for storage. In our modern society where too many people eat overly processed and nutrient poor food, the tomato is a salvation.

Ever since Columbian exports of New World foods, the tomato has infiltrated world culture to the point that many cuisines are incomplete without them. Yet, so many varieties have been lost without lament. Such a perfect food reduced to the plain hothouse variety usually found in stores. Unless you have a store that stocks heirlooms, that is. Heirlooms are plant seeds from old lines.

I recently tried a pack of heirloom varieties that included a purple striped Central American species (that incidentally came via Canada). It had such a pungent acidic taste that perfectly complemented the sweet cherry red and yellowy-orange species in the same box.

If I had to survive on a desert island (and I have given this quite a bit of thought), I think I would happily make do with tomatoes, basil, garlic, bananas/plantains, coconut, and dark chocolate (OK, cacao).

Innocence and Ignorance

Ignorance of the law is no defense against crime. So, why do people today constantly assert innocence by claiming ignorance (and, usually self-righteously)? I didn’t know. If hear it one more time, I might scream. Most often the reason the person “didn’t know” is because he/she didn’t bother to find out (read direction, information, research etc).

This is part of a larger modern societal problem wherein culpability, responsibility, owning up to error are things to be avoided at all costs. There is an exception. Acceptance of blame is sometimes offered but usually motivated by a need to reclaim something lost through the wrongful act (a failed test/course, lost job, broken relationship). Admitting to blame becomes a strategy for self-service, the same self service that likely caused the original wrongful act.Why is everyone so afraid to truly accept blame without a hidden agenda? Why is everyone so self-motivated, so lacking in larger context? Why is everyone so afraid of admitting error, looking wrong. Is there a need to be perfect? In fact, we act more and more ‘wrongfully’ the more we fail to recognize our own fallibility.

Live on TV

Fast-forwarding through commercials to watch a show isn’t new. We used to do that with VCRs. But with devices like Tivo, you don’t have to wait til the program is over to watch the show. Just give the show a bit of lead time and you can start watching commercial-free. I haven’t watched television much in several years but, on the odd occasion when I do, I find that commercials have really changed. They are often much more interesting now, using humour, colourful spokespersons, some even have plots or are broadcast as serials. Despite all this, people still skip them, preferring to view good ones from major TV events like the World Cup or the Superbowl afterwards on YouTube.

What’s a marketer to do then in the Tivo era? In a response to this potential erosion of advertising effectiveness, NBC aired the first live commercial in over a decade on the Tonight Show. While NBC says it will not be broadcasting live commercials on a regular basis, it is an interesting return to an earlier advertising tactic used commonly up until the 1950s. In the past (and on the Tonight Show), stars of the show or an announcer, would do the live spots. Today, with so many celebrities endorsing products and with so many commercials resembling music videos or mini-movies, modern commercials would be increasingly hard to do as live spots.

Still, with the strong interest in reality TV, a live commercial is perhaps just as interesting to the viewing public as a ‘canned’ one. In live TV, mistakes happen. Actors flub lines, deliver them incorrectly, or forget them altogether. Technical errors can occur, a product might not work, background noise might interfere with the commercial, and so on.

This fascination with watching people possibly humiliate (celebrity antics) or harm themselves (NASCAR) leads me to wonder why the favorite American hobby is an obsession with human infallibility. American is largely drawn to the drama and seems to crave it as a steady part of daily diet. Is the life of the average American so devoid of interest that the reaction is to seek stimulation vicariously? Or, is insecurity a driving factor–a need to make peace with oneself at the cost of the degradation of others. Or, is it a contentedness with mediocrity that allows a smug sense of superiority over those that throw themselves to the media?

Television used to be a form of escapism into fictionalized landscapes and social settings. Now, it is an escape into real life. Fiction is reality and reality is fiction. Or, maybe the lines are blurred between the two.