Archive | Science RSS feed for this section

And Venus Was Her Name

5 Jun

If you’re a “science type,” you’re probably quite excited by the upcoming rare planetary alignment: the transit of Venus.

My response: Big whoop.

But if you’re into this kind of thing, I say, go for it.  A small black circle moving across a large orange circle is certainly more exciting than most of what comes out of people’s mouths these days (yes, I’m not afraid to say I’m referring to the vicar’s tediously detailed description of a trout fishing trip he managed to wedge into Sunday’s sermon). If you think this is going to be one of the most important events in scientific history, by all means, knock yourself out.

Experts are claiming that you need to purchase special filters to be able to properly see Venus do its thang, but I personally think that’s just a clever way to get you to drop more dosh. A quirky old friend of mine spent most of his youth looking directly into the sun, and it never did him any harm (the doctor said his vision loss was more likely due to his stabbing his eyes with a pencil, another one of his idiosyncratic habits). However, as my ophthalmology license was revoked a few years back, my advice may not be as wise as you assume it is.

Whether you’re staring up into the sky today or doing something worthwhile, I wish you the best of luck. As any writer knows, it’s readers who give our lives meaning. I cherish you all, especially the young man who recently pushed a note through my slot—I do hope you’ll consider stopping by again soon as you neglected to leave your phone number and I think I might be able to find a use for your services.

Have a good one!

I’m (Not) A Believer

10 Mar

I’m still coming to grips with the loss of my dear friend, Davy Jones. I remember fondly our first meeting; I was just a young girl in high school, busy working on our Prom’s planning committee. As president of the local Davy Jones Fan Club, I was sure I could get him to play the gig. After a series of hilarious hijinks, Davy came through for me and actually accompanied me to the dance. Wait, that wasn’t me, that was Marcia Brady. Nonetheless, his death was a real blow.

So imagine how I felt when I saw this headline this morning:

As you know, I am a fair weather fan of science. Yes, things like electricity are great and all, and I respect most in the medical field, especially whoever it was who invented the pills I can slip into Christopher’s tea whenever he really starts trying my nerves.

But you don’t have to be a supersymmetric quantum mechanics physicist to be able to see that a lot of science is bunk. The world does not need to know at which part of a woman’s menstrual cycle she can most easily identify members of the reptile community—or at least certainly not before science shows us how to beat cancer, create environmentally-safe energy or handle documents with no threat of a paper cut. Perhaps there’s a hierarchy in the science research world of which I am unaware of: maybe the dumbos who somehow manage to get degrees are secreted into labs where they’re given little experiments to conduct to keep them busy while the big boy scientists are out doing important stuff. I don’t know. And confess I also don’t really care.

All I know is that in the last 48 hours, there have been incredibly important things happening in the world—including natural disasters, civil unrest, economic updates and the funeral of a lovely Manc who had beautiful lips—yet the “scientific headline” above was deemed newsworthy?

That said, if those wacky Japanese researchers had got a certain other lovely Manc with beautiful lips to inform me about the ovulation-snake connection this morning, I would have felt less let down by science. Especially if he did so after snuggling up next to me in bed. Then I’d have been willing to throw all my faith (and a surprising amount of early morning stamina) behind modern science.

On Keeping One’s Head

16 Aug

Scientific research produces many lessons every single day that could help humanity become wiser, safer and healthier. The scientists’ mistake, I’m afraid, is releasing that information to the public. Most people are just a little too short on technical mumbo-jumbo to be able to interpret complicated scientific reports. For example, remember when a scientific journal announced that “humans should avoid consuming antifreeze”? Sadly I’m afraid you’ll find that coolant related deaths skyrocketed the very next day. Worse yet are the marketing executives with their so-called suits and ties who manipulate scientific information to use it to sell products. I personally find very dubious products which claim scientific proof that they will remove more stains from my delicates, put hair on my chest or are ribbed for my pleasure. Poppycock!

Instead I have learned all I need to know from the homespun science of my dear Granny Wellington. Boots, as we used to call her, spread health advice like the plague, and I truly believe she is the reason that even to this day I can run six miles (though I choose not to), climb up ladders to clean out my gutters (which I would do, but Christopher seems to enjoy it so) and catch the eyes of men significantly younger than I (a lady never kisses and tells).

Boots explained that our brains are muscles and, to keep muscles strong, we must exercise them. We need to really keep them oiled, work them, flex, pump and drill them, over and over, until they almost can’t take the exertion and then stop just short of any actual explosion, even when they beg for more. That is why both Boots and I are great fans of crosswords.

Crosswords are beneficial in many ways. They help improve our memories by requiring us to recall incredibly useless words that we may once have overheard from someone else’s conversation in a library commons room or on public transport. (Thank you to the toothless woman who unknowingly introduced me to the term hoose.) They encourage us to keep learning and improving our vocabulary when we find ourselves scanning the OED for eight letter words starting with st, ending in t and meaning the opposite of crooked. The puzzles also simply keep our minds occupied when otherwise they may obsessively worrying over whatever trifling crises we think we are experiencing. Surely it is a better use of a time to be filling in little boxes on newspaper print than being concerned about a parent’s drug addiction, planning for our retirement or finally making an appointment to have that tumour checked.

By doing a crossword, you are saying to those around you, “I know my stuff” or “I’m no dum-dum” or “I am simply waiting for the train and do not wish to be bothered by the likes of you.” You are telling people that you respect cleverness, big words not that many people know as well as dictionary compilers, three things which are not held in as high esteem as they should be.

So grab your thesaurus, open the broadsheet of your choice and crobunclivate your heart out. I promise your brain will thank you and you’ll never feel “2 down”!

An Extreme Super Moon

19 Mar

An American star science guy has warned that the big moon on the night of 19 March is an “extreme super moon,” which is likely to disrupt everything, destroy the world and/or kill the lot of us.

Now, hold up there now, mister.

You may have your theories and evidence, but I’m rarely influenced by things as convincing as that. I have always found myself much more persuaded by the look  in one’s eyes when he’s talking bullshit to me. So I got in contact with my close personal go-to astrologer, Mystical Mitchel. He explained to me that the best advice I can offer you is to make sure you’ve stocked on necessities: water, brie and bread, a few bottles of red, a lover or two and a camera (unlike unusual suns, you can look directly into the moon—in fact, I encourage you to look at nothing but the moon until 6am Sunday as doing so will make the drunken, bloated sex that much easier to tolerate).

There have been plenty of horrible things happening in the world and there will be more. But celestial bodies—big or small—aren’t worrying me. The moon may control werewolves, women’s menses and David Icke, but most of the shit that happens is probably man-made, I’m afraid.

A Rose By Any Other Name

1 Mar

What’s in a name? you may very well ask. In fact, I will pause and wait while you do.

. . .

Now that you’ve asked, apparently “scientists” claim there’s quite a bit in a name. According to some clever clogs in Pennsylvania, boys with common names are less likely to commit crimes than those with less common names. (First let me clarify that as we’re talking about America, common means “more frequently found.” Therefore, a common American name is John Smith, a less common American name is Chucklenuts McGee. In England, I appreciate, common denotes something which would imply a distinction between the names, say, Wayne Rooney and Perciville Wilberforce DeMontford.)

So “science” tells us names can lead one to criminality. What I found quite interesting about this particular research is the selection of bad, uncommon names, particularly Ernest and Ivan. For, in my vast experience of male-female relationships, I have known (biblically) both an Ernest and an Ivan. And, I can assure you, they were far from bad. They were good, quite good, if you can catch the meaning of my drift.

Ernest was a boy from Louisiana whom I met one day in New York City as I was meandering through Central Park Zoo. We were both watching the mini Nubian goat kid being tended to so lovingly by its mother.  Although the zoo was bustling with children (as it so often unfortunately is), it felt like he and I were alone in this scene of nature’s beauty. I turned my delicate face towards his and noticed a single tear making its thoughtful way down the contours of his rugged but not unlickable face. His eyes met mine and, for a moment, we stood in silence, before quickly making our way to the nearest hotel. After, he said his name was Ernest and I felt that there could not have been a more perfect moniker for such a sincere and thoughtful lover. During the week that we spent in each other’s company, I was able to discern, with the help of a UN translator, that he had moved north from the bayou to learn how the big city folk lived and ended up the head of a charity devoted to protecting city pigeons from verbal abuse. My Ernest was not a criminal: he was a generous and compassionate do-gooder, who definitely could do it good.

I didn’t meet my Ivan until much later when I was touring the rugged landscapes of Montana. My expedition was hoping to reach Sacagewea Peak but got stranded without enough provisions. Ivan, as I’m sure you can imagine, was originally from Russia and had come to Bridger Range to do some skiing. He intercepted our calls for help and immediately rushed to our aid. After my group came back down the mountain, I felt I wanted to thank him personally before leaving town. He was staying in a little place near Devil’s Backbone and was delighted to entertain for me for the weekend. A lady, of course, does not like to kiss and tell, but, suffice it to say, the only crimes Ivan committed were against nature but they were so, so forgivable.

This quick, wet trip down memory lane has provided ample evidence to prove that said “scientific” theory about names is tommyrot (unless, I suppose, your name is actually Tommy Rot). In my own life, I have had some run-ins with a few Victorias, but they are definitely the exception which validates the rule that one’s name is of very little consequence as to whether one is likely to be unlawful or legit. What one makes of oneself is what matters. After all what woman hasn’t met her fair share of bad Johns? And while “scientists” David and Daniel may be sitting pretty in their ivory research laboratories, I personally can testify to knowing at least two Davids currently serving rather long prison terms. While I did know a Daniel who was completely above board, he suffered from premature ejaculation so I think I’ve proved my point sufficiently.

Immediately Confine All Pigeons and Wayne Rooney for Further Study

22 Feb

I continually find it astounding that people criticize the Sun for not being a worthy newspaper.

Evidence to the contrary: today’s article about Lord Rees, astronomer to the Queen, and his interesting comments about alien life.

Never mind that there is no context for his comments. It’s not our place to concern ourselves with that. The fact that it’s likely he made these comments at a conference of The Royal Society almost a month ago is also neither here nor there. Timeliness is hardly a key issue when it comes to reporting the news. Yes, other news outlets may have covered the conference in appropriate detail at the time, but my friends, it was only the Sun who invested almost an entire month in researching the facts and interpreting them in a way that is relevant to our lives. I say we should be thanking God for that newspaper, not criticizing it.

For if people wanted to really understand the mysteries of the universe, they would have become scientists themselves. Clearly, the Sun knows the only fact we really need is that pigeons and/or Wayne Rooney may be aliens living among us. Now that we have that fact (a fact that no other newspaper dare touch let alone illustrate with photographic evidence), we are much better able to live our lives accordingly.

Informing us about current events and provoking cultural debate are what good newspapers should do, and I’m not sure anyone does it better than the Sun. And if we are ever in an any doubt about what to make of the news this esteemed organ contains, we need only turn to Page 3 where a pair of tits will make it all crystal clear for us.

Thank you, Rupert Murdoch, Dominic Mohan, and Poppy, 18, from Somerset. Without you, I may have never known the truth.

_____

UPDATE: Poppy makes another appearance, giving her philosophical analysis of the 2010 election and how our very basis of freedom is rooted in tits.

This Really Gets My Goat

18 Jun

I have never been one for censorship. You know that. The concept of censorship comes from evil minds and attempts to destroy beauty and freedom. I myself would not be in the enviable position I am in now if censorship had been allowed to take hold of our glorious nation. However, I have recently seen some material being distributed on the Internet which I feel should immediately be removed and banned from ever being seen by human eyes again.

Apparently some explorers have discovered new and endangered species in Ecuador. Now I am all for exploration—some have even referred to me as an explorer of sorts (see Butler Kipling’s article “The Whitt-Wellington Legacy: How One Woman Shaped our Modern World”). Yet I am shocked and dismayed by the photos which have accompanied the reportage of these discoveries.

Firstly, most of these pitiful creatures are amphibians. The word amphibian has its roots in the phrase “both kinds of life.” I do not feel we should look with reverence at animals which, by their very nature, embrace both kinds of life. Those of you who are scholars of psychiatry know that in the nineteenth century, many lunatic asylums were filled to their brims with patients suffering from “amphitis” (later shortened to paranoid schizophrenia), and I am concerned that extolling these new beasts may predicate a new rise in this disorder.

Additionally, despite their impressive clamminess and fancy pants ability to camouflage, they offer us no real inspiration to better ourselves as human beings. This is what the world needs now—-not more frogs. I cannot tell you the amount of times my writing, genorosity and stockings have been cited on acknowledgement pages as the inspiration behind the work of many an author. Will a young person ever look at a katydid and think, “If only my mating call could have as lovely a series of trills as yours does?” I just cannot see this happening.

Most important, though, is the fact that these new species are absolutely disgusting to behold. I simply cannot bring myself to post any of the photographs here as I know you visit this page not to be sickened but to get a brief taste of my glorious life. I have already drafted a letter of complaint to the BBC which felt it necessary to display the offending items. Without wanting to be graphic, I shall just say this: if you ever hear me say that I want to see the inside workings of a glass frog, please immediately put a bullet in my brain. I feel that strongly about the immorality of viewing such images.

Whatever religious beliefs you have about the way in which the Earth was created, you no doubt have already come to appreciate the wonders of the natural world. We all know our planet is populated by amazing things. In future, I  myself would prefer to stay blissfully ignorant of any new discoveries if they insist on being that ugly and moist. Surely we need not have our eyes assaulted by the photographic evidence of God’s greatness. Even He would not expect that of us!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers