Junk Science on YouTube

Sometimes I post about "junk science" on the various science channels. I usually leave the Internet alone because it so full of such idiocy that it's hardly worth the effort. Today I came across this piece of work on YouTube, though: a 2006 Russian documentary simply entitled "Water".

I single this film out due to the fact that it actually has pretty high production value and is so entirely sincere in its presentation that you could easily think it was describing legit phenomena. It's not. Yet this bit of dross received three television awards, including one for the best documentary film.

How exactly do you get a "best documentary" award when you begin with statements like this: "No scientist has been able to explain, for example, why water's density increases below the freezing point, and becomes less above freezing." The answer is because that's not what happens. Frozen water's density is less, which is why ice floats. And that's because the shape of the molecules is such that when they join into their characteristic hexagonal crystals, they take up more room than they do when at liquid temperatures. They then rightly state that water expand when frozen, which makes it the more puzzling why this mis-statement wasn't left on the cutting room floor.

Every time you hear the phrase "scientists can't explain" in this film, it's fairly safe to assume that scientists have explained whatever it is they're talking about... minus the stuff that is made-up B.S. Keep in mind that anomalous does not mean mysterious.

Here's a link to unusual properties of water that science can explain: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-unusual-properties-of-water-molecules.html
Here's another: http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/resource-water-chemistry.htm
And another: http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

Pity the poor scientists who are quoted in this film. Nobel laureate Kurt Wüthrich is quoted simply as saying that water has been extensively studied and has unusual properties. By pasting in perfectly reasonable statements from perfectly reputable researchers, next to discredited snake-oil salesmen like Masaru Emoto and quack physicians, the filmmaker imply that these scientists support the conclusions of the film as a whole. But what might that be?

That water has memory.

As this is a central proposition of homeopathy, I've heard this magickal line of thought before (although the pretense here is that it was just "discovered". To be fair to homeopaths, even they haven't gone so far as to claim that you can turn water into a super-cure-all entirely by wishful thinking. This crowd has basically increased the profitability of homeopathy by removing the labor of all of that pesky swishing and diluting.)

We're less than seven minutes into the film and already some pretty shoddy thinking has gotten us to this point. For instance... some people were working together in Southeast Asia, supposedly to develop bacteriological weapons. They got sick at a meeting with "symptoms of food poisoning". The water was tested and found to be just plain water. Now a reasonable person would then continue to look elsewhere for a solution -- perhaps some bacteria that produced similar symptoms among these people who work with bacteria -- but these folks conclude that the plain water was poisonous, AND that it wasn't poisonous because it contained poison, but because it simply remembered to be poisonous. Of the investigative "dead-ends" encountered, plain H₂O wasn't one. *sigh*

What follows is a barrage of mixture of fact, speculation, and nonsense presented as fact. For instance, water clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster) are real. They only last for minute fractions of a second, and they're constantly changing, and don't exhibit the properties claimed here.

Here's some more debunking: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html

Among the claims of this film:

• Salt water can be made fresh by wishing it to be fresh.
• Love "increases water's energy levels".
• Aggressive emotions "reduce the energy".
• You can affect the shape of an ice crystal by saying "thank you" and "excuse me" to the water before freezing it.
• You absorb a liter an a half of water when you take a bath or shower. (that's a little over three pounds... next time you bathe, weigh yourself.)
• Water that flows through pipes is "deformed" so that the "crystals" it contains (in the liquid form, mind you) do not have symmetry or beauty.
• "Devitalized" water will "steal" your "energy".
• Water remembers "violence" that is done to it.
• Water is a giant universal computer that contains "biological programs".

This is punctuated by "mean music" when discussing anything man-made whatsoever, and "nice music" when discussing streams and oceans.

And it just keeps going and going and going and gets worse and worse and worse.... the film claims that water itself burns. (In fact, water does not burn because it's already burnt. "Water" is our name for burnt hydrogen. In order to burn water, you would have to remove the oxygen so that you could then add oxygen. This cannot produce energy, as it would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). It actually states, "in order to burn anything whatsoever, there must be at least some quantity of water". Half-true misdirection. Water is formed as a result of burning hydrocarbons, but it does not have to be present for the combustion to occur.

This documentary really doesn't have anything to do with science at all. "Like all sculptures that have not been created are present in clay, so the images of all future living organisms were present in water. Water merely brought to life a pre-existing conception," the narrator intones. Once we realize that this film is merely a compendium of every pop-culture speculation of New Age faith, "legitimized" in a matrix of real and pseudo-science, it becomes a rather dull exercise to pick apart the truth from the fiction. Fact-checking is made easy with the knowledge that every statement containing the phrase "modern science" is complete horseshit.

Really, a documentary shouldn't make you do that. It should be educational and informative in its own right; its educational value shouldn't be measured by the amount of effort you're willing to put in to fact-checking each and every sentence.  But if you want to go through that exercise and have an hour and a half to kill, here's the show in its entirety:



I give this one a solid F. It might have gotten a D (for being pretty) if the few bits of real science weren't completely diluted by the useless crap.

Waging War on Truth

I saw this on Facebook today:

It's an... errr... interesting rhetorical device, but it's not exactly what the DOJ said. Prop 8 dealt with gay marriage. The DOJ stated that gays are not inherently inferior parents. But let's set aside for a moment the issue of gay marriage entirely, and deal directly with what this graphic says, and only that.

Let's look at the idea that a child has a "right" to a mother. Remember the TV show "My Three Sons"? Do you think it would be advisable for Mike, Robbie, and Chip to sue their dad, Steven Douglas (Fred MacMurray)? After all, we're talking about a household with two "dads" here. You think not? Don't you remember when Mike left and Ernie was adopted...? The court wouldn't allow it until Uncle Charlie stepped up and was declared "housemother".

That was in the 1960s. In 1960, two men could raise a houseful of children and audiences didn't think twice about it. They watched every week and enjoyed themselves. In the 1960s we insisted that those kids have full-time care, but the courts didn't hold some imagined "right" to ensure that it was one of each sex. Now, fifty years later, have children suddenly gained a right now that they didn't have then? Did fathers somehow lose a right to self-determination that they formerly had, and are now somehow obligated to remarry? Or maybe you think the preceding generation wasn't as decent? These are rhetorical questions: of course children don't have a "right" to a mother... God Himself deprives children of mothers every day.

What about all the other widowers and divorced dads with custody out there? Should we expect a barrage of lawsuits against them? If so, I narrowly dodged a bullet, in that I did re-marry. I do somehow resent the idea that I wasn't a loving, capable parent when it was just me and Will, though. As the parent who got custody, and did so because I was declared by a trained psychiatrist and marriage specialist to be the more capable parent, I'm so very glad that the court in my state did not subscribe to the notion that my ex had a "right" to the child she couldn't properly raise. I find that concept more than a little bit sexist... and so did the court. Children aren't property. It's good for my son that we had a judge that knew that.

Once you know what the DOJ actually said, it takes no imagination to invert the claim in the graphic and say the DOJ is waging a War on Men. That would be every bit as accurate, you know. But I wouldn't apply it to a widow who is doing her best to raise children without a father, as one of my childhood neighbors did. I wouldn't say it to a divorced woman raising children on her own as was my own mother before she re-married. And why was my mother divorced? I was there, and I can tell you that sometimes one parent is better than two, even if the two are man and wife. If you don't believe it I can put you into a room with a bunch of folks who can tell you stories of traditional marriages that will make you cry.

This infographic is just wrong. And if we think about it for five seconds or more, it becomes obvious that it's just so very wrong.

One small thing to add... I know what the author was trying to do, and I'm sure he thought he was being terribly clever. But as those of you readers who are responsible parents already know, when little Billy lies to you, you do not respond with, "Here! Have a cookie! What a clever lie you just told!"

That's because lies aren't clever.

I don't see eye-to-eye with this administration. But I have a very particular fondness for common sense, decency, and fairness; as well as a smattering of respect for the truth. Taking a statement out of context, twisting it to claim that it says something that wasn't said is un-Christian. It isn't fair, decent, or truthful; and it flies in the face of common sense. The fact that it's nonsensical is why I looked up the DOJ's argument. Please... there are enough offensive statements that this government actually makes that we do not have to go making stuff up. And if you want to target the gay marriage issue, fine, do that out in the open, but not with some garbage argument that implies that just because somebody's a man that he can't raise a child. I don't like bigotry, period. I don't like it when they do it, and I don't like it when you do it, even by accident. And I don't even know who you are.

--==//==--

By the way, bigot is an under-used word these days. That's a shame because it's incredibly useful. These days we use words like racist, sexist, homophobic, class-ist, age-ist, weight-ist, etc. There's an "-ism" for everybody, as if the target of a person's unreasoning hatred makes one bit of difference.

Keep it simple. It's BIGOTRY.

North Carolina Blows

The North Carolina DMV wants to suspend my driving privileges. Second problem is, because of reciprocation, SOUTH Carolina will suspend my license unless I clear up the issue in NC (At least they're giving me 60 days notice).

Problem is, I haven't lived in NC for over 13 years. They know that. I know they know it because I discussed the matter with a NC DMV rep this morning. Here's the 411:

My "NC driving privileges" were revoked for "failure to appear" in 2001. Notice it wasn't my driver's license that was revoked, since I don't have an NC driver's license.

So my question was "failure to appear for what?? I assure you I've never mastered invisibility." Her reply was that I was ticketed in 2001 for speeding in a work zone. I told her I remember that ticket; I remember it because I was ticketed for traveling less than 5 mph over the limit... and furthermore, I PAID IT. She said, yes, she knows I paid it. According to her, I "complied with the conditions of the violation", but I failed to appear on the court date. As I'd plead guilty and paid restitution, any further appearance should have been completely unnecessary. Note that I did not fail to appear at the courthouse. I did that to pay the ticket. I failed to appear on the court date,  So the judge revoked my driving privileges.

Secretly. 

In 2001. 

And they're just now getting around to telling me.

Response: my ghast is flabbered. Why did I bother to show up at a courthouse and pay a ticket if they were going to ignore that and revoke privileges anyway? And why was I not told when I paid it that I had no choice but to show up on the date and time listed, no just pleading guilty and paying the fine as you can do in 48 other states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands?? And why was I never notified that said revocation had occurred???

Chirping crickets. So I asked what it would take to clear it up, mentally prepared for the inevitable extortion. She didn't disappoint: "$100". Okay, fine, whatever... it would cost more to have a lawyer listen to me bitch. So I asked if she could take that payment over the phone, mentally prepared for the inevitable retardation. She didn't disappoint: "No."

BUT, she cheerfully explained, theres this number I can call so that a third party company could take that payment for a small processing fee. Uh-huh. Somebody has a nephew.

I called the number. It's answered like this: "Hello". I give the case number. Bubba don't know jack about no case numbers. So I tell him the issue, and Bubba says yes, he can process that for me. Basically he takes my info, then goes to the courthouse with a $100 bill and pays my fee. This is for the meager sum of $37. So he charges my card for $137 and assures me that it will be paid by noon today, and it would be a couple of days later for the violation to be "cleared from the Federal registry."

In the meantime, the South Carolina DMV is expecting me to arrive at my local office with a letter stating that the issue is cleared, so I expect North Carolina has more merriment up their sleeves.

UPDATE: I called back the NC DMV about that letter, and the good news is that Bubba was true to his word and paid the fee. Concerning the letter, the NC DMV rep said, "We don't issue no letters. You won't need no letters. South Carolina knows that. They only told you that 'cause you aren't cleared yet."  We'll see.

--==//==--

Here's my take on the subject. North Carolina needs some money. And they find easy targets for money in the form of people who live elsewhere who can be bled on whatever pretext they can dream up.

This is not the first run-in I've had with the North Carolina government. Previously they've sucked my bank account dry for "back taxes" on money that was not earned in North Carolina. I live in SOUTH Carolina, and did business in both states. North Carolina wanted to tax all of it.... not just the portion that was earned in NC, but the entirety of the income amount listed on my Federal return... and they did because (and only because) they could. No recourse.

In 1999 a Greensboro policewoman rear-ended my car. She did it because she had just come from the garage where they'd installed her new on-board computer, and she was watching that instead of the brake lights of my car stopped at the intersection ahead of her. It's actually a good thing for someone else that she plowed into me, because if I hadn't been there, she'd have careened through that red light, causing heavy damage to multiple cars in lunch-hour traffic. It looks like you're being busted for drugs if you're ever in an accident with one of them, as they'll send out two more cars and a police captain. I offered to simply exchange insurance information as you would do in any accident, but no... that's when I found out that police cars in NC are UNINSURED... they say they are "self-insured", but when they do not pay their bills, that makes them liars in that regard. North Carolina wanted me to get the repair work done first, on my dime, and then present them with a receipt. Not a bill... a receipt. Here's how insurance works... when you're at fault, you pay for the damage you caused. The cost of that damage is evaluated by a trained insurance adjuster. What the NC Police have is not insurance, because they don't do that. Nor would they accept my insurance company's figure. To get it fixed in NC instead of back home in SC obviously means I'd've been stuck in NC with no car while it was being fixed, because they don't pay for loaners, either.

And this latest fee... accepting a credit card over the phone is so trivial that I myself can do it using my cell phone to process the charge. YOU could be set up to accept payment by phone in 10 minutes flat armed with nothing more than the knowledge that you can Google the means to do it. The little podunk town where I live can take payments by phone. Yet NC manages to fail, so that they may refer business to nephew Bubba, who'll take care of that for you. Yay, Bubba.

People of NC, I love you lots. But you elect and employ idiots. There is no way in Hell I would ever live there again, nor visit voluntarily, nor do business with anyone there. Not one penny. Not for vacation, not for business, not on a dare, not if I were drunk or senseless. If I ever contract Alzheimer's, the last thing I will remember on my deathbed is "stay the Hell out of North Carolina". Nor would I suggest anyone I know ever do business there for any reason whatsoever. North Carolina blows, sucks, AND bites.

But George Washington says...

"People can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alteration(s) and amendment(s) which are necessary." "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or posess more virtue, than those who will come after us." --George Washington, 1787

Now, this is a lovely quote, and the Constitution has been amended many times on this very principle. Indeed, it was barely out the door before the Bill of Rights added the first ten amendments. Even the repeal of an amendment has happened, so we can take it as generally agreed that not every amendment is a good idea, even though the vast majority of people thought so at the time.

It amuses me to no end, though, when people take this very general statement as some form of "proof" or "evidence" that their own specific position is correct. It's positively funny when they fall into logical fallacy and suggest that they themselves (rather than their opponents, or some third party ignored by both sides) must therefore be the ones possessed of more wisdom and virtue than the founding fathers.

Let's be clear. George Washington didn't know you or the rest of your generation. Any reasonable man could completely change his mind due to experience; we can only guess at what the result would be were President Washington to visit this century. The only thing that's certain is that this is not a magic prophecy endorsing your position, whatever it might be.

So... nice try. Nevertheless, the arguments still have to be made and evaluated on their own virtues; and if the Constitution is amended, it must be done through established means. And that means clearing a very high bar. It's absolutely intended to pose an inconvenience to those with the hubris to shove their ideology down your throat. Even when we've passed a bad amendment such as the 18th (Prohibition), the repeal has to clear the very same high bar (the 21st amendment did so).

The Constitution is absolutely intended to trump every law and edict, because the rights within are considered basic, and all of them have cleared that very high bar that mere laws and decrees (styled as "Executive Orders") have not. So anytime you imagine yourself or your chosen White Knight to be smarter or wiser than those who came before, and decry the fact that it is so very difficult impose your genius on the world due to this roadblock of a dusty old document, remember that your parents and grandparents managed to have the civil discourse and patience necessary to clear the high bar that your own argument has not even faced. Then it's time to perhaps re-evaluate your approach, as well as your opinion of yourself.

--==//==--

Note: I've been presented with this quote a number of times, from different sources, and was reminded of it today. If you've PERSONALLY SPOKEN to me on this subject, then this post may be for you.

Another Note: For some time now I've found myself posting rather long missives on Facebook and ignoring my blog. I'm going to stop that.

Fractured Expectations

The whole Left/Right political dichotomy leads people to believe some pretty strange things about each other, particularly when they listen ONLY to their own party's propaganda. It's amazing to me how many people do that, by the way. I can't count the number of times people have told me that they "can't stand to listen to ______"... so they don't. It doesn't matter what ______ said. There is the pre-conception that everything they say is a lie, so there's the perception that there's no need to listen to any of it. One of these days I'll have to post a quiz where you have to identify quotes as having been spoken by Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher. I bet it's harder than you think. But I digress.

Here's one. Capitalists, and particularly, Republicans, just hate the environment. If you were to watch the old Captain Planet cartoons from Ted Turner, you'd see the pig-like "Hoggish Greedly" (I'm not kidding) polluting because... well, because that's what he does. He builds gas-guzzling cars and pollutes. This bit of propaganda is aimed directly at kids.

Good.

The thing is, it's false. Republicans don't hate the environment, and never have. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was an avid outdoorsman, naturalist, and conservationist. He established 5 national parks and 150 national forests. Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970 (read the link. Do it.), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (think dolphin-safe tuna), the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 (which requires us to protect drinking water at its source),  the Endangered Species Act (once called "the Magna Carta of the environmental movement"). He had no intention of "living like a damned animal", but left an enduring legacy. Republican President Ronald Reagan was famously a rugged outdoorsman. On his watch the MMPA was amended to guard against the depletion of species, and to require positive action to improve their numbers. George Bush's house in Crawford, Texas is an environmentalist's dream, whereas Al Gore's Nashville mansion... not so much. (here's the Snopes on that one).  Nevertheless, while the Sierra Club once consisted of mostly "middle aged Republicans", Democrats today feel as if they exclusively 'own' environmental issues.

Not-so-good

Where I live (upstate South Carolina, near the edge of the Sumter National Forest), we have more than our fair share of hunters and woodsmen, and we are overwhelmingly conservative. The folks here know that if you want to hunt tomorrow, you need a thriving community of wildlife today. That means clean air, clean streams, spacious forests. I don't know of anyone who would advocate dirty air and poisonous water... and yet, that's commonly expected of us by Liberals who frankly should know better.

...or maybe not. Liberals tend to congregate in urban areas, so it's not entirely surprising that as a group they hold some unrealistic, if reasonable, assumptions about the environment. They can be forgiven for thinking that hunting causes extinctions. Over-hunting and over-fishing can do that, but so can under-hunting. I've seen deer strip trees bare. If the population isn't managed, they'll easily over-populate an area and starve. If we refuse to allow wolves and other predators to roam free, then we must take their place. And it's counter-intuitive -- but largely true -- that the most successful survival strategy a species can evolve is "being useful to humans". Those that are tend to thrive, with a few notable exceptions. Handbags and meat aren't the only measure of utility in the animal kingdom. We humans form emotional and aesthetic connections as well. Thus, symbolic utility can save a species such as the bald eagle. You should never forget that those who "cling to their guns and religion" are starkly aware of the Biblical charge to not only have dominion, but to "replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28)

One thing that's gotten press lately is that "energy efficiency" has been dropped from the Republican platform. It's perhaps a little more puzzling since Romney has an record of aggressively pursuing energy efficiency policies and legislation. It is absolutely true that Republicans want energy independence, and this entails more exploration and drilling for domestic oil. But supply is only half the story. Energy independence isn't quickly achieved merely by increasing supply, but by becoming more efficient as well. (I like the term "energy efficient". I don't much like "green". Besides being too slogan-like for me, as we're about to discuss, "green" isn't always energy efficient.)

First... why oil? Why not the gobs of other alternative means of energy production?  The answer to that is simple. Nobody's AGAINST alternative means of energy so long as they make sense and they actually work. The Left would take nuclear power and hydroelectric power off the table; but the fact is those are two clean energy sources that actually do work. Nuclear fuel doesn't magically appear... it's dug out of the ground, and we take the radiation with it. And dams create new habitats; they're transformative; not merely disruptive. Many of the other alternative forms we find are not as successful.

Ethanol, for example, is less efficient, more expensive and more corrosive than gasoline. Ethanol produces less CO2 per gallon than gasoline, but it's also less efficient... the end result being that ethanol produces 19% more CO2 for the same amount of energy liberated compared to gasoline, and results in lower vehicle fuel efficiency (25% lower on the average). Its primary advantages are that it is particulate-free and renewable. However, it requires a great deal of surface land to grow corn for the purpose. There's a judgement call to be made as to whether that ecological impact should go to fuel production or food production. Tacos or fuel tanks, that's the choice.

The best uses of solar energy are local and don't involve electricity. Passive lighting, water heating, HVAC systems are good examples. Photovoltaics, on the other hand, aren't so good at replacing conventional power generation. They're simply expensive and inefficient. The graph shown is purely that of power generation. However, when you factor in all the ecological impacts, we still find that not everything's green for solar.  Photovoltaics require batteries for storage and power regulation, and these pose difficulties for capacity and safe disposal. They also become less efficient over time. Also, solar panels require the use of rare-earth metals that are expensive and are found outside of the U.S. While this can be a decent supplemental energy source for local use, it's not so good for industrial generation and lessening trade dependence. Solar concentrators (that heat water used to power traditional generators) are better, but they still require a LOT of land and a LOT of sunlight. Unlike nuclear and hydro plants, they can't produce energy around the clock. Again, while it's sustainable, it's not terribly eco-friendly.

The same is true for wind and geothermal... good locally; not-so-good industrially, and if you're going to exclude the only items that actually work and are economical (nuclear and hydroelectric) as the far Left would like, then you're basically pursuing an energy policy of sweet dreams and nothing of substance.

The point here isn't about any particular form of alternative energy; it's that the Conservatives really aren't interested in any form of alternative energy that flat-out doesn't do the job. But when it DOES do the job, you'd better get out of the way.  Co.exist reports that Republicans are about 6% more likely to make 'green' home improvements than Democrats. Red states are more likely to be invested in 'green' energy (PDF). The reasons are economic. And you might think, "oh, well, sure... that's just the Republicans being greedy again!" except that the Democrats have these very same economic opportunities in front of them along with professed ideological motivations... yet on the average they still don't implement as much real, measurable, effective change.

And that's a fractured expectation.

Now, what Co.exist doesn't consider is that there is another ideological reason in play. Conservatives don't like independence in whatever form. To a conservative, if you can lower your country's dependence on foreign oil, that's good. If you can lower your family's dependence on the power company, that's even better. If you can do both while actually saving real cash, that's a trifecta.


--
(note: edited to add the word "don't" in the last paragraph. After 4 years, I just noticed the omission. Whoops. But that's OK... after 4 years, I'm also shown to have been right all along.)

The Importance of Nagging

Today I'm posting a little advice for someone who is close to me. If it sounds a little cryptic or strange to you, then it's not for you, though I hope it's useful anyway.

Simply by living a long time and paying attention you tend to learn a few things. Some of these things are universally accepted and become clichés. Others sneak up on you. Think about this one:

No beneficial change has ever been initiated by someone who is satisfied with the way things are.

Every invention, social change, and Great Idea was born in the mind of someone who is dissatisfied. If necessity is the mother of invention, then dissatisfaction is the father. Somebody was dissatisfied, and decided to make things better. Voila! Things get better. The bigger the dissatisfaction, the bigger the change, and the principle applies to everything from the invention of can openers to political revolutions.

But that's a little broad. Let's bring this a bit closer to home. There's a saying that, "behind every good man there is a great woman... nagging him on". There's more than a little truth to that bit of humor. Wives and girlfriends have had a reputation for nagging. And to be honest in my stereotypes, we guys do tend to be easily satisfied. So if you expect us to make things better around the house, or in our lives, you have to make things just a little uncomfortable for us. Not so much that we take off, but just enough that we have a strong desire to shut you up by giving you whatever it is you're nagging us for.

Now get this... even though we are perfectly content -- for ourselves -- to sit at home in our shorts, drinking beer and watching football, we will move mountains to give you what you want. We will dig ditches. We will plant flowers we're allergic to. We will invent. We will do odd jobs, work two jobs, and create NEW jobs, all because YOU are unhappy. We men don't have much in the way of instinct, but the desire to make you happy is alive and well. In a perfect world, you'd find the guy who just naturally does that without any prodding from you. But here in Reality we often need to find someone who's close, and then make a few tweaks.

But if a guy is sitting around the house, waking up at noon, with no job and no steady income... if he's getting his meals provided to him, and his bills paid for him... and if you fawn over him and tell him how great he is... and this is going on for months in a town where jobs are available (and they are)... do NOT expect any of this to change. Ever. And if he gets mad when this is pointed out to him, then understand that the situation is toxic, and I mean toxic for YOU.

It's said that love is caring for another person more than you care for yourself. You will find that this is only sustainable if it's true for both partners. Otherwise you will find yourself giving and giving until you're emotionally depleted and your love turns to resentment. That resentment may even turn to hate. You certainly don't want to start off in a relationship where that's likely to happen, and I'd like to help you avoid it.

Now, this may sound old-fashioned and a more than a little sexist, but it's ABSOLUTELY TRUE... he's young and able-bodied, and HE should be doing for YOU. HE should be doing whatever it takes to capture and hold your attention, and win YOU as a mate. And if that's not happening, then YOU have some responsibilities, too... your second responsibility is to nag.

TELL him he's under-performing, TELL him he's not doing enough, and when push comes to shove, TELL him to go home -- HIS home -- and try again when he's got his act together. Then HOLD HIM TO THAT. If he can make those improvements, then both of your lives will be better for it. You will no longer be dependent on other people for your basic necessities. When your parents someday die (and they will), then you will be the responsible adults that other people look to for comfort and support. And you can stop nagging. Life's pretty good. And he will have learned that he is a better man for having you in his life than he would have been without you.

If he cannot or will not improve, then you have learned something about relationships: it is possible to love someone who is not good for you; who will keep you dependent; who will sap your strength instead of adding to it. You do not need this. You do not want this. But you will HAVE this if you keep him complacent and satisfied with sitting around the house being told how wonderful you think he is anyway. So your third responsibility is to reject him. Because you love him, tell him why, but reject him nevertheless.

Because your first responsibility is to yourself.

And then look for the person who will take the steps necessary to look out for you and secure your future. If you want that person you will find that person, but not if you're taking care of some other woman's grown baby.

LOOPHOLES!

Much of the rhetoric this campaign circles around tax "loopholes" for the rich. Rarely in a speech is it actually said what these "loopholes" are. Most of the people in the audience don't know jack about taxes other than they copy down numbers from a W2 onto a 1040 and add, subtract, multiply and divide where the form tells them. They don't know a loophole from a posthole; the term "loophole" is often being used for the sole effect of implying that there is illegal activity going on.

Wikipedia describes a loophole as "an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." 

The first thing to note about a loophole is that it is not a sign of illegality. Rather, it is a strict and literal adherence to legality (otherwise it's known as a "crime"). It means a law was written in such a way that strictly adhering to the letter of it leads to a consequence that was not intended by the lawmaker. For instance, my town has an ordinance requiring steps be built to exacting specifications for any entrance to a residence. This could be expensive for property owners when required even for entrances that aren't used. I once saw a landlord screw a sliding glass door shut and hang a sign on it reading, "this is a window". The intent of the law was code-compliant stairs at every working door. The result was one less working door. This is "exploiting a loophole".

The second thing to note is that many of the "loopholes" being talked about aren't even loopholes. They're intentional. For instance, a wealthy person pays a lower tax rate on income than a middle-class person. This isn't a loophole. This is because there is an intentional distinction in the tax law between "investment income" and "earned income". The government wants to encourage investment, so income from investments is taxed at a lower rate. Rich people are the ones with money to invest. Keep in mind that this money, if it just sat in a vault, would earn zero taxes for the government, because it would then be savings, not income! So the wealthy person invests his money, just as he's actively encouraged to do by the government, and then he's castigated by people (many of whom did the encouraging!) for "exploiting a loophole"!

So we hear scare stories that that the very wealthy (including President Obama, btw), pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Except, for the very wealthy, very little of their money comes from "earned income". Most of their money comes from investment income. If you're filthy rich you don't have to invest it. You can just put it in a vault, live off of it, and pay pretty much nothing for the rest of your life. We want that money in circulation where it can spur business and pay employees.

Getting that lower tax rate isn't shady business on the part of the investor... but crying about it is certainly shady business on the part of the politician. It's like raising the taxes on a carton of cigarettes to discourage smoking, then bitching at people who quit smoking "to avoid the tax". Or railing at people who put in solar panels because they get tax breaks for it. If you no longer want to encourage investments, then by all means raise those taxes, but don't blame investors for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place.

Of the ones that ARE actual loopholes, most rarely get talked about, because they're head-scratchingly complex. Like this one, reported in the Wall Street Journal.  In my opinion, the best way to close all manner of loopholes is to keep the tax code simple. All the myriad if-then clauses in the tax code add up to an incomprehensible mess that's relatively easily circumvented. Simple, unambiguous rules are harder to avoid.

Personally, I have no problem with pinning the minimum tax rate of the super-wealthy at something higher than what the middle-class pays for earned income. (It would be best to do this tax-raising when the economy is booming, though. Don't let class envy allow you to shoot down the economic recovery. Ask your local economist.)

But please, if you're in conversation with me, before you bandy about the scary L-word in scary all caps, make sure that what you're talking about is an actual loophole, or better yet, piss off. You getting upset about government-encouraged behavior simply makes you look foolish. And decrying the exploitation of loopholes as if it were a criminal act will get you limited sympathy; being limited to unemotional agreement that the loophole should be closed, with zero agreement whatsoever as to the moral or legal culpability of those who followed the letter of the law to its exacting conclusion. The Congress is full of lawyers; if they can't write a better law than this, vote them out. I already agree that loopholes (unintended consequences) should be closed, and you don't need to make yourself look silly to get my agreement on that non-argument.