alex_muridae

...and I've not been quite as adamant about updating this little journal as I could have been, alas.

This will, I'm afraid, only be a minor update to mention a few major things that have happened:

A) I've moved halfway across the country to facilitate the fact that I'm
B) Working on getting a PhD

Also, and partially unrelated is

C) I have quite had my fill of drama over the last few months.

And so, the adventure continues!

Wish me luck.

The last time I wrote, I was hopeful about getting a job.  To start with the lows, I didn't get it.  Oh well, moving on, more fish in the sea...hmm, no that metaphor is a bit off.  At any rate, I'm back to sending out more applications & scrounging through job listings.  Still plenty more to go, and I'm just going to have to keep trying.

On the bright side, the summer choir I was in had their concert a bit ago; we did a wonderful job, with plenty of interesting music, and some orchestral accompaniment.  The turnout was surprising too; lots of people showed up and enjoyed themselves, by the sound of it.  And my parents made it too; a bit of pride there.

So, as of now, I'm simply moving on.  It sounds like I have a good chance to get a job at, of all places, a salon & spa as a receptionist.  While it's not the best paying job, and certainly not what I obtained a degree for, it is a job, and can keep the rent payed while I find a better one, if I get it.  The amusing thing is I've been told my good chance is not based on my qualifications, but my gender; the way it was told to me, "women love being waited on by men", with the further explination that it's due to A) being of the sex favored by most women and B) in a relatively/formerly male-dominated society, it's luxurious.  Personally, I think said points a tad chauvinistic, but I find myself hoping the spa owners believe it, as it may get me a job.

Again, wish me luck!

And at long last, my search is paying off!

Having been applying and checking for various jobs, and going to a few interviews to see about actually getting said jobs, I have just had a very good one, with a well-paying position which I am totally qualified for!

Now, I must write a follow-up letter, and hope that the competition isn't too stiff.  They were better dressed by a bit, but I think I have them in cleverness....

As an aside, let me inscribe here my dearest empathy for a fellow job-seeker who currently goes by the name of Delight-In-Justice, who is quite a ways away.

Ok, if you are about to read this, let me say first the entire thing is riddled with spoilers.  Let me say second that the movie discussed within was so terrible I shan't feel a bit of remorse if it's spoiled for you.  Also, this is the beginning of a Terrible Mousy Rant; you've been warned.  Further, I'd have to wonder which of the two-or-so people who read these entries you are, but I digress...


So, I saw Splice earlier today.

It was...disappointing.  A friend invited me; said his coworkers were lauding the film and I should see it, though I didn't get the name until I got to the theater.  Such is the fate of a spur of the moment decision.

To begin to complain in earnest, it was bad.  Horrible, actually, and not in a good way.  While there is indeed a point of a movie being so bad it's good, this one proceeded well beyond and right into a disaster.  I was tempted to walk out, thrice, but didn't want to disappoint my dear friends...and in retrospect, I am glad they didn't suffer alone.

Summing up, the plot line was predictable and silly, the characters were poorly designed or fleshed out, and the science involved was horrible.  In fact, that was indeed my major point of contention; there was not one ounce, one iota, one quanta of science in the movie that was accurate (perhaps simply not one part I remember, I grant).  The next few paragraphs are ranting; you can skip that if the summery is enough.

A little further in that direction, as mentioned in the entry just prior, I have just completed my Bachelors degree, and genetics happens to be one of my specialties.  Having said that, they start with a theme about creating a creature from which they will extract an interesting novel protein; that's not bad - it's relatively close, albeit missing a few key points.

The initial creatures, Fred and Ginger, being blob-like creatures with strange tongues; that's a stretch.  If we were to splice the animals that apparently were used, I would almost guarantee that the result would not look like that.  What they got rather resembled a rather tragic Hox-gene mutant, something that didn't come even close to developing fully.  Further, most of the splicing actually done in labs these days is moving individual genes on a smaller level; creating a new organism as they did would A) again, not likely yield that and B) not be for the creation of novel proteins, not when we have protein design first.  The work being done these days involves moving a single gene or so to examine it or try to isolate its products; insulin producing bacteria have been around for a bit, and recently a spider-silk producing goat was created.  While I do not say it would be impossible to get a blob-thing like theirs, I would say that would be the point of the study itself (their creation), not some novel proteins, which are less likely to result then through standard recombinational techniques currently in use.

Which brings us to the next issue:  the technobabble.  Every other moment I found myself facepalming at the silliness with which they worked.  During Dren's creation, an entire scene is wasted starting at a graphic of floating chromosomes and an attempted explanation as to why their recombination wasn't working, which never quite made sense; less so when they got it working.  A little later, when dealing with the little creature, the female lead refers to its rapid growth as "evolving", which is such a basic mistake that I do not know how said character made it through Bio 101.

The actions of the characters ranged from stupid (reach in and grab the fetus!) to moronic (you'll have to gas me too!) to unscientific (Fred and Ginger didn't get their "stingers" removed), to Horror-movie-dumb ("No, I must go after the creature and my brother", followed quickly by dropping the flashlight in a pool of water) and are faintly offensive to a mouse of science.  This continues to the very last, in which the female lead gave the monster just enough time to kill her partner before she finally gathers the nerve to do it in.  Further, in addition to being bad scientists, the leads are obviously bad "parents"; they even have a discussion to that effect.

As an aside, I feel tremendous pity for David Hewlett; I was rather fond of his acting in the Stargate series, and seeing him in such a terrible film is unfortunate.

Perhaps the worst failing, the movie could have raised and explored interesting questions about the nature of humanity, or what makes a human, and the ethical and moral issues there within, but instead dodges the exploration in favor of a more general "science is bad, m'kay?" message.  It could have been a good horror film if it would just admit it; the sound track clearly knew it was supposed to be a horror flick, but after several opportunities to do so, in never really resolved into one.  Even the scariest scenes at the very end were full of silliness and Narm do to poor dialog and predictable plot.  So, it has failed as scifi, failed as horror, and it even fails to be an adult film; quite a shame, because we're do for another "Species" sooner or later.

Erf, this has left a bad taste in my mouth; I think I'll cut the rant short here and have some tea, and a long sleep.  I'm far too tired to be this negative.

Be well, and Goodnight.

Whew, that was a busy few months...

Without giving away too many details, my collage career has come to a climax, and I am now the happy holder of a BS in a couple of fun biological sciences.  Yay me.  Ergo, I am also currently in the process of trying to find something to do with said BS, which is not as difficult as a BA in English, but still work.

Let's see, other intervening stuff I can mention...

Saw the recent Iron Man movie; I was rather pleased, especially with the briefcase.
Found myself hit with a sudden bout of nostalgia for monster trainer games, in which I am indulging.
Acquired a couple of new non-electronic games, among them Ninja Burger; much fun ensued.
Met a quite reasonable Mormon, with whom I await interesting conversation.

I have a feeling I'll elaborate further on a few of those over the next couple of days.  At any rate, I find myself settling into a rather delightful haze of summer and post-graduation bliss.  No doubt the real world will show up to kick me in the rear aaaaany moment now...

Well, the semester end and vacation were more draining then I thought.  Not much of an excuse for such a long break in posts, but there it is.  The new semester begins, and everything is bright and clean and other things that evoke renewal and life.

Beyond the pleasantries, something has again caught my interest:

I met a lovely couple a few days ago, during my vacation.  They were just beginning theirs as mine was coming to a close; we ended up in the same hot tub, and lo and behold, conversation sprung up.  The topics were tame to begin with; vacationing, weather, travel, and so forth. Things became interesting once we started into the three forbidden topics; economics lead to politics, and after that, we agreed to risk a religious discussion.

We discussed, debated, argued; it was a grand time for all three of us.  This was slightly surprising, as we came from distinctly different viewpoints.  They were Christians; Protestants and biblical literalists.  I am...well, not. 

Now, thanks in part to the internet and various polarized pages within, alongside past experience, I was expecting the stereotypical Fundamentalist; I was pleasantly surprised that they acted much more Christian then that.  They were willing to discuss, didn't get offended easily, and did indeed seem to remember that whole thing about "love thy neighbor" They still believe in young-earth creationism, and that homosexuals go to hell, and that everyone who doesn't know Christ will go to hell (and it will be quite populous for that reason), but were decent despite.  Their beliefs in various soul-damning methods didn't stop them from being nice people, a fact that is refreshing to me, and jarring to my compatriots when I recounted it later.

The couple displayed a curiosity towards what "the young people think/believe/are being taught", and while that may simply be tactical, it's better to be curious then to make assumptions.  Similarly, they were glad to have lines of communication open, though the more cynical of our group noted they may just be because they were trying to "save me", as it was.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  First, we simply discussed religion on a fairly general scale; I inquired about their beliefs, and they asked mine in return.  It was evident that they believed strongly, and that their faith was a positive impact upon their life, which I was glad to see; it's always nice to see people find...how does one say...comfort, meaning, or purpose. We discussed various portions of each of our beliefs, though in retrospect, there was plenty left to say; notably, I would have liked to chat a bit more about why they believed homosexuals doomed.  Of course, the conversation continued to move, so I didn't have a chance; beyond that, I was curious to bring up a topic close to my heart:  evolution.

I should probably provide a little more background at this point for the sake of clarity.  I'm studying the biological sciences as an undergraduate, near graduation, and have been working in my field for some time, without being too specific.  Because of this, I understand the theory of evolution as it stands rather well (I should hope) and I accept the theory as scientific fact due to the huge base of evidence. From my perspective then, the debate wasn't precisely fair; I did note to them at one point that, as they were not trained in biology and not really exposed to the literature, they only had my word to go on as far as some of the evidence and experiments that came up.

We covered much ground, but not as much as I would have liked looking back.  This didn't stop us from talking the evening away, mind you, we just didn't exactly finish.  Then again, I believe we all entered the discussion understanding that no one was going to really be convinced during this time, so it was more about understanding one another, and that itself is important.

It was interesting, and perhaps a little disparaging.  The impression I got was that their arguments were:
*The bible was divinely inspired and needs to be taken literally
*Faith is important, and their faith could suffice (when logic failed)
*Creationism should be taught as a second option in schools
*Evolution doesn't make sense:
 -violates the second law of thermodynamics
 -gaps in the fossil record
 -too many mutations required between ape and man to make sense
*In response to dating methods and evidence for the big bang (in the form of radiation and the nature of light), god could have created the universe at a point as is.

I...well, the simplest way to say it would be I disagree, and downright object to most of these points:
*I question the inerrant and literal interpretation of the bible, due to origins in oral tradition, political/church meddling through it's conception, translation problems, and conflicting stories
*I respect faith, but I don't think it is a suitable argument to prove most anything, aside that you have faith; it's cyclic
*Creationism/ID is too tied to religion, and a specific religion at that, to be legal.  Further, it's not a science, and really isn't useful as one; you can't use creation science to make predictions, invent inventions, or so forth (we hit this point at the end, so didn't really get into it)
As to scientific data, I've seen the evidence for evolution, and presented as much as I could without a wiki at my fingertips (sparing the gory details here); I've personally witnessed evolution occur, which was a rather fun thing to point out in the midst.

The debate eventually had to end; we all had to sleep at some point.  None the less, we were pleased with the conversation and company, and exchanged suggestions for readings to further learn about about each others' views; they recommended "Creation Science" and "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", and I recommended the Wikipedia articles relating to the debate and evolution in general, and "On the Origin of Species" (Darwin).
I am going to read every word of their books, and I do hope they have a peek at Darwin's as well; I got the impression that they likely didn't fully grasp evolution, and though outdated, The Origin of Species is written with laymen in mind, so it should be understandable.

Oh yes, perhaps the most delightful thing I heard is, after explaining the Banana Falacy, their reaction was "Well you're right; that is stupid".  A refreshing, encounter indeed.

P.S.: if any are interested, Wikipedia has a rather good series all about the debate.  For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution is about as expected, along with the objections to the objections.

I guess I'll try to begin things traditionally: Greetings, Salutations, and Hello World!

Introductions next I suppose:  My name is Alex Muridae for the moment, and it's a pleasure to meet you, or will be with luck.

I expect I will be writing more presently, but for the moment I can't think of much else; I believe I spent my current salary of inspiration on my personal details.