This Saturday, history was made: Republicans helped pass a proposal led by Democrats.  While some would argue that the truly historical event is the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that resulted from the vote, clearly the real news here is that Republicans did not all band together to destroy all that is good and just in the world.  Everyone already knew that eventually gays would be able to serve openly in the military, after all.  No one could have predicted Republicans failing to obstruct a liberal proposal, though.

DADT was initially passed in the Clinton-era as a compromise between liberals and conservatives, which mandated that macho, moustached sergeants with bow-legged walks and manly grunts had to grit their teeth and restrain themselves from asking the pink boa-wearing soldier having sex with another man whether he was in fact gay, and the gay, boa-wearing soldier had to refrain from telling the quite masculine sergeant that he had sex with men.  The new policy, “Show and Tell,” would not change anything about the armed services, aside from allowing male soldiers to admit that the hooker they picked up in Thailand was, in fact, a man who just happened to look like a woman.

Months ago, the repeal of DADT looked nearly impossible, as Republicans blocked a defense authorization bill primarily because it included the repeal of DADT.  Defense authorization bills, bills that essentially allow the armed services to be paid, had been routinely passed without any qualms in the past, even in spite of additional controversial legislation that was often attached to the bills.  Frankly, the defense authorization bill could have had dead fish that reeked of sulphuric anal bursts from bovines attached to it and it probably would have passed.  The problem, of course, was that this time something worse than fish smelling of sulphuric anal bursts was attached.  This time, there was a provision that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. This weekend, though, the impossible was accomplished, and all that is required is a signature from Barack Obama to finally end DADT, which was repealed as a bill separate from the defense authorization.

Even with DADT as good as repealed, and a pentagon report showing only a low risk from repealing it, some Republicans are still shrilly insisting that ending the policy will wreak havoc on the armed forces. John McCain, for instance, said, “Today is a sad day,” and then rambled incoherently about how gays serving openly would be a “distraction” in life-or-death situations. Presumably, trained soldiers, suddenly cognizant that several of the lisping, well-groomed, fashion-forward members of their squad are homosexuals, would be so overwhelmed with this realization that they would forget they are being fired on by snipers and assault rifles while surrounded by roadside bombs. I know from personal experience that whenever I am in a life-threatening situation, such as when I’m wrestling a bear, one of the most distracting thoughts you can have is, “I wonder if this bear is gay?”  As soon as you think that, the gay bear will rip your face off, as all bears, homosexual or not, are want to do.

Gay soldiers are so deadly in military contexts, in fact, that it is difficult to explain why other countries allow gays to serve.  Some propose that these countries use the gays as deadly, glittery distractions for enemy troops.  ”What we do,” said a British general, under condition of anonymity, “is send out the queer regiment first. They then parade around in their leather assless chaps, causing the enemy to fearfully seize up and lose all power of movement.  These people are a lisping, dancing paralytic agent of such strength that any manly creature of any size, be it a Kodiak bear or a giant gorilla in a football jersey drinking a beer, inevitably falls victim to their spell and is incapacitated.”

Military scientists in Britain have detailed these effects. Apparently, many straight soldiers, like deer in headlights, often freeze in place in a vague stupor when encountering something new and different.  This fact is even well-known among the deer community, who describe brethren who have been hit by moving vehicles as “freezing like straight people who have just seen the gays.”

Of course, not all of the concerns are fictional nonsense emanating from John McCain’s backside and mythical British sources invented for humorous purposes.  For example, the pentagon study that characterized the repeal as low-risk showed that in combat specialist units, like the Marines, about half of those surveyed indicated misgivings and unease about serving with open gays.  Many of the Marines probably worry that the pink boas, the shiny glitter, and the sequined ball gowns that would no doubt be worn by the open gays would prove distracting.  The only thing stopping them from behaving in such a stereotypical manner, after all, could be DADT.

Of course, many recognize that the armed forces are already saturated in gayness.  Other than gays, for example, who would wear a green beret?  Other than a gay man, who would incessantly spend his time polishing a gun?  Other than a gay man, who would want to spend six months on a boat surrounded by seamen?  Not only that, but gays have been serving in the military already, just not openly.  With the repeal, the military could at least be honest about its gayness, as well as allowing honorable openly gay soldiers like Lt. Dan Choi and the entire U.S. Navy to return to the armed services.  Even some conservative Tea Party members have hailed the repeal as a victory for bigotry, as it will make shooting at gays just a little bit easier, and allow homophobic Islamic terrorists to do the dirty work of homophobic Christian fundamentalists.

In the end, the repeal of DADT will probably have minimal effects on the military.  When the military was integrated with African Americans, for instance, the furor was much greater among active military personnel, and yet things worked out on that front.  With gays already serving in all branches of the U.S. military, it makes sense that they should at least be able to be honest about it.  When blacks and women were allowed to join, no one forced them to remain in the closet, to serve as blacks and women but unable to be open about their blackness or womanhood, hiding themselves by taping their breasts down, speaking in an artificially lower voice, pronouncing the -ing endings of words, or constantly reassuring others that they’re just really, really tan.  It is only fair that gays can now join them in openly and proudly serving in an organization that has a long history of marginalizing and killing foreigners for no legitimate reason.  Now marginalized Americans can participate in this marginalization themselves, just like white males have throughout history.

If you want to get a liberal to look at something, direct your own gaze to it.  But if you want to get a conservative to look at something, throw money at it while screaming “A socialist black terrorist is trying to steal our guns!”  The latter is only a hypothesis, to be sure, but the former is demonstrably true, according to a recent study titled “The politics of attention: gaze-cuing effects are moderated by political temperament.”  Essentially, the study showed that liberals are more focused on social cues, and conservatives significantly less so, as demonstrated by eye-gaze cues.

I know what you are thinking, dear reader, and it is inevitably something along the lines of: “What the fuck does that mean, and why is it important?”  Well, it is very important, and I will explain what it means shortly.

In the study, participants were told to watch for a target and click the space bar on the keyboard when they saw it.  However, they were distracted by a drawing of a face that had circles for eyes.  First, pupils would appear in the eyes of the face, looking either left or right, and then the target object would appear.  Participants were told that the object would not necessarily appear where the face was looking.  Those subjects that took longer to find the object and press the space bar were thus distracted by the social cue of where the eyes were looking.  After the participants were given a survey detailing their political beliefs, it was found that liberals tended to be more distracted by the social cues than the conservatives.

When interpreting the results, the researchers hypothesized that conservatives were not as influenced by the social cues because of their belief in personal autonomy.  Similarly, liberals were presumably influenced by the cartoon face because they are foolish pushovers who care too much about other people.  Libertarians, on the other hand, did not respond to eye gaze cues, pleas for help from drowning children, or even the tortured cries of their own children, as they sat there motionless, lecturing them on personal responsibility and the need to return to the gold standard.

Republicans, of course, have already seized on this research in an attempt to outwit the Democrats.  While Republicans remain focused on their goal of getting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, Democrats have been constantly distracted by the Republicans as they keep looking ever-rightward. Obama himself, who once insisted that the wealthy should not have their tax cuts extended, was so distracted by cartoon eyeballs looking around that he seems to have forgotten his original stance, and he is now lecturing other liberals on the importance of extending the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Soon, the Republicans will install hundreds of giant cartoon eyeballs on the Senate floor, always looking away from things of importance, so that Republicans can vote unanimously for whatever vile bill they want as Democrats stare into the corner with cocked heads and befuddled looks on their faces, their eyes unknowingly drawn in this direction by cartoon eyeball social cues.  This way, with so many eyeballs looking at one corner, not even the likes of Bernie Sanders could hope to derail the Republican agenda with an 8-hour filibuster speech.  Instead, he’d speak for five minutes, find himself wanting to look at what everyone else is looking at, and then mumble softly until eventually he was saying nothing at all and merely standing there slackjawed, just like President Obama is now.

“This just goes to show how superior Republicans are,” said Republican House minority leader John Boehner. “If there were ever a scenario in which the world would end if the President did not hit the spacebar a few milliseconds after spotting a target on a computer screen, we’d all be dead with a liberal President in office if he were distracted by eye-gazing or concerns about homeless people. I think this just goes to show that Democrats are not competent and should be immediately impeached.”

On the bright side, however, the presence of eyes has been shown to cause better behavior in some studies.  Therefore, the Republicans, should they install hundreds of eyes staring into a corner, would suffer the unintended consequence of feeling actual emotions, like guilt, about their vile deeds, a novel experience that would no doubt be shocking to a class of people who have experienced only the emotions of greed and outrage for decades.

Philosophers stereotypically care a great deal about making distinctions that aren’t very meaningful, and Massimo Pigliucci lives up to this stereotype in his blog post “Why Plumbing Ain’t Science“. He maintains, of course, as all philosophers do, that the distinction is actually quite meaningful and important, but that just proves his guilt. A fireman saving a child from a burning building, for example, never has to explain why his actions were important (except perhaps to a philosopher).  A man who invents a new vaccine doesn’t have to explain its importance.  Justin Beiber has never had to account for his vast importance.  As everyone knows, the first thing a guilty party does is profess innocence, which proves guilt.  Massimo is a philosopher, however, so he’d probably point out that the first thing an innocent person does is also profess innocence, meaning my hypothesis concerning his guilt cannot be falsified with this evidence.  But this is just the sort of underhanded thing a philosopher making a meaningless distinction would do.

Massimo points out three features of science that differentiate it from plumbing:

1. Its more refined methods.
2. Its historical precedents.
3. Its sociological structure.

The points are well-taken.  Plumbing does not utilize statistics or double-blind studies to unclog a pipe.  Plumbing has not historically been considered part of science.  And there are no educational social structures for plumbing by which plumbers go to school for half their lives to learn how to use very refined methods to arrive at conclusions.  So far as I know, journals like the Annals of Plumbing Science and the New England Journal of Clog Removal exist only in my mind (but if it exists in my mind, doesn’t it still exist, philosoraptor?!).  However, I think these distinctions aren’t important, and that plumbing is similar enough to science in its important information-seeking and problem-solving methods that there is really no reason to consider it a non-science other than for arbitrary personal reasons.

Let’s apply Massimo’s reasoning to another subject: namely, mathematics.  As a philosopher, Massimo could (and probably would) ask himself the pointless question, “Is addition a part of mathematics?”  The answer would seem to be no, according to Massimo, because the mathematics that people study in the university is much more refined and uses more complex techniques than simple addition.  Also, there are no sociological structures in place, like journals, professorships, and so on, for those who simply want to add things.  Presumably, the only indicator that addition is a part of mathematics is its historical inclusion in this class, and because addition fails two of these three tests, it must not be mathematics.

This reasoning should strike the reader as absurd, and that is because we don’t see the features of sociological structures and complexity as necessary components of “math-ness”.  I think the same criticism could apply to Massimo’s exclusion of plumbing from the domain of science.

For one, if plumbing were more difficult, or more of its questions were unanswered and hard to fathom, there probably would be a structure to plumbing that is similar to science, not unlike that of engineering.  The methods for answering plumbing questions, by dint of its new difficulty, would also therefore become more complex and refined.  But the methods would remain fundamentally the same: plumbers, like scientists, would use empirical evidence and hypothesis testing and induction to solve problems and answer questions about the world.  The fact that plumbing is easier and less complex is no reason to exclude it from the realm of science, in my book.

But let us return to the relevant question: Is the demarcation of science from non-science important?  Massimo answers in the affirmative, pointing out that there are negative political and social consequences to expanding the definition of science, such as allowing for crazy ideas like homeopathy, creationism, and parapsychology to fall under the rubric of science.  I, however, do not see these intrusions as negative.  Homeopathy, creationism, and parapsychology can be seen as science; it’s just that they are failed hypotheses.  Each of these hypotheses is as empirically testable as the most well-known theories in physics and biology.  The only problem is that they failed their tests.  Seeing these subjects as science, specifically failed science, thus does not harm anything.  In that case, the proper route to take with the political and social ramifications is to simply argue that people should not be learning, teaching, or practicing failed science, rather than non-science.  Nothing really changes should we expand the definition of science to include plumbing, except that a few plumbers might start wearing white labcoats. The “problem” therefore doesn’t seem to important and involves no disagreement about anything of worth.  You say gavagai, and I say rabbit-stage, but in the end we’re both pointing at a damned rabbit.  For all intents and purposes, those who think plumbing can be considered scientific agree with Massimo on all points, and the only disagreement is on the labeling.  And that, my philosopher friends, is the kind of concern over little nothings that made philosophers famous.

Republicans voted against tax cut extensions proposed by Democrats this Saturday, which would have provided tax cut extensions for the first $250,000 everyone makes. According to the Republicans, however, tax breaks for everyone aren’t good enough. How, after all, is a millionaire to feed his children when he only receives a tax break on his first $250,000 of income? How can he afford to buy troughs full of caviar and champagne, upon which his children feast daily, with the other $750,000 of his money subject to tax increases once the Bush-era tax cuts expire? He’d be forced to do the unthinkable: fill his troughs with the store brand caviar!

Republicans have consistently maintained that, given the current economic environment, no one should have their taxes increase. The economy is in absolute shambles, with American workers suffering under a staggering 9.3% unemployment rate. But it’s not just the poor and the unemployed that are in trouble. The rich are also experiencing economic hardships, with Wall Street only profiting by $19 billion, only its fourth most profitable year.  Clearly, if anyone needs help in today’s harsh economic climate, it’s the incredibly wealthy.  Now they can no longer shout out “We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1!” as they light their Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills.  This year, they will be forced to softly mumble “We’re number 4! We’re number 4!” as they light their slightly smaller Cuban cigars with a wad of ninety-nine dollar bills.

Of course, Republicans argue that providing tax breaks to the wealthy creates more jobs.  As the wealthy save money from lower taxes, they are more likely to spend that money on random jobless people they meet in the street, giving them $20 to dance, DANCE, while shooting a golden pistol at their feet and laughing maniacally.  When tax breaks for the wealthy are not guaranteed, however, the uncertainty frightens them, so much so that they stop providing jobs, even in the face of increasing production demands that would no doubt turn a profit, and huddle in corners while rocking back and forth hysterically.  Being so uncertain about the tax situation thus stifles job creation, causing incredibly rich people to wonder whether they should be hiring more people or whether they should instead spend their time searching for tax loopholes like usual.

The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy also benefit the middle and lower class is known as “trickle down economics.”   No one is quite sure how this works, seeing as how wealthy people are more likely to save their excess money than spend it, but some have theorized that it benefits the poor presumably because the rich people accidentally drop their extra money from their penthouse suites into the alleys below, where random bums fight over it with broken bottle ends, exemplifying the trickle-down effect of the tax breaks.

Democrats, on the other hand, have argued that benefits for the poor and the jobless stimulate the economy better than tax breaks for the wealthy, because they are more likely to spend the money they receive, giving the money back to the businesses and the wealthy people that own them.  They have also emphasized the fact that Republicans constantly rail against increasing the national deficit, and letting tax cuts for the rich expire would help alleviate the debt to some degree.

However, with a Democratic President who promised change in charge, Republicans know that their best strategy is to stall any change whatsoever.  The Democrats could propose a bill asserting that 2 + 2 = 4, and Republicans would find a way to dispute it, most likely by denying several or all of the Peano axioms in favor of wild inconsistency, which would be consistent with their behavior in the legislature.  (Mathematicians, don’t bother me with comments that accepting contradictory axioms means anything would follow, including 2 + 2 = 4. In Republican math, the only thing that follows is that Obama is a Nazi Muslim and we’ve never seen his birth certificate so he probably was never born. Can you derive the parallel postulate with THAT axiom?) Strangely, the Republicans are also not willing to alleviate the deficit by cutting military spending, which accounts for much of it, instead emphasizing that older people should just work until they are 90 or so until they receive Social Security payments for their last few months of life, that the unemployed should simply starve to death, and that congress should conserve energy by turning off the lights during session and watering down the coffee.

In essence, then, the Republicans have become dyslexic Robin Hoods who steal from the poor in order to give to the rich.  They have voted against extending unemployment benefits, have promised to repeal healthcare legislation, and want to cut other entitlement spending that helps the poor and needy, while at the same time using these savings to pay for the Wall Street bailout and the tax cuts for the wealthy.  They want all of this even when they know that programs like foodstamps and unemployment benefits have a greater stimulative effect on the economy than tax cuts. It is necessary to make the wealthy wealthier, after all, or else the caviar companies would go out of business.

In spite of these partisan bickerings, however, there is a single truth that we can all agree on: The commercials are just too damn loud! Even in a world where people can’t agree whether it is proper to steal from the rich or the poor, congress has at least passed this ray of sunshine, giving hope to all those Americans who are still wealthy enough to own TVs, but not quite wealthy enough to own TVs with digital recorders that allow them to skip commercials.  Score one for the middle class!

In a recent study by scientists at Harvard, the enzyme telomerase was shown to reverse the effects of aging in mice. The study vindicated long-standing hypotheses concerning a connection between the aging process and telomeres.

Telomeres are basically protective strings of DNA. They are necessary because when a strand of DNA is copied during cell division, the copying process is imperfect and won’t proceed to the very end of the strand: short pieces on the end are therefore cut off with each replication. To prevent important genes from being discarded by this wasteful copying process, the ends are padded with superfluous repetitive strings of DNA, which are the telomeres.

A good analogy for DNA replication is sewing.  The string on the needle would represent the DNA, and the telomeres would be represented by the excess string that is snipped off after the knot has been tied to secure the stitch.  Aging would then be analogous to using copies of the ever-shortening string to sew together other rips of the same size—as the string becomes smaller and smaller, the sewing becomes less efficient, leading to fabric that becomes folded and wrinkled (not unlike wrinkly skin in the elderly) when the rips are sewed with the smaller copies of string. Eventually, the string will become so shortened that it cannot be used in the stitch. Telomeres, then, are expendable strings of DNA that protect the rest of the DNA from being lost during the replication process, like the excess string in a sewing stitch.

This process of telomere-shortening has long been associated with aging and cell senescence. The enzyme telomerase, then, helps prevent aging because it lengthens and repairs telomeres. Of course, the mice in the study had been bred to lack active telomerase, which caused the precocious mice to age prematurely. Thus, unlike normal mice that live a hearty two years and produce telomerase all their lives, these mice experienced the degenerative effects of aging much sooner, as evidenced by their insistence on telling long-winded tales about how far they had to walk to school, their continual complaints about the “jungle music” of their younger mice peers, and their intractable bigotry against anything different. When these crotchety old mice with worn out bodies were given an injection that reactivated their telomerase, however, the effects of aging were observed to reverse. The most notable regeneration was seen in the testes, spleen, and intestines, presumably making the mice feel incredibly manly, and no doubt opening up a new market for spam emailers, who will begin deluging the inboxes of mice with promises of bigger, better balls if they only pay for a bottle of telomerase.  Aside from the all-important testes, the brains of the mice also improved (new neurons were grown).  However, even with renewed neuronal growth, they never developed fully-functioning human brains, though they were apparently the same size as one-time senate hopeful Christine O’Donnell’s brain, which was notoriously tiny and mouse-like to begin with.

These amazing results, of course, are no cause for celebration among humans. Humans are very different from mice, most notably in being about five feet taller and being proportionately less furry, and the anti-aging effects of telomerase are unlikely to apply in humans. For one, the mice in the study were artificially made to age prematurely through a genetic defect, and adding the telomerase essentially corrected the defect.  Not only that, but humans do not normally produce telomerase in their somatic cells, and when they do, the enzyme tends to be associated with cancers, most of which utilize the anti-aging effects of telomerase to allow the perpetual and out-of-control reproduction of cells.  Nevertheless, the research paves the way for future research that may eventually cure aging-related problems in humans, allowing us all to die from cancer, overpopulation, AIDS, or being mauled by pumas instead. (As of yet, scientists have not been able to cure puma-mauling, even in mice.)

Even though the study seems to signal the happy end to aging-related problems in the future, some speculate that this potential panacea will lead to more bad than good.  Some claim, for instance, that eliminating aging will lead to overpopulation, mass starvation, resource depletion, and a preponderance of elderly conservative political candidates that further magnify the problems of starvation and resource depletion as they deny global warming and insist that the invisible hand of capitalism will fix everything.  Others simply argue from more philosophical grounds, stating that man was not meant to live more than a hundred thirty years and would eventually get bored with life and commit suicide.  Strangely, however, whenever these people are asked whether they will kill themselves the next time they are bored, they stammer out some kind of excuse and turn bright red. Thankfully, for the reasons mentioned above, these people will not have to worry about a cure for aging in their own lifetimes, and they can wither away in excruciating pain while losing their minds to dementia in peace.

Even though it is unlikely humans will see any sort of therapeutic advance from this study in the near future, mice will inevitably become our immortal overlords.  For years, mice have toiled as model organisms in studies on cancer, aging, and every other ailment one could imagine. They have endured studies in which human ears have been grown on their backs and in which they’ve been made extremely obese. Presumably, an organism would only suffer through such indignities for a greater end, and that greater end seems to be immortality (or at the very least the ability to hear out of their backs). Having moved one step closer to curing aging in mice, soon we’ll also cure cancer in mice, and every other disease in mice, at which point the then immortal mice would spring to action and enslave all humans, those sub-par monkey-like creatures that still get old, that don’t have ears on their backs, and that develop such archaic things as cancerous tumors. Such rampant speculation, of course, was not supported by the study, but that has never stopped science journalism before!