Harry Potter

The other day I was talking to some co-workers about Harry Potter. (I work at a genomics research foundation. What do you want?) We were thinking about the things that bugged us about it, and I thought to myself, where better to talk about something no one cares about than a blog?

(In case you can't guess, there will be some spoilers)

So, the biggest problem for me is that things that work in one book apparently don't work in other books. A lack of consistent internal rules.

First, if time travel is possible, and so commonplace that they let a 13 year old girl do it to take extra classes at school, then why not make it so Voldemort never killed anybody? Or was never born? I mean, they have magic police that show up right after Sirius killed all those people...so why not assess the situation and then show up half an hour earlier?

Second, one of the big plot points is that you can cast a magical spell to make it so no one can ever find something (like the Potter Parents house). So why does everybody hide things behind ridiculous D&D traps? We've got Voldemort hiding his magic death whatevers in the middle of a magic lake surrounded by zombies, we've got Dumbledore hiding the Magic Rock behind the giant chessboard and quiddich test...so why not just hide these things in the magic can't-be-found spell?

Third, the whole self-sacrifice magic thing. What was that supposed to be? I mean, at the end of the last book, we see that Harry used his magic love to protect everybody, just like his parents did to protect him. But he didn't die. His love magic was able to protect hundreds of people just by being willing to die. So, is she telling us that no one in all the magic world was willing to die to stop Voldemort? Not one single person? Remember that it doesn't take an actual death, just being willing to die. I find that hard to believe. (Especially since there were lots of people who actually did sacrifice themselves to stop Voldemort.)

We also thought that there would be some useful spells we would have loved to see, but I'll leave those for another post. This is enough nerd talk for one day.

Hancock

The following things failed to save Hancock from being a lame movie:

Will Smith
My Favorite Retard
Delightful music by John Lee Hooker
Writers who obviously read "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"

I mean, seriously. How could you put so many good things together and get such an OK movie? It wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. The effects were good, the acting was pretty good, the plot wasn't bad. It's hard to put my finger on what was missing. Maybe somebody who's seen it can help me out. All in all, I'm thinking B- range for this one.

Curry...is there anything it can't do?

I love it when science says good things. In today's news we learn that eating curry is good for you. Mmm...sciency.

Breaking Bad

So, I finally watched the Breaking Bad finale today. It leaves me with only one thing to say. HOLY CRAP.

I was expecting to be blown away, and I was actually surprised. Not that it was a bad episode, just that it wasn't at all what I expected. Hard to surprise somebody who's waiting to be surprised, but they managed.

I'll try not to give anything away. The events between Walt and Skylar finally satisfied (they've been at the same place for quite a while). That purple monster was a bit disappointing at first, but as I thought about it it was part of a larger idea that I really liked. The whole episode/season/show really was about losing control of life, and the monster really fit in that. Not what I expected, but good. I'm glad Jane got what was coming to her (I guess that was in last week's episode, but what the hey). I really liked her at first, but she really started to make me mad lately. Jesse displayed what I think was his best acting yet. All in all, it was a really good episode. Some finales this season have really done well (LOST), and some have really disappointed (The Office...man that was lame), and I'm glad that Breaking Bad managed to stay on Santa's good list.

Who is California's Daddy, and What Does He Do?

I just read an article about Governor Arnold "It's Not a Tuma" Schwarzenegger, and I thought that Arnie deserved some praise from me for a job well done. Especially since his decision has gotten lots of other people saying less nice things about him.

California is in massive debt. Part of this, according to Sam, is due to the fact that in California issues and finances are voted on separately. In other words, the people can vote for a new program to help elementary schools, and at the same time, vote to refuse funding to that same program. As with so many problems, it is one of people thinking that words are magical and will solve everything.

Anyway, for that and other reasons, California is broke. Not just broke, but way broke. As in decided not to give tax refunds this year broke. Arnold put out a vote to the people for an increase in taxes that would cover the debt, and the people voted it down. So Arnold did the only thing he could do: he started cutting programs. I can't say I like cutting funding to the programs he cut (state parks, schools, etc), but I think it was the best of limited options.

It frustrated me to read in the article about people protesting, putting up pictures of children needing medical help, etc. Those protesters need to go back to the days when Mom and Dad explained their allowance to them. As we were all told when we were young, money does not grow on trees. If the people want lower taxes, they have to also have fewer government programs. That's just how it has to work. It would be great if we could all stop paying taxes and still have all the things we want from the government, but it just can't happen.

Arnold, I salute you for making the tough decision. More importantly, I now officially forgive you for using the phrase "pump up" in your campaign speeches.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Pump Up Sacramento
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Stem Cells

In scientific news today, I read that President Obama's new policy on Stem Cells will (if not changed before it is passed) ban almost all current stem cell lines from being used. Nice work, Barack.

Here's the deal. In 2001, George Bush made an executive order that banned government funding of stem cell research on new cell lines. Most people think that this means he banned stem cell research, but that is not the case. What that means is that any scientist could do basically any stem cell research he wanted in the United States, as long as somebody other than Uncle Sam funded it. California even used state funds for a huge stem cell research institution. Just not federal funds. In addition to anybody being allowed to do any stem cell research they wanted under Bush, there was a list of about 20 stem cell lines that the federal government was willing to fund research on. So those ones became somewhat standard for lab use.

Standards in cell lines are very useful. It means that a researcher in Hong Kong and a researcher in Alaska and a researcher in New York could all do the same experiment and reliably get the same results. That standardization of results allows collaboration. It's a great system that works pretty well. But then Barack decided to "help."

In March of this year, he came out and said:

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.

Sounds nice, right? Lifting bans, giving hope, and that change that our dear President is so fond of talking about. But here's the problem. The policy that is now starting to come out for how to apply these nice words includes very tight regulations on which cell lines can be used. And almost none of the ones used in the past fit the regulations.

Not only does this policy try to enforce retroactive ethics (it says these old lines were generated without really informing the donors of all possible uses of the cells, so we shouldn't be allowed to use them), but it also bans research on artificially created stem cells. As in, created without aborting a naturally conceived fetus. This isn't just a ban on funding, but an actual ban on research.

What that means is that the United States is no longer allowed to use the cell lines that other researchers are using. We cannot collaborate with anyone from other countries unless they switch to our lines, which would be much more expensive and impractical for them than just finding someone else to collaborate with. Our researchers will have to throw years of research down the drain, because they are not allowed to continue using the cells they have worked with.

In the end it's just another case of sweet, sweet words doing more harm than good. Thank you, Mr. President, for creating change we can believe in.

[edit- I just realized I never posted the article- here it is, but you need a subscription to Nature to read it.]

I suggest a new strategy, R2

For those of you who have never played Monopoly with me, let me start by saying that I am a very accomplished cheater. This is why I don't play Monopoly. Because I always seem to have more money than everyone else. It's a gift.

And by gift I mean "gift of money from the bank when nobody else is looking."

So, I was playing one of my very favorite card games with my nephew Harrison and my brother Sam. Sometimes I forget that playing with kindergartners requires some, shall we say, finesse. Or cheating. It's like that scene from Star Wars. "That's because Droids don't cry and whine all day when they lose." "I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the child win."

Let's just say that I never thought all my years of practice moving money quietly would be put to use in this way. I mean putting money in somebody else's hand? Now that's an accomplishment.