Recovery, Apology, and Announcements

First off, thank you to everyone who offered encouragement and support in the comments of that last post. I wrote it while in a stew, so I wasn’t at my most rational. I’m glad I wrote it, though—it’s good to get these things down on paper (as it were). I’m going to take several roads to recovery. Most importantly among them, I fully intend to enroll in a college art class next semester. I took a UAA beginning drawing class waaaaaay the hell back in my freshman year of high school, but I was probably too young for anything to really “click” with me. This time, it will be an advanced drawing class at APU. Gina’s going to try and get me in at a discounted rate (she has some pull there, being a professor an' all). Up until now, it’s mostly been self-taught, which may have been ultimately to my detriment: you may have noticed that I’m fairly immobile in my habits. I’m also going to start drawing on the Wacom more. It’s something I’ve always meant to do, but pen and ink is just more convenient. I’m coming to realize that good art is never convenient. Scott and the Silk Succubus taught me that. Good art takes days, not hours.

I also have several art-related announcements. First, I’m going to bring back the When Pigs Fly comic on a semi-regular basis, maybe even once a week. The comic is good for me: it helps me with my sense of composition, space, and comic timing. It’s also nice to have a stable of characters to develop. However, I will not be sticking with the usual four-panel thing. That’s a holdover from my college days. I think the digital horizons have freed up space restrictions. The first comic I want to complete is not working well in the confines of the traditional four-panel setting, so I’m abandoning it.

Second, I will (perhaps after the art class) begin an honest-to-god online webcomic in the vein of Lackadaisy Cats or Dreamland Chronicles. I’m talking about big, page-sized entries with lots of panels and a continuing storyline. It will not star Selena Isley, but a new character I’ve been quietly developing: Lilem Beatrice Mephistopholese. I’ll dedicate an entire post to her soon, don’t worry. However, this project is much larger and complicated that When Pigs Fly, which itself is more comparable with Penny Arcade. This will be a persistent mythos, with developed characters, settings, and art direction. The catch is that I will need to learn to draw people in a variety of ways. This will be the primary challenge, but I can already see the first few pages in my head…

Third, and most importantly, I am going to write a book. This task will begin straight away: the text is the most critical aspect. If all goes according to plan, I will not, myself, be illustrating it. Hopefully, I will be leaving that half of the work to an artist far more capable than myself. Of course, should this hopeful venture not succeed, I can find other ways to complete the project. It will be about dinosaurs, yes, and I have hinted at its contents before on this very blog. Brian Switek has given me inspiration and much to think about, and I have glimpsed a way forward. It will be a daunting task, but one that will hopefully leave an impression on the world before I leave it.

…which will be sooner than most of you. I often ignore this fact, yet it is unavoidable.

I will explain each project in more detail in the coming days. For the first time in what seems like forever, I am genuinely excited about my upcoming projects!

Artistic Self-Loathing (Introspection!)

I’ve been turning my attention to video games lately. I just bought a slew of them, and more will probably be en route on my birthday. I really like video games, of course, and I routinely play them. But the last few days have seen me delve into that virtual land with unfettered resolve, popping in Uncharted and playing for like two hours instead of doing what I should be doing: drawing. And that’s what I do. In order to escape my own terrifying lack of artistic skill, I retreat into somebody else’s wonderful preponderance of it. You will notice, when I post pictures, that my gaming library is filled with games that value art direction (with some exceptions). Those guys at Insomniac and Retro Studios, man, they’re freaking amazing. Likewise, I’ll often engorge myself on printed or web art drawn by artists who make my most complex pieces look like stick figures. I had this same crises a few years ago, after discovering Lackadaisy Cats. I’m having the same crisis now, but this time it extends to a subject I always thought I was good at: prehistoric animals. I met Lukas Panzarin at SVP and looked through his portfolio. A lot of unfinished work was in there. Unfinished work that put mine to fucking shame. I also met Mark Hallet, one of my paleo-art idols, and looked through his most recent works. I was similarly floored.

It’s probably my own stubbornness. I straight-up refuse to pay for a proper Photoshop and the kind of computer that would support it (Mac). Similarly, I don’t like painting--I’m not a patient guy. I do like doing digital work, but Photoshop Elements is distinctly crippled compared to its full-priced sibling, and I have a very small scanner. The amenities required for proper digital art are prohibitively expensive (a Mac, Photoshop, maybe Lightbox, Manga Studio, and a bigger tablet). So the work I do is generally pencil-and-ink stuff, though by no means detailed! No cross-hatching here. Very often, there is no shading. Usually, there is no context. Any why? Because I don’t have the patience to sit down and read a book about Mesozoic foliage.

I bring this up because I have two kind of “uber-projects” in mind that I’d like to start on in the next few months. Both of these require a degree of artistic skill that I do not have. The first is an honest-to-god webcomic, structured a bit like Lackadaisy or Dreamland Chronicles, that would demand I learn how to draw people, and learn how to draw people. And not just women, but men, too. And architecture, to a degree. And rock formations and backgrounds and context and all the crap I’ve been avoiding for almost 27 years. This is incredibly frustrating—I have such a crystal-clear idea in my head for this, but I don’t have the skill to put it on paper. And it seems like no matter how hard I practice, I rarely learn. Does that make sense? The second project is about dinosaurs. I have absolutely no hesitation with the writing—I’m a good writer—but the level of detail I want in the art is going to be hard. I know I can probably do it myself, but it’s gonna take a long-ass time. I’ll have to confront a different batch of demons here: perspective, detail work, and, most likely, heavy digital editing.

Granted, these feelings (about everything) have been building over time. I really can’t stand my own habit of drawing things from the side only, but it’s easy and quick. Now, I know I can draw dinosaurs from different angles (I have before), but it takes longer and requires more effort. It seems like there’s a maximum amount of effort I’m able to drain into some of my art. Maybe I’m just in a rut, or at a crossroad, or something else. I guess it boils down to this: I’m impatient. I’ve got these great ideas in my head and I want to be able to put them on paper NOW, not later.

Is Religion in our DNA?

Just something I've thought about before. Assuming, of course, that the universe works perfectly well without a Creator (as I do), a question springs to mind: is the belief in some almighty diety, no matter what diety is it, somehow written into our DNA? Did humanity go through an evolutionary bottleneck that conferred an advantage on those with faith? Certainly, shared belief would help a community stick together and grow, but is it really a necessity for reproductive success? Every other critter on the planet seems to get along just fine without making sacrifices or chewing on stale crackers. There are no Jewish meerkats (not to single out the Jews, that's just a funny phrase). So what is it about humans that makes them, so often, default to religion? It's certainly not utilitarian. If anything, it gets in the way of natural processes.

But it's hard to deny that faith is a gigantic factor in what makes us human. Many humans may not be religious, but will awknowledge a "higher power," abstract though that term may be. But why? Why is the the natural world not enough? At what point did mankind begin shouting at the sky, and why? What advantage does (or did) it confer?

Explain Something Else to Me

Was Jesus teh_Christ at Woodstock or something? It's the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, in case you've been living under a rock. It's all I hear about on the news, even NPR. There's a new movie out concerning (and taking place at) Woodstock called, predictably, Taking Woodstock. Talking heads pop onto news screens that reminice, and others talk about how great baby boomers are.

I mean, from what I've read, Woodstock was a very long concert attended by a lot of pot-smoking American hippies who must not have had jobs or responsibilities (I'd love to have that kind of time). The way I hear it, Woodstock singlehandedly brought about World Peace, the Second Coming, and an end to social injustice everywhere.

It did none of those things. It ended, and people went back to their lives.

What's all the damn fuss about?

Reforming Health Care is Pretty Simple

Every day on the radio, on the news, on the Daily Show, I hear about how President Obama is trying to renovate the health care system. You hear all sorts of scary words thrown around: Socialism, "death panels" (thanks, Sarah!), public plans, 60% taxation, etc. None of this would even be necessary if people in Congress would stand up to the private insurance companies and tell them to get their act together. We don't need regulated health care, we need regulated health insurance companies. The health care system in this country is broken because of insurance companies, who don't want to pay two dimes for your specialized perscription, especially if it's only doled out by a non-preferred provider.

That's one of my favorite terms in all of private health care. It's not my preferred provider (Providence hopsital); it's theirs (Alaska Regional hospital). One of those providers knows what CF is--in fact, they have a clinic. The other one doesn't. In fact, every time they see "CF culture" on my sputum labs, they actually send the sample to Providence. That's a rant for another day, though. My preferred mail-order pharmacy is CF Services Pharmacy (wonder why?), but if I order my specialized meds through CFSP, my insurance won't cover it because it's not their preferred mail-order pharmacy, which constantly gets my orders wrong or lose my prescriptions. If you have cystic fibrosis, Medco is not your best bet, kids.

So we don't need a public plan, and I don't really want one. My taxes would go up, and I wouldn't mind that if the public plan were only for people who tried to be healthy, but inevitably, the public plan would go to boozehounds and crack junkies who can't afford private insurance, and I don't want to pay one dime of my money to help them with their horrible life choices. Nobody who already has insurance through their employer is going to switch, because no matter how bad their plan is, it's cheaper (through their employer) than paying for it themself.

A public plan is not the answer. Our representatives in Washington need to come down hard on the policies of private insurance companies. Regulate them if need be, but get those f*ckers to play ball.

Wednesday Musings

It's a slow work day, so I've got plenty of time to think about thinking about things. Stumbled over a question in my head that I've never really considered before. What came first, the fruit or the flower? Both contribute equally well to the success of angiosperm plants: fruit disseminates the seeds while flowers advertise pollen and basically help the plants have sex. What do ya'll think? Talk amongst yourselves in the comments.

Oh, the Burning!

Read this post and watch the videos. No, don't turn them off. Sit through that shit. Soak it in. Now, remember when I asked why people believe crap like this? Today I have a new question: Why does the media give quacks like this a voice? Why do they get ANY time in the spotlight? I'm all for freedom of speech, but when that freedom of speech actually misinforms the public and potentially causes harm, isn't it like screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater?

Also: Sorry it's been slow lately. I'm working on three big ol' posts for The Boneyard. The art is taking awhile.

More Medical Quackery

I didn't have the energy to find these links before, when I was talking about idiots who treat their kids with homeopathy and/or prayer, but I've since run across them.

Prayer does not cure diabetes, Part the First.
Prayer does not cure diabetes, Part the Second.
Herbs and ionized water probably aren't going to help with cancer.
Here's the proof.

If you read some of those links, you'll notice that in many cases the parents are being strung up on criminal charges, which I support entirely. The child's rights are being quashed by the religious/nutjob beliefs of the parents, who are voluntarily sending their spawn to an early grave. On the one hand, this does get rid of idiots from the gene pool (parents die and they killed their offspring already), but on the other hand, I really hate these people. My desire to see justice done outweighs my apathy towards the death of morons.

So again I ask: what drives people to such incredible acts of cognative dissonance? When your daughter is days from death's door, what moves you to email your friends and ask for "emergency prayers?" Because prayer worked so well until that point! A few emergency prayers will do the trick! ACK!

*storms out of the room*

As a brief aside, here's a great Discover magazine story about those moronic anti-vaccine activists and why, even after all their claims have been discredited, they still parade their cause.

ANGRY POSTSCRIPT: Look, just because your fringe, nutcase belief is not supported by science or, perhaps, the public in general, does not mean that there's a gigantic conspiracy going on to subdue said belief. Life is not the The X-Files. Here's how science works: If you don't have a falsifiable theory to support your claim, you MUST defer to the theory that DOES have the evidence, at least until you can present actual evidence to your claim. This is a principle I really want to hit the BAND members over the head with (among other groups). If you can't show me a basal crurotarian or archosaur who shares multiple non-convergent synapamorphies with birds that are not plesiomorphies, shut the fuck up and move on. Merely trying to poke holes in established theories is NOT science. You have to come up with a falsifiable alternative yourself, too. If all available evidence shows that vaccines do NOT cause autism, get the fuck over it and move on with your life. Why is it so difficult for people to accept falsifiability? ARGH!

*storms out of room again*

Water: The Magical Cure-All

Homeopathy kills a child. Now, I'm not surprised that this happened (or happens). What I'm curious about is the motivation for such irrationality. What drives people to seek out bizarre, unproven, "mystical" treatments for maladies that are perfectly treatable with real medicine? Humans have a talent for cognitive dissonance. Even if all evidence points to the contrary, Jenny McCarthy still believes (and that's the proper term) that vaccinations cause autism. Holocaust deniers still believe that Hitler did not, in fact, kill a bunch of Jews. AIDS conspiracy theorists believe that AIDS is a government-created disease meant to thin the population and/or get rid of homosexuals.

But here's my question: why do people believe this nonesense? What is the draw? If I can explain something in perfectly reasonable terms in a way that's clearly observable, why does that not suffice? Why does mysticism have to play a part at all? Look, here's an example. Let's say that one of your friends believes that keeping a dryer sheet in your pocket will keep mosquitoes away. That's an attractive proposition, given that Alaska's mosquitoes are the size of songbirds and darken the skies with their numbers during the height of summer. So you try this. It does not work. You rub the dryer sheet all over your head and neck. Still nothing. You pack several dryer sheets in your pockets. Nada. The mosquitoes don't care. You know what does work? Mosquito repellant, easily purchased as the grocery store for like two dollars. It's a little like suntan lotion, although there's a spray-on kind, too. The point is, repellant works, but the dryer sheet does not.

But your friend still believes that dryer sheets work. Why? When all evidence to the contrary demolishes one's belief, what is the point in retaining that belief? This question applies to a great many subjects including conspiracy theorists, members of the BAND*, homeopaths, religion in general, this guy, and many more.

So I guess my question is this: why do people believe crazy things when they have absolutely no evidence to back those claims up? And why, when contrary evidence is introduced, do they hold on to those beliefs, often with a tightened grip?

*Birds Are Not Dinosaurs

Club Mixes

What's the goddamn point?

Is the original song not tech-no-ee enough for you?

Potentially Inappropriate Posts Part 1: Human Sexuality, Part 2

Yesterday we discussed how women are the peacocks and men are the peahens in terms of who is wooing who in the species Homo sapiens sapiens. I attempted to demonstrate that one of the "big guys" that women have for attracting the opposite sex are her mammary glands (exemplified by Salma Hayek, to the left). Well, let's talk about that...er, those.

Most mammals have more than two "breasts." In fact, it's difficult to call what most mammals have "breasts." Most mammalian females have multiple nipples connected to mammary glands that swell with milk when babies are around. Mammary glands are a defining character of mammals, of course. They began their evolutionary history as modified sweat glands--a form retained in monotremes. In other mammals, mammary glands expanded to include several distinct nipples. Have you ever seen a big momma pig on her side with a dozen piglets suckling happily? In every non-human primate, mammary glands are specifically for feeding the young. Male pigs don't get all excited when they see a big mammary gland hanging from the belly of a sow. And male non-human primates could care less about female breasts, even when those glands are swollen. Monkeys and apes are more...well, ass-men. The female posterior swells during estrus and the males start hootin' and hollerin'.

But human females are the only mammals with perpetually swollen breasts, leading most to conclude--quite rightly--that breasts serve an important secondary function. As I said before, they're the equivalent of ceratopsian neck frills. It's hard not to swivel your head when a girl like Salma walks by. But here's a question for you. Has the advertising power of breasts overpowered the baby-feeding role? That is, among human females, is nursing now the secondary purpose of breasts? Is showin' them off the primary purpose?

Breast implants show up pretty early in American girls. Sue Williams was the first Playmate to have implants--in 1965. However, breast enhancement wasn't the safe science it is today. Silicone was injected directly into the breast tissue, often multiple times. This led, invariably, to cancer in many women. Later implants were considerably safer: saline implants preceded silicone gel implants. Both have their own set of problems, including the risk of rupture and the sometimes-hideous visual results. Breast implants are invariably tougher and thicker than breast tissue itself, and although they may be visually attractive, people tell me they're not all that fun in...the...sack. And there's another gigantic downside to breast implants:

In some cases (this depends primarily on the implant's size), breast implants impede the ability to nurse. Did you hear that? In addition to the health risks caused by the surgery, the foreign material in the body, and the recovery afterward, you might not be able to nurse your babies!

But why do women get breast implants in the first place? Two primary reasons, I think:

1) Attract the opposite sex, and;

2) Reconstructive surgery after damage to the breast because of cancer or injury (or masectomy).

The first reason is undoubtably the most common. And think about it--that's a helluva gamble. Your risk your own life on the surgery table in hopes of attracting the opposite sex, which reproductive drive tells you to mate with and procreate, but then, hold on--you might not be able to feed the baby! That's...incredible! Breasts have switched from being primarily for feeding babies to attracting mates. No other animal does this! But again, I ask about technology and medicine. Certainly breast implants would not be as popular were it not for advances in medicine that make them safer. What's more, women don't always feed their babies with their own breastmilk. There are wet nurses and bottles for that. Of course, both are potentially inferior, as the mother's milk passes on important immune agents to the baby. It's that crazy? It boggles my mind, honestly. We're so happy with our technology and medicine that the very organ that makes us mammals is losing its defining purpose. That's epic stuff.

Potentially Inappropriate Posts Part 1: Human Sexuality, Part 1

I like dinosaurs, gaming, paleontology in general, movies, very few comics (mostly webcomics at this point), H. P. Lovecraft, and...wait for it...women. I know, I'm a bad person. But don't worry too much, it's not a "ooh, boobies!" kind of thing (although there's some of that, too). Modern man has some backwards sexual tendancies compared to most of the rest of the vertebrate community, especially other mammals or, heck, non-human primates.

And it's something that interests me. Time to be totally up-front here: I'm a breast man. Thus, the picture at left (Denise Milani). I also prefer an hourglass figure. I don't think these are bizarre human male tendances. They must mean something, right?

But why do I like breasts and an hourglass figure while my friend Luke likes legs and a tone midriff? Why does my friend Erik like butts and...a tone midriff? Why do both of them (and some of my other friends) prefer smaller breasts?

In a total reversal from most other vertebrate animals, it is the females of Homo sapiens sapiens that are the sexual "billboards" (in general). Big breasts, long legs, tone midriff (don't understand that one), bubble butt, these are all desirable traits. But in most non-human vertebrates, males compete for females by being billboards. Ceratopsians had giant frills and big horns. Male elephant seals are enormous, blubbery, and have trunks. Male baboons have bright faces and giant canines. Male birds of paradise are ridiculously colorful and have bizarre plumage that's useful only for attracting the opposite sex. But women have breasts, butts, and legs, which they show off with swimsuits, low-cut tops, and short skirts. Men can do the same thing, but the opposite effect is usually achieved: no woman I've ever met likes a guy with super-huge muscles, for example.

Another interesting reversal is the breasts themselves. In non-human primates, breasts are used primarily to nurse the young. Males are attracted to the females posterior when it becomes swollen during breeding season (that's estrus). Humans don't really go through a visible estrus cycle (although that's debatable), so the butt was replaced by larger breasts. But there's a tradeoff here--breasts don't just swell and shrink depending on the season. They stay large! So human females are essentially advertising their sexuality all the time, and clothing is used to openly advertise it or not. Men, however, do not have such obvious sexual organs. Facial hair may be the male "billboard," but it doesn't have the same draw as...well, Denise up there. In Homo sapiens sapiens, the females are primarily competing for male attention instead of the other way around.

You can see this yourself by going to a bar or pool hall on the weekend. Men dress casual, in T-shirts and jeans, but women use perfume and revealing clothing to attract attention to themselves. If men and women were peacocks, the sexes would be reversed! The females would have big showy feathers, and males would be duller-colored.

But here's where another question comes to mind: Are there universally attractive female features? Clearly not, as a quick survey by my friends reveals. But why is that? You don't see that kind of selectiveness in non-human animals. Female moose are going to mate with the toughest male with the largest antlers. Although my field experience in close to nill, I would think that females aren't saying to each other, "You know, I really like a male with big kneecaps." Females like antlers. Protoceratops females liked vaulted nasals on their males and big frills. Yowza! So what about humans? Why don't males across the species harbor similar desires for certain female features? Let's say that hourglass figures are an indication of fertility (which has been theorized!). Why would any man prefer a woman with anything but an hourglass figure? We could say the same thing about breasts: let's assume that large breasts are an indication of increased milk production (as has although been theorized). Why would natural selection favor anything below a C-cup?

Could this be an indication that natural selection isn't working in humans like it used to? Because medicine and technology keeps us all alive and breeding, those phenotypes which would otherwise be "bred out" of the gene pool stick around, and when you get to 6 billion+ people, sexual preference among males is also going to expand, too. Maybe when humans were hunting bison with spears and living in caves, sexual selection was more strongly universal, but as populations increased and lifespans lengthened, those factors were toned down. And today, you have every body type imaginable wandering the planet, and everybody will find somebody thanks to the miracle of overpopulation.

But there is still a very strong tendancy for women to be the "advertisers," which is interesting. I also wonder if, besides having a biological component, cultural factors differ between distinct human populations (more on that in future posts) in terms of who is competing for who?

More on this point in a future post. Feel free to call me a jackass in the comments, but this is interesting stuff. I like placing humans in the same scientific context that we would any other animal!

Important warning: If you're a woman, and you're wearing a low-cut top or a bra that emphasizes your cleavage, and you meet me, you'll have to excuse my descending gaze. I know your eyes up "up here," but goddamnit, it's not personal! Also: Don't avoid said types of clothing on behalf. :-D

"Dinosauriforms"

Dinosauriforms like Silesaurus and Eucoelophysis and that...you know...hopping one (lower left, above) don't form a coherent group, right? They're the rhamphorhynchoids of the dinosaurs, yes? That is, they form a paraphyletic grade of stepwise forms leading from...something...to Dinosauria, correct? Have there been any large-scale studies of "dinosauriforms" as a whole?

Pardon My Irritation

The whole Best Buy snafu has gotten me thinking. I must share my newly acquired wisdom to others. This wisdom may be accompanied by massive doses of cynicism.

1) Never, ever order anything online using the cheapest possible shipping method. Your most affordable choice at Best Buy Dot Com is $3.00. Your package should arrive about two weeks later. It will not. Rather, it will appear at your door roughly five weeks later, as I discovered to my horror. Your package will travel not via plane or truck, but tortoise. Yes, your book, movie, or video game will be strapped to the back of the common desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). This hearty terrapin, the successor of the horseback rider of the Old West, wanders the American southwest more or less at its leisure, stopping often to sleep, eat, and simply stop moving (it's a turtle, for Godsake). At some point, this turtle will more or less accidentally reach Washington State--a miracle, considering that Gopherus agassizii is a desert tortoise. The tortoise will then be tripped over by a United States Post Office employee, who, noticing the now-decrepid package, will pluck said parcel from the tired tortoise's shell and toss it onto a passing barge.

This barge only leaves the port twice a week (no, really). Its course takes it all over the world, including, I suspect, Antarctica. Its last destination will always be your house. Always. The package will be delivered to your house long after you've forgotten what it was you ordered, or even that you ordered anything in the first place. Thus, it's a nice surprise to see a package on your porch at all.

So fuck you, Best Buy Dot Com, for lying to me about when my package would arrive. Their estimate suggested that my package would arrive between August 12th and August 18th. That's damn good, considering I ordered the thing on the 7th. But hey--why would Best Buy Dot Com lie? If they knew it would take longer, or even if they didn't, wouldn't it be better to suggest a later date, thus ensuring a happy customer? I mean, if you think it's going to arrive in three weeks, why not say four? And besides, if you said four, I might be more inclined to pay the higher shipping fee, which brings me to point #2.

2) The United States Postal Service is inefficient and money-grubby. These are the people who require up to 48 hours to "process" anything. From what I've been told, processing amounts to slapping an address sticker on a box, then scanning that sticker's barcode into a computer. If you don't give the USPS enough money, they will strap your package to the back of a fucking tortoise. How much money will it take to upgrade that from late-surviving anapsid to actual flying vehicle? Oh, not a whole lot, just a 500% increase in shipping cost. That's right, kids: If I want my package to arrive in a timely manner, a manner which some might consider reasonable, I get to shell out $16 instead of $3. So here are my options: $3 for absolutely shit, or $16 for acceptable. And God forbid I would want my package the next day. That would cost $25. And because Best Buy lies to me, I should probably add at least a week to those approximate times. So, in all fairness:

Option One: Your package moves from one end of the United States to the other at the speed of a glacier--Three Dollars.

Option Two: Your package is tossed into the cargo bay of an airplane and probably arrives at your doorstep in about two weeks--Sixteen Dollars.

Option Three: Your package is given the direct-flight treatment, or at least as direct as you can get in the airports these days--Twenty-five Dollars.

So here's my question, USPS: In an age where we can put a man on the moon, grow genetically modified foods to end world hunger, split the atom, and cure terrible diseases, what year do YOU think it is? I guess mail trucks are great, but it's not a huge step up from those horseback riders from yonder days. How much of the process is automated? How much more automated could it stand to be? And why have my stamps risen in price so dramatically within the last few years? Between the forty-six cent stamps and the sixteen dollar shippings costs, I expect a whole lot better.

But perhaps I'm forgetting that the United States Postal Service is run by the Federal Government. There's even a "Postmaster General," a job I imagine does not require any sort of advanced degree or that much time in the office. So maybe I shouldn't be that surprised that the USPS is so inefficient and lazy--it's handled by the United States government.

Fun Fact: You know why we don't get mail on Sundays? According to Wikipedia, churches noticed a drop in Sunday mass attendance because some of their convent worked as mail carriers. And because Sunday is the Day o' Rest, that's not allowed. Our government, always happy to blur the line between church and state, buckled under the pressure as a soda can would a vehicle tire.

This is the part where I suggest that my readers abandon the USPS as much as possible. There are plenty of other mail carriers out there. UPS, FedEx, DHL to name a few. And I have consistently found that those three are far faster and more competant than the USPS. Sure, there are exceptions. It doesn't cost you an extra dime to send back a NetFlix movie or recieve a magazine in your mailbox. But if you have packages to send, just don't use the USPS.

So, to conclude, Best Buy Dot Com is run by lying liers who lie, and the USPS is a broken, worthless system. And no, I still have not recieved Soulcalibur IV. And as of tonight, at least, it has not yet reached Anchorage. But hey, who's counting?

Alaska: The Eighth Continent

Listen, dear readers, to my tale of woe:

So, on the 7th, I ordered the special edition of Soulcalibur IV from Best Buy online. I did this because (1) I'm a sucker for anything that says "special edition;" and (2) nobody in town had the special edition in stock. In fact, to this day, it's difficult to find the standard edition in Anchorage. At any rate, I paid the $2.99 shipping charge because it was that or a $16 shipping charge. My choices were a bit constrained. This is something I will never, ever do again.

My order confirmation suggests that my package will arrive between the 12th and the 18th, which I, perhaps stupidly, believe. Thus the days ramble on with no Soulcalibur in sight, and eventually I come to accept that my game will not arrive until the days leading up to the 18th. Note that it's the 18th today. At any rate, I take to perpetually checking the status of the package's journey online. This epic trek began somewhere in Ohio, where the game was moved from Best Buy's warehouse to Cincinnati, and on the 9th, it was "processed."

And there it stayed, as "processed," for the next nine days. I was ready to call and yell at somebody this morning when I noted with glee that, as of today, it had been processed and shipped from Washington state. But I could get no further information from the tracking website, and I could reach no human voice on the phone. So I ran to the post office today in hopes of finding more information.

They were able to tell me that the package was shipped by boat, not plane, and the trip from Washington to Alaska could take as long as a week. And I imagine, as I am now extremely cynical, that the trip from the Anchorage harbor to my mailbox could take another week. Hell, maybe they'll dock in Seward, then drive it up to Anchorage. There's gotta be a slower way. Maybe toss my package on a canoe and let the mailman explore the streams and rivers between Seward and Anchorage, stopping every so often to rest, eat, sleep, and hike between the waterways. I have resigned to the idea that I will not be playing Soulcalibur IV until I return from PAX. In September. Thus, by casting my expectation that far forward, I will not be disappointed but pleasently surprised to find the package on my front porch before that date.

A similar problem has held up my fossil cat book. Of the three books ordered last week (longer?), one of them was on backorder, but rather than send that book separately, Barnes & Nobel wisely held on to both of the other books, choosing instead to send all three at the same time. This package will not be sent out until August 26th, eight days from now, and two days before PAX. I was hoping to take this book with me on the plane!

So I'm now torn about ordering ANYTHING online. The company can be extremely slow to ship the order out, and when it IS shipped out, the United States Postal Service is extremely slow to deliver it. Haven't we gotten the point in our development as a society that we can move a package from one end of the country to the other in less than three to five weeks? We can put a man on the moon, but a cheap, reliable mail delivery system is beyond our grasp.

But here's the real icing on the cake: Mike Gamin, one of my NWR colleagues, shipped me a DS game to review called Izuna 2 (it's not that great). Mike lives in New York, which is seemingly farther toward the opposite end of the country than Ohio. Mike sent this game after I'd ordered Soulcalibur, and Izuna 2 arrived last Thursday. I don't think he spent more than $5 on the shipping costs. Does two freaking dollars make that much of a difference? And is there really no other alternative than "slow as a one-legged dog" shipping ($3) and "we'll get it to you within the week" ($16) shipping?

So yeah, frustration is setting in. My expectation is not being met. It's not like I don't have any games to play during the waiting period (actually, I've got quite the backlog), but worrying about it isn't doing me any favors, either. I don't even care about the game anymore. I care more about getting the damn thing and putting it out of my mind, if that makes sense.

Backlog: Call of Duty 4 (PS3), MGS4 (PS3), Odin Sphere (PS2), Fatal Frame 2: Crimson Butterfly (PS2), Fatal Frame 3: The Tormented (PS2), Super Mario Galaxy (Wii), Virtually all of my Virtual Console games (Wii), Professor Layton & the Curious Village (DS), Space Invaders Extreme (DS).

Explain something to me.

This post is not meant to be some self-righteous, morally authoritative rant. Do not take it that way. I am genuinely curious about human motivation here.

So, I'm wondering about drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. I honestly don't care if people use drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. I don't, and that's my own choice. I have my own reasons, and the biggest one is: It's just not healthy. Even red wine, which contains a heart-healthy chemical called resveratrol, is ultimately worse for your health than simply eating synthesized resveratrol (which is being developed as we speak).

So here's my question: With all the well-known health risks associated with cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs, why do people voluntarily use them? This is not a question of "Why would you DO that?" But rather, "WHY would you do that?" I'm trying to discover the motivation behind it. And, as a secondary question: If there are some, even fleeting, benefits from cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs, are those benefits simply unavailable from alternative, perhaps healthier sources?

I Need a Mnemonic

Okay, I already know a mnemonic device for figuring out Linnean taxonomy: Kings Play Chess On Fine Green Squares (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Speces). I also know a funny one for the major time periods of the Cenozoic: Purple Elephants On My Purple Pajamas (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene).

Now I need another one. I'm trying to learn the names of the shorter time periods which make up the Mesozoic. I know Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, of course. But there are other, briefer, periods which further divides that time period into more accessable segments. Do any of you out there in Readerland know a helpful mnemonic device for them?

For the curious:

Early Triassic: Induan, Olenekian
Middle Triassic: Anisian, Ladinian
Late Triassic: Carnian, Norian, Rhaetian
Early Jurassic: Hattangian, Sinemurian, Pliensbachian, Toarcian
Middle Jurassic: Aalenian, Bajocian, Bathonian, Callovian
Late Jurassic: Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian, Tithonian
Early Cretaceous: Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, Barremian, Aptian, Albian
Late Cretaceous: Cenomanian, Turonian, Coniacian, Santonian, Campanian, Maastrichtian

I think I'm screwed.

A Nagging Thought

How come there are no modern reptiles with giant freaking sails? If the huge vertebral sails of Dimetrodon, Edaphosaurus, and various other critters through the millenia were strictly for absorbing heat, then why don't you see more examples in both the fossil and extent zoological record of sails? As it stands, sails are relatively rare. Off the top of my head:

Platyhystrix

Dimetrodon

Edaphosaurus

Arizonasaurus

Amargasaurus

Ouranosaurus

Spinosaurus

Of those animals, two are virtually sister taxa, one might not actually have sails, and the last two have interesting sail shapes. Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus have wimpy rounded neural spines, while all of the archosaurs on the list (save Amargasaurus) have flat (side to side) but wide (front to back) neural spines. Surely there's a reason for these differences.

But that's not even the point. If sails evolved to soak up heat, why didn't they evolve several times? Isn't it more parsimonious (as they say) to conclude that sails have a display function first, and a heat-soaking function second?

Bah--I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Thanks to fellow NWR colleague Aaron Kaluszka for teaching me the HTML tags for bullet points. Now I feel smarter!

Is this publishable in some form?

I just re-read this post (to get Manabu's feedback) and noticed that, aside from some bad wording and grammatical errors, it's a pretty strong post. With some feedback from all of you readers out there, I could make it better. The point is, I was wondering if a piece like this--which is essentially a gigantic musing about spinosaur behavior--could find a home in a print journal. Maybe not JVP, Nature, or Science, but something.

I think it's a great post in need of some edits and further information, and it's one of the only things I've ever written which I feel is strong enough for potential publication. Thoughts?

I Has An Ideea!

There's a trading card maker online. It's part of the Flickr system, and I've tinkered with it in order to brainstorm my own Silent Hill card game. It's fun and easy, although I wish there were more text options (like shrinking the font). At any rate, I had an idea last night to make myself into a trading card. I'm not fond of the picture, but it's the only one I had at my fingertips this morning! I think it'd be funny to make a series of cards based on my fellow bloggers (hint, hint). If you would like your own silly trading card, send me a picture of yourself and I'll get right to it.