For some time I have been looking at job opportunities although my wife would rather I stayed home. Seems she thinks I would be less stressed staying home doing laundry, vacuuming, etc. instead of out making money somewhere. LOL!

Well, I ‘ve done that for almost a year now and find myself a little more domesticated than I would like. It appears the most activity going on, other than mine, is the dog sleeping. He has gotten used to me being home though, as evidenced by his no longer barking when someone is at the door!But to my subject. I find it interesting that employers nowadays post employment want ads by trying to show how “sophisticated” the job is. For example, an “Executive Administrator” sounds pretty high up there, huh? However, upon asking what the job entails, I find that you have to know how to file, take phone calls and know how to operate the copier, fax, and scanner. Hmmm, I thought that was a File Clerk’s job. Looking at the salary, it must be.

For a High School graduate, some of these ads can be very daunting. And of course, any given job requires years of experience. If you’ve just graduated out of High School and are looking for your first job, you have no experience. And you can’t apply because you have no experience. I’ve seen employment ads that require so much experience in so many areas, it exceeds the CEO qualifications.

It also seems that a lot of people are saying that the employment rates are on the rise. I wonder if it is possible they are because you can’t interpret the job description and therefore apply for something you might actually qualify for. Or most of the easily available jobs are being outsourced?

Oh yes. Forgot. There are employers out there that seem to think that if you DO have experience, they can’t afford you. Doesn’t matter that you would be perfectly happy in a position with a lot less stress and one you can do so perfectly that they couldn’t possible have any complaint. And then of course, it helps the employer because the job is being done perfectly. The thing I hate to hear the most is, “over-qualified”.

And there is a lot of talk about baby boomers and how the employers are losing them and don’t see how they are going to replace them. Why replace them? I’ll bet there are a lot of other “baby boomers” out there that would be happy to get into one of those jobs and are perfectly qualified for it.

So employers should consider this. If you outsource your jobs to people who aren’t even on the same continent, or ignore the huge source of knowledge you have out there, you can probably expect to see your profits go south too.Why? Because those baby boomers are the ones who got you to where you are today and they are taking their money elsewhere too. They still believe in job loyalty and they believe it should go both ways. And hey, make your ads show what the job is. It really won’t hurt, trust me.

Subtitle: what may be written on humanity’s tombstone. 

As you all may know, the ‘genetic alphabet’ is composed of four bases (nucleotides) - guanine (“G”), cytosine (“C”), adenine (“A”), and thymine (“T”) which form two base pairs.  Adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine.  The base pair makes a rung of the DNA ladder as my genetics teacher used to say.  The human double-helix DNA strand is composed of about 3 billion base pairs (“rungs”) held by a sugar-phosphate backbone (the sides of the ladder in this analogy).   Okay, that’s all the genetics lesson you’ll get from me.  On to the fascinating (and unsettling) new stuff.

On Jan. 24, the Washington Post reported that scientists in Maryland had built – from scratch – an entire bacterial chromosome.

The feat marks the first time that anyone has made such a large strand of hereditary material from off-the-shelf chemical ingredients. Previous efforts had yielded DNA strands less than one-twentieth the size, and those pieces lacked many of the key biological programs that tell a cell how to stay alive. 

On the basis of earlier experiments, the researchers believe the new, full-length loop would spontaneously “boot up” inside a cell, just as a downloaded operating system can awaken a computer — a potentially historic event that would amount to the creation of the first truly artificial life form. 

Team members emphasized that they have not done that yet but expressed confidence that they would do so before the end of the year.

Interesting, and kind of cool in a Frankenstein sort of way. So I did a little digging around, and it’s pretty easy to make your own little bits of DNA.

For the last several years, research groups, corporate scientists and students alike, have been able to “make” stretches of DNA from scratch. As described in the article, at least half a dozen companies exist that essentially take orders from customers to produce “base pairs” — which are nucleotides, or the chemical units that make up DNA. The companies, of which Blue Heron is the best known, synthesize these DNA stretches and send them back out to customers, and the price has been dropping steadily over the last several years, from $20 per base pair in 2000/2001 to less than a dollar today. Making DNA has become a regular part of university-student science fairs, and in one case I know, an expert has even fielded “how to” questions from a teenager in Grade 10.

Yikes! And there apparently isn’t much in the way of safeguards, so essentially, pretty much anybody can get a hold of some synthetic DNA bits and, with the new technique (once refined, simplified, and made cost-effective, which should take, oh just about no time), combine it to replicate existing life forms.  And if that didn’t cause you enough concern, today it was announced that:

Two artificial DNA “letters” that are accurately and efficiently replicated by a natural enzyme have been created by US researchers. Adding the two artificial building blocks to the four that naturally comprise DNA could allow wildly different kinds of genetic engineering, they say.

Eventually, the researchers say, they may be able to add them into the genetic code of living organisms.

Okay, so now we can replicate DNA of (just about) any kind we want, and we can make completely new kinds of DNA to replicate too.   

Ethics and morality must direct science if science is to be used for human good.  Even if you naively believe that human beings always do the right thing, always do good, and will never use this new technology for evil (and if you do, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you), there is something called the law of unintended consequences.  Creating a new form of bacterium that can be put to who knows what use and that results in who knows what unknown consequences, is definitely cause for some careful reflection.  Of the kind that takes more than 5 minutes, I mean. 

I guess I don’t have the hubris necessary to be a scientist, because none of them express any reservation about the new technology.  Alice von Hildebrand, a philosopher and theologian, points out that:

Today, modern man, inebriated by his mind-boggling technological feats, is tempted to adore himself: There is nothing greater than man. Finally he has become aware that he is god. This is uttered during a period in which the most abominable crimes ever committed against human beings have taken place. 

Humanity has knowledge, but lacks wisdom.  We can’t even manage to use a naturally occurring species to limit damage without screwing up an entire ecosystem (see Australia vs. the cane toads), so why should anyone believe that our own  created little life forms won’t go out and muck things up completely?

Call me a pessimist.  Call me a religious nutjob.  Call me a luddite.  But don’t call me when all heck breaks loose.

My neighbors are obviously Calvin & Hobbes fans:

I’m having one of those days where I can’t seem to focus on much of anything.  My thoughts kind of go skimming along, not really absorbing much.  In other words, a perfect TV kind of night.

Guilty confession alert:  I watched  ”Gone Country” on CMT.   It’s one of those celebrity reality shows, taking 7 musical celebrities (Julio Iglesias Jr., Maureen McCormick, Carnie Wilson, Dee Snyder, Sisqo, Diana DeGarmo, and Bobby Brown)  and puts them together in a Nashville mansion.  Country mega-star John Rich is the host, and the cast competes for the chance to have him produce and release a country single.

What a diverse group of personalities and backgrounds. They destroyed most of my preconceived (and uninformed) ideas of who they were. I especially enjoyed the “street interviews” that showed very low level expectations of country music fans that this group will be able to deliver good music.  However, if the music is as good as the entertainment was on the first show, we’re going to enjoy it. All in all, it was better than I expected and I’ll definitely be watching the next episode.

Oops — it’s not a museum relic, it’s a live round:

After being on public display for two years, a mortar rocket from the Vietnam War was safely detonated Thursday after munitions experts determined the piece of artillery was live.

Authorities said the Mark 1 Rocket, like those mounted on helicopter gun ships during the war, found its way to 17 N. Liberty St. after a Vietnam veteran donated the war relic to Chapter 172 of the Vietnam Veterans of America a couple of years ago.

When a volunteer who was working in the group’s museum saw the rocket there Thursday morning, he “questioned whether it was a dummy round,” Chapter 172 President Roger Krueger said, prompting police to be contacted.

There was an article today indicating that Washington state blood banks are turning certain people away from donating blood.  One person interviewed stated that it was absolute discrimination against gays and “men who have had sex with men just one time”.  (The usual whining and the media printing it.)  The article does go on to say there are other limitations to giving blood as well that have nothing to do with lifestyle.

Most people cry some sort of discrimination when they don’t get their way, it seems.  But related to this subject, watch out if someone gets HIV, an STD, etc., from a blood transfusion.  Then it is lawsuits they are screaming.  And loudly. 

Check this link out:  http://www.injuryboard.com/topic/blood-donation-other.aspx.  Oh yes, the newspaper article did mention that the FDA is responsible for blood bank operations.

Since I have had 6 operations in my lifetime, I imagine I had to have blood standing by.  I don’t know if blood was given to me, and I don’t want to know.  Why?  Because I know I am clean almost 2 years after the last one which means the blood was clean.  But I am willing to bet the same ones whining to the press about alleged discrimination would never consider paying my medical bills and living expenses if I did get HIV or an STD from THEIR blood.  Are they willing to do that? I think not.  Why not?  It would be acting in a responsible manner.  Oh that’s right, sorry, that is a bad “r” word nowadays.

Blood banks are biased?  No, I think they are just very careful and cautious on behalf of the general public, not just a select few. If you Google the Internet, find out how many lawsuits there have been because of blood transfusion-contracted HIV.  Or an STD, or any of the many things floating around nowadays without actual cures. And then check to find out how many hospitals are offering people to give blood in advance for their own operations, in case they need it because of concerns.  Should tell you something.

I am fed up with those whiners who think they can pounce on every little opportunity to seek more money or fame or whatever every chance they get.  Because they think there is an opening to do so and they might be able to gain something.  Oh yeah, lets sue the blood banks, resulting in shutting them down since they have no money anyway.  Yup, that will help.  [Go ahead, check it out and you'll see their budget is usually minimal based upon what they have to do.]

I have one.  Let’s sue the bread makers because obesity is on the rise.  Oh yeah, that’s right, I almost forgot.  True fact: The House of Lords in London is right now considering setting standards on the size of bread slices when bakeries cut bread.  One of the more important things government has to do - legislate the lack of responsibility by the people for the people.  And you worry about Big Brother?

My point is:  If I am to get blood for any reason, I want to KNOW the blood is safe.  If pre-screening of donors is one answer to insure my safety, then by all means, do it!  That is being responsible. 

Because if I am getting blood, I have something more immediate to worry about.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in the controversial decision, Roe v. Wade.  Women suddenly had a constitutional right to get an abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy.  (While Roe gave states the right to ban or limit abortion in the third trimester if they had a “compelling state interest” unless the abortion is necessary for the health of the mother, the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, — which the Court said specifically should be taken together with Roe — defines health so broadly as to make the limitation meaningless.)

Thirty-five years later, we are still arguing over that profoundly erroneous decision.  Legal scholars, even those who believe abortion should be legal, recognize that Roe was bad law. 

Roe is bad law, as in legally flawed.   The Court found that a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution, despite the fact that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution.  The Court decided that other judges had found “the roots” of that right in the First Amendment, in the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights in the Ninth Amendment, and the “concept of liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Having made that up, I mean, decided that, the Court also decided that it was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

The Court apparently didn’t see any reason to define what it meant by a right to privacy, because it didn’t do so, other than to give some examples from other cases.  Without a definition of the right to privacy, it’s impossible to consistently apply that right.  The ACLU recently demonstrated the ridiculousness of not defining the right, when it filed a brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig, arguing that you have a right to privacy (in this case, to have sex) in the stall of a public restroom in an airport.

Even assuming there is a constitutional right to privacy, and that you can figure out what it does and doesn’t cover, a right to privacy doesn’t give you the right to injure others.  Since an abortion injures (destroys) the fetus, the Court must be deciding that the unborn fetus is not a person and therefore has no constitutional rights, right?

Wrong.  The Court punted.  It didn’t resolve the issue of when a fetus is a person with constitutional protections.  It said it “is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” and that the justices “need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”  This is brilliantly perverse reasoning.  A state cannot limit the right to abortion, unless it has a compelling interest in doing so, but since there is uncertainty as to when life begins, the state’s interest in protecting the unborn cannot be compelling, and since the states cannot limit a constitutional right unless there’s a compelling interest — well, around and around goes this argument.

It’s also an argument any biology text book could answer.  Go ahead, I dare you.  In fact, I double dog dare you.  Find a reputable biology text book that doesn’t define life as beginning at conception.  A fetus is alive (or you wouldn’t need an abortion).  It’s a member of the species, Homo Sapiens (no woman ever gave birth to anything other than another human being).  It has a different DNA from either its mother or its father (it can’t be an appendage of the mother, or it would have the same DNA).  To argue that the fetus isn’t a human being is specious, at best.  Which is why more and more proponents of abortion are claiming that the fetus isn’t a person, or is only a potential person.

The Court erred in another, even more fundamental way.  Laws are based on ethics. And I’m not talking about religious morals, I mean ethics.  The most fundamental ethical principle is the Silver Rule, without which you cannot have a civilization.  The Silver Rule is basically “do not do to others what you don’t want have done to you.”  Or, more succinctly, “do no harm.”  EVERY civilization, EVERY religion, even secular humanism, has this rule.  (Go ahead, look that one up too.) 

Rationally, this would have to be true — without the idea of “do no harm” you would have anarchy and chaos.  Would you really want to live in a society that believes in harming others?  If someone tells you that they see nothing wrong in harming others, would you want to be their friend or would you want the sociopath to get help?

The Supreme Court said it wasn’t “in a position to speculate as to the answer” of when life begins and it legalized abortion.  The justices who ruled in favor of Roe abandoned thousands of years of ethics in a single document.  Instead of using ethics to guide them — do no harm — they chose to use clarity — it wasn’t CLEAR to them when life began.  But clarity depends on your knowledge, your capabilities, current technology.  Suppose I go deer hunting, and I hear rustling in the bushes.  I shoot before making sure what I’m shooting at is a deer.  Oops, it turns out I shot a person.  Do you think that I’d win this argument in court? 

Me:  “Sorry your Honor, it wasn’t clear to me that the rustling in the bushes was Joe Smith, so I shot first.”   

Judge: “Guilty of manslaughter.” 

Whether you think the unborn fetus is a human being, or not; whether you think the unborn fetus is a person, or not — apply the Silver Rule.  Do no harm.  You’ll sleep better at night.

Football, smootball.  So the Patriots and the Giants play in the Superbowl.  Yawn.  The only fun part of the whole 3 hour hypefest are (some) of the commercials.  

What’s really important is that its 25 days until Spring Training!!!.  Catchers and pitchers take the field on Feb. 14 in Peoria. 

Here’s what I can’t stand about the post-season - it’s all business talk. This is the time of year when it’s all about how much money so and so is asking for versus how much so and so is worth.  Like the ridiculous amount of money A-Rod got from the Yankees in  mid-December (10-year contract, reportedly worth $275 million and $30 million more if he breaks the all-time home run record of 762).  Of improbable speculations on who’s being traded to which team.  (No, Richie Sexson and his $14 million salary isn’t going anywhere, unfortunately.) 

I love spring training, and the first couple of months of the season.  When optimism for my beloved Seattle Mariners hasn’t yet had time to collide with reality.  After that, I’m still a fan, still watch or listen to the games, but that wonderful feeling of anticipation and excitement has dimmed.  So here’s to a great 2008 for the Mariners!

Over Christmas, my husband and I decided to start a (very small) web design business.  It’s something I really enjoy doing, and if it brings in a little extra money, terrific.  (I like my regular job too much to leave it.)  One of the difficulties I run into is finding good quality photos that are in the public domain.  There are bunches of places that will sell you photos, and some are very reasonably priced, but costs can add up quickly if you’re not careful.

What does this have to do with Flickr (the photo sharing website) and the Library of Congress?  Well, the two have teamed up to put over 3,100 of the Library’s images on the web in an organized and shareable fashion.  Flickr has developed a new program, called the Commons, which is dedicated to helping public institutions get a better online presence.  What’s cool is that users (that’s you and me) are asked to tag, comment and help identify the pictures. (The link is here.)

The images come from two of the most popular collections in the Library of Congress, “American Memory: Color Photographs from the Great Depression” and “The George Grantham Bain Collection” of newsphotos from 1910-1920. These are some wonderful images.

Of course, the Library of Congress has over 14 million images, so there’s more coming - I hope!

Our mutual interest in genealogy is how I met my husband - on the internet, but that’s another story.  Genealogy remains something more than a hobby (and less than an obsession) for both of us.  Thanks to some new technology, one of the major setbacks in the search for our ancestors, is getting cleared up.

Dr. Yang Cai spent many Sundays last fall walking through the cemetery of Old St. Luke’s Church in Scott.

He would pass the remains of William Lea, a French and Indian War veteran who donated the land for the burial ground, and Capt. David Steel, a Revolutionary War veteran who belonged to one of Pittsburgh’s founding families.

But Dr. Cai wasn’t there to honor distant kin or dignitaries. Instead, the Carnegie Mellon University senior computer scientist was there to shed light, literally, on those and other longtime occupants of the cemetery.

Using a small scanner and a digital camera, he worked to retrieve tombstone information erased by 243 years of harsh weather, acid rain and pollution, the scourge of sandstone memorials.

The computer scientist’s high resolution, three-dimensional scans of the grave markers have retrieved names, ages, dates, epitaphs and other valuable information that was illegible from 30 tombstones. And Dr. Cai hopes to create a virtual tour of the cemetery for the church’s Web site.

The digital scans “are revealing data that I’ve never seen with my eye,” said the Rev. Richard W. Davies, vicar of Old St. Luke’s since 1989.

That sure beats squinting, getting down on your hands and knees, trying to puzzle out an inscription.  And in a few years, it might even be affordable.