Caution: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your job

Last week David Seigel, CEO of Westgate Resorts (the largest private employer in the state of Florida) announced that he would be firing all employees of the company who smoke. No, not just those who smoke on company premises, nor only those who occasionally enjoy a puff when they hit the 3:00 p.m. work-day wall - this is meant to implicate everyone who smokes, period.

Mr. Seigel goes on to show that he is equally discriminatory towards the obese and those with alcohol addiction issues, because somehow these other character flaws make his bias towards smokers more acceptable.

It's one thing to hate everyone, but it's quite another to play God. I'm not going to pretend that we don't all have biases and thoughts that are not objectively desirable, because this quite obviously isn't the case. Personally I'm not a fan of anti-smokers, but does that give me the right to shove my beliefs down their throats? I also enjoy a good steak and a nicely cut fur coat, but I am I allowed to toss red paint on those who disagree?

The level of intolerance that is currently prevalent in the world is truly astonishing to me; but that's a hypothetical issue of course. Most of all, on a humanistic level, I'm shocked and saddened to note that nothing, thus far, has been done about Seigel's maniacal tirade against those with addictions (of which food, nicotine and alcohol all qualify as such). The innocent employees that Seigel insists upon denegrating and publicly shaming may not be able to feed their children due to this man's megalomania - I sure hope that his own inflated ego is worth that much to him.

Excuse me while I go enjoy a Benson & Hedges (while I still can)...

Truth can sometimes be pretty self-evident.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jim Young

Truth can sometimes be pretty self-evident.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jim Young

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

Belles Will Ring

This band needs to get massive, they're too good not to. I implore you to watch the video and not love this song.

For when the wine is in, the wit is out.

George sent me what I consider to be an absolutely fascinating article this morning. (N.B. If you enjoy the aforementioned piece, you might be interested in this one as well).

It could be that I am reading too much into what is essentially a glorified Pepsi Challenge, but it could also not be and therefore it is worth exploring a bit further.

At first glance it may seem as though Brochet's experiments are intended to prove the power of effective elitist marketing or the sycophantic nature of human beings; and while such theories are undoubtedly relevant, it is the fundamental issue of perception versus truth that I think is most significant in the context of his tests.

Brochet shows that the biases we are confronted with in our lives are inextricably linked to our perception of the world. For me it really comes down to the nature versus nurture argument, and I think that in proving that sensory perception can be quite easily misled, Brochet makes a stunning case for the dilemma of perceived truth.

There are many arguments to be made to the contrary (because really, when aren't there?), but I think that Lehrer's claims at the close of the piece logically stand up for the most part...objectively speaking, of course.

"Without our
subjectivity we
could never decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we would have
nothing to be subjective about."

Opening.

Alhough I'm fully aware that there is not a world of people out there eagerly awaiting my interweb debut, it is nonetheless reasonably exciting for me - and, as the subheading of this blog would suggest, one's life is one's life after all so I might as well allow myself to enjoy my own enjoyment.

Perhaps there is no exact purpose to this blog, and perhaps there never will be. I enjoy writing, as well as collecting interesting bits of information, so I suppose this could be showcase of sorts for a few of the things that run around my brain on a daily basis (I wouldn't even begin to assume that I could possibly detail everything, and therefore "a few" will suffice for now).
Then again, perhaps one day I will wake up and decide that the study of ancient clam is my life's purpose, in which case I can fairly assume that my small piece of the internet here would be dedicated to such cause.
In the meantime, this space will most likely remain purposeless.

I've just read what I've thus far written back to myself and something struck me: it is really, really strange that I carry on conversations with myself when I write. Not necessarily strange in a bad way, just odd.
And now I've caught myself doing it once again.

Oh well, it's better than talking to myself aloud I suppose. Ink and paper (or, in this case, binary code) seem a more acceptable medium for talking to oneself than, say, vocalizing one's contempt for the world on the TTC during rush hour - in my opinion at least. But I don't have to say "in my opinion" here, as that's exactly what this blog is for: MY opinion. How fabulously narcisstic of me!

In essence, if you don't like it, bugger off. There's a whole universe out there for you to explore...