Lux Perpetua – (Lex Legis Finium)

(Statute of Limitation)

“I’m confused, Doctor Jamieson.” Detective Knudson was standing at Jamieson’s bedside a week later, still with his notepad; still puzzled.

Jamieson awoke from a half-sleep. His shoulderblade was knitting up well, but he’d never go through a metal-detector again – and since the PDA (patient-delivered anaesthetic) hadn’t yet taken full effect that morning, he had this dull ache in his shoulder and back.

“Look”, he began. “I have a hole in my back, and my shoulderblade looks like a cowpattie after a heatwave. I’ve got a golf-ball sized hole in my chest. They both hurt like hell. So sit down tell me what’s on your mind, or shut up and get out – but do one or the other, before the morphine kicks in.”

Knudson didn’t argue. He saw the pain in the other man’s eyes.

“Doctor, my confusion stems from the fact that Doctor Kelso could also, it seems, come back any time he chose – am I right?”

“Yes – and no. Remember those coordinates in the machine?”

“Well, yes.” Knudson waited, patiently.

“They’re the only ‘absolute’ in the equation, so to speak. We know exactly when he’s coming back.”

“And that’s my other question, Doctor – I waited until now to ask you, because I thought your mind would be clearer. Why would he choose a date fifty years in the future?”

“Because he was taking the same gamble that I would have, Detective. The gamble that the machine would still be here – and that the heat would have died down. You see, he meant for me to die – not wind up here.”

“But there’s no statute of limitations on murder, Doctor Jamieson.”

“Yes – but how many cases have you seen in the news – someone escapes from prison fifty years earlier for a heinous murder – and they’re found living in a suburban neighborhood after having gone straight; married, raised a family–”

Knudson cut him off. “But they didn’t use time machines to do it!” He realized how surreal that comment sounded – but there were many things which he was struggling to absorb about this case.

“No, they didn’t. But still – how many of those cases have resulted in a commutation-of-sentence?”

“Most”, admitted Knudson, albeit reluctantly.

“Q.E.D.”, said Jamieson, his voice a bit slurred. Morphine –

“So, you’re saying that we have to wait fifty years to catch this guy?”

“No, Detective. You don’t.”

“Why is that, Doctor?”

“Because you and I are going back – to catch – -that sumbitch–”

Jamieson drifted to sleep. Knudson’s eyes were wide.

“I see”, he thought. “I see.”

Lux Perpetua (Totus Vicis Obvius Universitas) – Part II…

(All The Time In The World)

The next time Jamieson awoke, he wasn’t fighting the effects of anaesthetic. The nurse fetched a police-detective, who was just down the hall.

“Dr. Jamieson?”

“Yeah,” said Jamieson, still sodden with sleep.

“I’m Detective Knudson of the Seattle P.D.” Knudson showed Jamieson a badge, which he didn’t bother to read – it wouldn’t have been any use, anyway, and this Knudson-fellow couldn’t have gotten past the door unless he’d been secured at the front-desk, anyhow.

“I suppose you want to know why Kelso shot me.”

“That’d be a good first step. Next, I’d like you to tell me where we can find him.”

Jamieson laughed – and winced; his shoulder reminding him that a 9MM had shattered his shoulderblade a few hours before. He was still trying to recover from the dream, also.

“Kelso’s likely in plain sight. Not one to do this sort of thing – he’s probably home, waiting for you, if he’s anywhere. Maybe down by the water, watching the tugs come through the locks, or up at Seattle Center, wishing for the Future We Never Had. Have you tried his office?” Jamieson was starting to feel something else – irritation and anger.

“Dr. Jamieson, that’s the odd thing. We’ve looked everywhere – and I mean everywhere. Dr. Kelso is gone. Not just missing – gone. We were sort of wondering if you knew if he had any enemies – because his wallet, keys – everything, in fact – are right where he left them.”

“That son-of-a-bitch,” muttered Jamieson.

“Come again?’, said Knudson.

“That son-of-a-BITCH!” This time, Jamieson was forceful; shouting almost. “He went and DID it!”

The nurse was there by this time; gently restraining Jamieson, who could go nowhere in any event.

“Now, Doctor,” she said, the last word coming hard for her – she viewed Jamieson as not-really-doctors; not the kind she respected, anyway – “You’ll pull your stitches; that collarbone is held together with wire and pins, and you’ll be lucky to use your arm in six months, let alone any time soon.”

Jamieson sank back to the pillow, realizing his position was hopeless.

Knudson continued, “We spoke to one of your colleagues, a fellow named Andrew–”

“Carlson Andrew, yes”, said Jamieson, impatient now.

“Well, Dr. Andrew told me some pretty interesting things about your work over at the University,” said Knudson.

“Go on.” Jamieson’s voice was flat. Either the detective knew, in which case he’d have to explain everything (to the chagrin of his backers, who wanted the technology for themselves), or he didn’t, in which case he had a pretty good idea what his next move would be — in a day; six months; ten years – it didn’t matter….

“Yes. Andrew told me you were working on a – time machine.” Detective Knudsen could barely hold his snicker-smile from his face.

Jamieson paused. “What the hell”, he thought. “Might as well see what his face does next.”

“That’s correct, Detective.”

Knudson’s smirk froze, then turned to stone. “You are kidding, right?”

“No, Detective. I’m not.” Jamieson was equally stoic.

“Christ!”, said Knudson. “You mean that Dr. Kelso—“ he flipped through his notes, “—could have used this thing and disappeared like–” He let his words freeze in midair; colder than the turn of the conversation.

“Yes”, said Jamieson, locking eyes with Detective Knudson. “He could.”

Knudson got up and quickly walked out the door. Jamieson could hear muffled conversation between he and the nurse; voices getting louder as both sides stood their ground.

Knudson walked back in with Dr. Noyes.

“We have to find a way to get you on your feet, and quickly”, said Knudson.

Jamieson chuckled.

“What could be funny now?”, said Knudson.

“You don’t understand. At all.” Jamieson allowed the smile to ease from his face, then said, “Detective, tear a piece of paper out of your notebook there.”

Knudson did so. “What do you want me to do with it?”

“Sit.” Jamieson nodded to the seats at the side of his bed. Dr. Noyes sat beside Detective Knudson.

“What you’re holding is a graphic representation of the universal-timeline, Detective. What my ‘machine’ does is very simple – it creates two points, both in space and time. One is here-and-now; the other is then-and-there.”

He waited for Knudson and Noyes to grasp this, then continued. “Now, take your pen. Make a mark at any point on the paper. Then, make another mark at any other point.”

Knudson did so; then looked intently at Jamieson.

“Now, hold the paper together until the two points meet.”

Knudson did so, his eyes widening. “We ‘jump’ at that point, Detective. And, before you ask the question – yes – it really is that simple.”

“That explains the use of electricity by your facility,” said Knudson.

“I can see you’ve done some of your homework well, Detective. Now, I’m going to give you some very clear instructions. I want you to write these down; read them back to me, then go find Dr. Andrew to help you.” He spent the next half-hour instructing Detective Knudson in the operation of the machine.

“Now, I’m going to tell you something else. Listen carefully, because I will only say this once.” He paused to allow the words to sink in.

“There are some people who have funded this operation who would be v
ery, very disappointed in what I’ve just done. For that reason, the information I’ve just given you must never leave this room in your case, Doctor, and must never go any farther than Andrew, in your case, Detective. If you do, everyone in this room will be dead in a week, and likely your families as well. Do you understand?”

Detective Knudson froze, then nodded, slowly.

“Good. Now, go find Andrew, and come back when you have finished.”

Knudson didn’t like being told what to do by a civilian. He started to object; Jamieson cut him off.

“Detective – I can appreciate your situation – you’re usually in charge of such things. Let me quite assure you that this is far beyond your pay-grade and far beyond your scope of authority. Please just do as I’ve requested, and then come right back here. I’ll assure you’ll see then that I’m cooperating fully, and then some, with your investigation.”

Suddenly tired, Jamieson relaxed fully on his pillow. In a moment he was asleep.

About an hour later, he was nudged awake by the detective.

“Dr. Andrew and I obtained what you wanted. It’s here.” Knudson placed a piece of paper in front of Jamieson’s face to read.

“Pull that back about four inches, will you?”, said Jamieson. Focusing, he read the numbers on the page, along with some other data. He smiled.

“What is this, Doctor Jamieson?”

“It’s the proof I needed, Detective.”

“Suppose you tell me what I need to know, Doctor?”

“Detective, that information is proof that the machine was used, as I had intended to use it, although to a different location and different point in time. It’s proof that Dr. Kelso was the one who used it, and it’s proof that you will never find Dr. Kelso unless you are fully willing to wait for me to heal.”

“We don’t have that kind of time, Doctor. He could be anywhere.”

Jamieson laughed. His face told Jamieson that Knudson couldn’t see what was funny at all.

“Detective, remember my little paper-analogy about time travel?”

“Yeah, and?”

“Dear Dr. Kelso forgot one thing. He forgot to erase his coordinates. That means he intends to come back. That also means he’s left the relative equivalent of a paper-trail – because it works both ways; what he can find, we can use.”

Jamieson continued, as if in a classroom. “You see, it’s all relative. He could be gone half a lifetime – but the absolutes are still in the machine. We can go find him, right where he materialized, a moment after he does so. We can even show up five minutes beforehand and have the handcuffs ready, or whatever you folks do nowadays.”

He finished, half-laughing, “No, Detective – we don’t have to rush. If this shoulder takes six months to heal properly, we have six months.”

“We have all the time in the world.”

Lux Perpetua –

There were no street-performers. No mad preachers with ‘the end is near’ on a sandwich-board. No fool-kids on skateboards with Moms telling them that they’d ‘break their necks, someday’. Even entertainment was prescribed (or proscribed) by the Imperium.

“Not everyone is an intellectual,” thought Jamieson. “Not everyone wants order.”

That, as he analyzed it, was the other thing he missed.

The delightful chaos of life.

“What have I done?”, he thought. “What have I done?”

____________________________________

Jamieson awakened slowly; the night had seemed to go hard. He awoke, but the bed was – different – than he’d expected. It was then that he noticed the tubes in his arms, and –

“He’s coming around. Get his doctor.” The female voice was commanding and reassuring, all at once. The aide scurried out of the room; slippers-on-tile.

Jamieson’s voice tried – rebelled – didn’t work – couldn’t work. The nurse gently put her hands on his arms and pushed him back into the bed; he hadn’t noticed he’d been trying to rise at the same time he was trying to talk.

“English”, he thought. “Where am I now?”

He must have been able to verbalize that statement, because the nurse said, “You’re in the University hospital, Dr. Jamieson. You were shot.”

“What!? But. I. Went. – “ His voice trailed off; his mind still trying to comprehend through the anaesthetic.

A man in a lab-coat arrived; thinner than most (why was it that physicians always had the inside-track on looking like runners?); younger than Jamieson would have expected.

“I’m Doctor Noyes. I performed your surgery. You should regain motor-use of your right arm, although I can’t promise you full range of motion until the physical therapy’s done. It took longer than I’d’ve liked, putting your shoulder-blade back together. Meantime, you rest. Nurse here’ll give you something for the pain. You’ll start to feel human again in a day or so. Anything I can do for you?”

Dr. Jamieson looked out the ward window. A robin was on the branch of a vine-maple.

“Songbird,” he said, half in and half out of consciousness.

“Best let him sleep, Doctor.” The nurse was nearly-adamant; the result of running an entire floor for some years.

“You’re right. But I’d better let the police know he’s conscious. They’ll have some questions….”

_________________________________

(This is a continuance of a series I started here last spring, and which, like a bad penny, keeps returning, thanks to the continued requests of some die-hard ‘Jamieson and Kelso’ fans.

Those of you who’d like to read the whole thing, drop me an offline. If I get enough of them, I’ll reprint the whole series).

An End – and a Beginning….

As I said once, I’m no good at sunsets.

I’m much better with sunrises. Y’see, like the one above, they hold a lot of promise. I’m thinking of this time as a ‘sunrise time’, rather than a sunset, but as things change we have to change with them — that’s inevitable.

That said, I’ve taken my blog and comments to ‘friends only’ — if you’re reading this, you made the cut — I’m also accepting attempted ‘adds’ from people who might have read but never commented.

The reasons for this are many.

— First, it’s become clear that there are fewer people manning the customer-care ‘fort’ as before. I’ve heard from several people who’ve been the subject of everything from ‘quick-comment pot-shots’ to severe stalking; while I can understand Yahoo directing resources to profitable products, cutting basic support for this one just wasn’t smart. It sent the wrong message to the wrong people – with predictable results.

In my own case, I’ve noticed a ‘step up’ of the kind of harassment with which we’ve all had to contend from time to time. Recently, I was the subject of some outright plagiarism (someone had taken to copying my entire review-section, plus several blogs, outright) — at this point, although I’ve reported it twice, I’ve had no response and no action has been taken.

— Secondly, it’s become rather apparent that 360 is dying, well before the introduction of any replacement product. (It’s ironic; I’ve had a 20+ year career in high-tech sales, and time and again both software and hardware manufacturers/developers have to learn the sad truth: You do not announce the ‘demise’ of a product before the introduction of its replacement. Period. Anything else leads to the loss of customers – and this is what Yahoo is experiencing here.

— I’ve been a ‘feature’ for a year now. That’s enough. I imagine Yahoo will release the Universal Profile System rather soon now, which will make it possible to do a lot of things we can’t now. I’m hoping for a stable, bug-free, useable product which will enhance the blogging experience and provide some new features.

I’ll continue blogging here, as well as on my Multiply site, until it becomes apparent which is the stronger, more-robust platform. I’ve enjoyed communicating with each and every one of you — thank you for being online friends, and for your support even when it became apparent that the game was up. Thank you also for reading. The pleasure was – and is – mine.

— Astra

Snow Day….

…and a Primer on Remodeling….

Today, it snowed about 6” here on the Hilltop, and I’m not going much of anywhere. The guys are making fun of me for not having a four-wheel-drive, but they’ve got an installation they’re doing and I’m confident they don’t need me to babysit.

Today, I’m going to ruminate on the cold weather and write a little on remodeling. You see, I was having a convo with a friend about her remodel – she’s in another state, so isn’t using me for the process, but picked my brain a little on the ins and outs of what-to-look-for. I hope you find this useful.

The Process….

Whether you’re going to retile a floor or gut an entire area (kitchen, bath, what-have-you), begin at the beginning. What do you want to see when you’re done? Flooring? Lighting? Electrical upgrades? Cabinetry? Built-ins? Make a list. Get as detailed as you can – and remember that unless you find yourself unable to think in three dimensions or can’t visualize the finished product, you won’t need to hire an expensive designer-type to do this. Most people are capable of thinking-through this process on their own.

Remember that this is a process, not an event. Your first set of ideas will likely wind up in the round file, the victim either of unavailable technology, lack of space, or some detail you never considered. Be prepared to go through two or three iterations of things before making a final decision.

Can’t visualize? Go to a stone supplier and buy samples – sometimes you can get them for free. Go to a full-service lumber-supplier (not Home Depot; I’m talking about a place which has a selection of hardwoods, softwoods, and kindly people who love the subject as salesfolk. Every community has one.) and get some hardwood samples. Sometimes, they’ll shoot your samples with a lacquer so you can see how they’ll look.

These can be put up against each other in your room’s lighting to see if they’ll really work together.

Now, if you’re not up to this process, hire a designer. You can find a page full of them in the phone book. (Note: You are NOT looking for someone who’s a glorified sales-rep for a sample-company. You’re looking for someone who has the letters “CKD” and “CBD” behind their name – that means “Certified Kitchen Designer” and “Certified Bath Designer”; these designations are awarded by the National Kitchen and Bath Association, and require a combination of study, practice, and testing. Yes, you’ll pay more for someone with those designations – -but they’re worth it.

The Checklist….

Room by room, I’m going to go through a list of things to remember. They’re not in any particular order, but all are important.

Whole House –

Remember to budget for cleanup – and pay particular attention to your ductwork. If you’ll be having drywall done, or any kind of sanding-work done in the house, this is going to create quite a bit of dust. Ensure your contractor covers your vents, both cold-air (intake) and heat register (outflow).

Remove any drapes or blinds and store them through the process. You can have your contractor do this, but anything you do yourself will save you money.

After the job is done, hire a professional ductwork cleaner to come through and clean your ducts. (The average 3,000 sq. ft. house usually collects around 15 pounds of dirt in the ductwork over a five year period. This stuff can contain everything from pet dander to MRSA.) You want to select someone who’s been certified by the National Air-Duct Cleaners Association; they insist on sanitation standards with which most local companies do not comply.

Kitchen –

Once you’ve decided what-goes-where, some things which can help the liveability of any kitchen should be considered – they don’t cost a lot of money, and you’ll be surprised how you got along without them:

Are you considering the installation of an insta-hot? That’s a device which produces on-demand hot water for drinks and such. ISE produces a unit with two levers – one for hot water; one for cold – they’re fed through a filter at the bottom of the unit, which is easily replaceable once a year. You’ll eliminate the need for bottled water that way.

How about that dishwasher? Most are single-door units which waste space. Consider the installation of a set of dish-drawers. Fisher and Paykel out of New Zealand have several models which fit nearly every budget and need. You’ll wonder how you did without them.

Water filtration – you’ll want the under-sink variety; the type which affixes to the tap requires changing far too often – and they don’t work with the ‘wand’ type of faucet head, which is becoming a popular upgrade-item in most homes. Whirlpool makes an excellent s
eries of under-sink units. (Remember to filter the water which goes to your new dishwasher. The motor/pump will last twice as long).

Bath –

Hot water is a big issue for any home – either you’re running out of it, or the sediment in the tank turns the water in the tub brown. Both are easily remedied.

There are some new water-heaters which are ‘tankless’ – and while they sound great to begin with, on closer examination there are some deficiencies which ought to be considered.

Rinnai, the company which manufactures the leading ‘tankless’ heater, offers a product which does an adequate job of heating water for a whole-house application – but it only works that way if you purchase the natural-gas powered version; the electric heaters are simply not powerful enough to guarantee a whole-home application.

What most will not tell you is that you must filter the water which enters a tankless heater – -and it’s not a bad idea for tanked heaters, as well. (Remember, a cold-water high-flow filter is what you need here. I’ll provide a link, below).

I’ve seen a lot of toilets installed in homes. My favorite is by a Japanese company, Toto. They manufacture a product using a technology called ‘G-Max’, which uses the water line’s pressure to pressurize a vessel in the tank, which is then discharged to add some extra pressure during the flushing process. (Personally, I installed Toto’s UltraMax one-piece units in every bathroom. They work flawlessly, and I’ve never used a plunger, even during a party).

Laundry—

Buy a new washer – have bright laundry, right? Wrong. No washer is going to be able to make up for water quality. Nearly every municipality has bad water to one degree or another – and if you don’t believe me, run a large glass (two quart or more) container full of tap water and wait. In a day, you’ll see a film at the bottom of the container.

This is going into your laundry every day. Fortunately, there’s a cheap and easy way to put an end to it.

Remember I mentioned that your dishwasher would live twice as long if you simply filtered the water? The same applies to your laundry equipment, also – and the bonus is that you’re going to get laundry which is genuinely clean; the whites will stay white without bleach, and the dark clothes will stay dark (yes, there’s residual chlorine in the water which you use to do laundry, and that’s bleaching your dark clothing out over time).

The folks here at PureWater have a line on both hot and cold water high-volume filtration, which you really ought to add to both your cold and hot water lines feeding your washer. This simple trick will get twice the life out of your washer-pump, and your laundry will be clean. Really clean. Imagine….

Showers—

I’ve saved this one for last, because it’s almost an animal all by itself.

Personally, I like my shower-time. What’s not to like about soap, hot water, and plenty of it? If you’re considering redoing your shower, take a moment to consider what would make it a better experience – would you like one of these ‘shower towers’? The good ones are not cheap – but they provide a full-body experience (you’re doused by multiple jets, all at once).

Is something a little more modest in line? How about a shower-wand? These will allow you to put water where you want it, rather than being a contortionist.

However, regardless of equipment, you’re eventually going to want to know that the water which is making contact with your skin is free of chemicals and such. This is where filtration comes in.

There are three kinds of filter – packed string, carbon, and KDF. String-filters are useful where there’s a high degree of sediment, but chemical issues aren’t a concern. They usually allow the most water-flow.

Carbon-filters were the best technology from the ‘70’s through most of the ‘90’s. They trapped chlorine as well as sediment; however they restricted waterflow and tended to ‘channel’, allowing unfiltered water to pass.

KDF is a synthetic filtration medium which is usually reinforced with quartz crystals and other minerals to alter the pH balance of the water. KDF is an excellent bacteriostatic, sediment and chemical filtration medium which allows for full water flow. (Personally, I use KDF filters on my shower-heads at home. You can find them here.)

Here’s hoping I helped each of you with some ideas for home improvement which won’t break the bank and which will also leave you a little healthier.

Questions? Drop me a li
ne or use the ‘comments’ section.

Promiscuity; Anthropology — and Reality….

Earlier this week, I read a two-part series on promiscuity on someone’s blog.

Part one was a rather-earthy statement by a young lady, defending her ‘lifestyle’. Part two consisted mainly of this article, which purports to defend promiscuity as being good for humanity, and citing the work of Stephen Beckerman, a revisionist anthropologist.

Having an undergraduate-minor in anthropology (my major was history), to say that I had some rather pointed and specific opinions on the matter was putting it lightly – and I realized that blog-hijacking would be the only way I could get those points across, so I decided to write one of my own.

Before making any statements about the topic itself, it’s important to understand that since the study of humanity became a separate science, anthropologists have never agreed on the status of early humans vs. later humans, and their sexual pair-bonding.

Margaret Mead, in her landmark work “Coming of Age In Samoa”, held that ‘cultural determinism’ (nurture) won out over nature, and that the bulk of human development occurred in that manner.

Later work by Derek Freeman (an anthropologist from New Zealand) debunked much of Mead’s work, long held as the seminal work on the topic.

My point? The jury’s still out on much of human development; where it’s been, where it’s headed, and what it means.

We’d do well not to throw out what’s worked for us because of a few revisionist theories.

A Bit of History….

It’s likely that our cave-dwelling ancestors were promiscuous. This is borne out by studies of stone-age tribal affiliations in our own day, where the bulk of the population has no concept of ‘fatherhood’, or the definitions of terms like ‘lineage’, ‘descendants’, or of advanced legal concepts like ‘inheritance’.

These peoples have far more at stake by breeding strong children – which means that building a diverse gene-pool in a hurry is a biological imperative, along with the creation of a large super-family unit (village) which can hunt, gather, fight off other tribal affiliations which may desire their goods or land, and take part in the communal efforts involved in daily life (childrearing, food-preparation, shelter creation, etc.)

‘Law’, as it is understood by them, is dispensed by a tribal elder or elders, and is not codified. ‘Inheritance’ is limited to the few possessions of family members, which may or may not be given to members of the same family, or to other tribal members. The concept of land-ownership is unknown to them.

Put another way, these people haven’t much in the way of anything but what they build for temporary use – whether it’s a shelter, hunting or fishing tools, and other minor things. Clothing is personal, and is likely buried with the wearer upon their death.

Fast-forward.

Today, things are a bit more complex.

As we developed societies, we created governments, and imbued them with power; first from religion, and later from the people who were governed. The ancient Egyptians created the first land-measurement system, and the first land-ownership structure (this; so the rulers could collect regular taxes for the operation of both government and religious structures).

Marriage was created in order to delineate the succession of generations with regard to property ownership (and also quite likely to prevent the inevitable jealousies and violence which accompanied unrestricted sexuality.)

Laws were codified to ensure the sameness of justice – as well as to ensure that what belonged to a person wasn’t stolen or otherwise ‘appropriated’. Rights of descent and inheritance were established.

This, in turn, gave way to class-structures. Those which had acquired land and wealth were understandably more interested in their lineage and the paternity of their children than the lower classes, which had far less to consider along those lines (the Romans, for example, divided their class-structure along those lines; ‘Patricians’ were the property-owning class, while the ‘Plebeians’ – also called ‘head-count’ – were not. That Roman society eventually gave a vote and a voice to the Plebeians is more of a comment on Roman fair-play than a consideration by the Patrician classes that the Plebs were of value).

In sum, we created civilization.

Biology; Biology….

While folks like Beckerman are quick to state that promiscuity is the natural state of things, he’s missing a basic point of biology: The fact that more advanced species evolve at a slower rate than less-advanced species. Insects evolve faster than shrews. Humans are evolving at far slower rates than any other species (save, perhaps, for some large fish, whales, and other large seaborne creatures).

This means that while we have civilized ourselves rapidly (over a 6,000-year span), significant parts of our biology may well still be anywhere from 30,000-100,000 years in the past, relatively speaking.

What’s At Stake….

Quite a bit, as it turns out.

While the revisionists would have us believe that promiscuity is a good thing (guaranteeing a robust gene-pool and relieving the stress of society), they’re ignoring the fact that our biology is stuck in the Stone Age, not having caught up with some pretty basic facts.

First, there are more than enough of us to ‘guarantee’ that gene pool. At six billion and climbing, our biggest problem is preventing all that ‘reproduction’.

Second, along with human activity, lots of little critters we can’t see have evolved at a faster pace – and have ‘learned’ that since humans love to mate, hitching a ride during that process and mutating to live in their new-found host is a great way to spread themselves around.

As a result, we have things like STD’s. These, by the way, are probably the biggest argument for my thesis here, that our mating-biology has lagged our civilization; they’re also the biggest argument against promiscuity.

Third, there’s a long-standing cause-and-effect in civilized societies regarding reproduction – whether we want to acknowledge it or not, the more education and wealth one accumulates, the lower the birthrate.

This has a huge effect in areas where the human population outstrips the local food supply. Education – and contraception – can (and would) turn the tide, enabling people to adjust their own birthrates to things like basic resources and available land.

All of this, unfortunately, goes out the window if we accept that promiscuity is a ‘good thing’.

Quo Posterus (Whither the Future?)….

If the revisionists have their way, it doesn’t look good.

Just the other day, CNN reported that America has seen the biggest baby-boom since 1961 – and it’s directly related to poverty, illiteracy, and the lack of acceptance of contraception by the lower classes of American society.

Being an American, I can only comment on my own country – but the implications of American promiscuity and subsequent overbreeding have some frightful mathematics associated:

1. Americans are less than 5% of the world’s population (300M vs. 6B)

2. Americans consume 300% of their third-world counterparts’ resources.

3. The world has likely exceeded its carrying capacity for humans given current resources.

While it’s easy to joke about it and say that given the CNN article, Maury Povich won’t be running out of ‘contestants’ any time soon, there are far greater implications. Americans seem culturally-content to embark on a course of action which will drown the world in illiterate, overconsuming people, all the while increasing the burden on an overtaxed health care system, caring for ever-greater outbreaks of STD’s and other related diseases.

Hook ups and one-nighters?

Time for a reality check.

Reading:

Promiscuity Fuelling HIV Spread (BBC; April – 2004)

AIDS in Africa; Experts Study Role of Promiscuous Sex in Epidemic (NYT; January – 2008)

The Virtues of Promiscuity (Sally Lehrman; AlterNet – July; 2002)

U.S. Baby Boomlet Bucks World Trend (CNN; January – 2008)

For The Finding Of Russian Bride On Of The Internet….

Why me.

Today, it’s shivering cold outside; I’ve been pushing to close two deals while I’m still getting over the vestiges of this creeping-crud, and I get this in my email:

For the finding of Russian bride on of the internet – marry a model-looking Belarus lady and be the envy of your neighbors!

I suppose it could also read, “Boys, forget about asking for that bicycle for your birthday! Be the first one on your block to have your very own Russian bride!”

Crap.

Being the inquisitive sort I am, I had to go look at their website (firewall and antipopup firmly in place, of course). I wasn’t disappointed:

For the men looking for to find a lady. This site was created. For 4 the plus years, its is the safest you will find. To keep a business running requires money. So not to worry about the credits, they are safe. Always improving with fair and friendly people, to visit a lady is the only way.

Gee. I’m glad they cleared all that up.

They offer “correspondence services” with free translation (I can only assume it’s to the level of quality above). “Why do people write letters? This is good question. I think it’s to make new acquaintance.”, began the pitch. “Normally we have good relations with all agencies in former Soviet Union. It takes 3-5 days for lady to reply your letter; this is due to our experience.”

Telephone conversation translation is also offered, and “…not only will there be with high-quality translation, but translator will do her best to see you in most best light.”

Did ‘Borat’ write this stuff?

I had to look at a couple of ‘samples’ – they featured extensively airbrushed photos in borderline-trashy poses. One ‘description’ caught my eye:

“I am a young and daring lady, with attributes to catch attention of good man such as bust.”

(Always admired the one of Peter the Great in that big museum in St. Petersburg, myself, but I suppose that’s too much to ask for.)

I don’t want to know if guys fall for this stuff, because I know the answer is ‘yes’, or this wouldn’t have found its way past Comcast’s spam-filter and into my inbox.

Public Service Announcement: Russia is not full of supermodels, guys. They’re not ‘daring ladies with attributes such as bust’ to catch your attention. In fact, the whole country is broke-as-all-get-out, with a net yearly income hovering somewhere around that of Nigeria, where scams aren’t just sometime-affairs, they’re an industry.

Meantime, I’m going to chuckle about busts and telephone-translators; at least until this evening.

Backgrounds and Snooping….

Or, “What’s the Difference, Anyway?”

My last post about social-networking taking over for dating sites got derailed by a vigorous conversation regarding the concept of background-checks for potential mates. This topic created a bit of a firestorm, so I thought I’d flesh this out a bit and give the topic the space it deserves.

In the mid-‘90’s, I wrote a business plan for an internet-based matchmaking company. My conclusions were both right, and wrong – I reached the conclusion that there simply weren’t enough people with internet access who would use a high-end site to make it profitable – but that given then-current growth rates, things would be viable in about five years.

I shelved the idea after my research, and left it at that. In retrospect, around 2000 I should have cranked it up again – because all of the sites which are now mainstream took off about that time, just as I’d figured they would – and they were more than willing to pay $40.00 a month for a little exclusivity.

As internet use has grown to the point where it mirrors the population as a whole, these dating sites had to resort to other means to attract users.

Competing with those sites are now the new crop of social-networking sites, which make it possible to meet people over longer periods without the pressure of an immediate romantic encounter.

It became clear to some of the site-operators that in order to engender some ‘warm-fuzzies’ regarding the safety of their user-base, they were going to have to set themselves apart somehow.

About this time, internet-based access portals to public information also became mainstream. It was also about this time that identity-theft became a pandemic.

Overnight, everyone became aware that their information was public.

So, the question – when is it appropriate to seek out this information about another person?

Checking arrest and conviction records prior to employment in sensitive positions; checking credit reports prior to granting a loan – -all of these have been done for years, albeit quietly. Now, that information is available much more readily on the internet for a fee.

This raises some social issues. First, we need to begin by defining what it is we’re doing, and why.

The first level of activity is a background check. This is the sort of thing an employer does, or a bank with a loan application. The cost on this sort of thing through a website with access to such information is anywhere from $20-50; it’ll let you know whether the person has good credit, has ever defaulted on a loan or a credit-card; whether they’re married or single, and whether they’ve ever been convicted of a crime. These can be obtained with the person’s first and last name (no other identification of the person is necessary).

(Note — It’s more than possible that all of us will have at least some credit trouble at some point in our life. When analyzing this data, you’re looking not just for the event, but the history.)

The second level is a comprehensive background. These are usually performed by a private investigator, and involves information which is usually not available for a small fee. This information involves a thorough credit history, a complete history of convictions or other records, driving records, and other information regarding the individual’s life (insurance records, for example). This usually, but not always, requires a little more identification than a name.

The last level is a current backgrounder; these are performed by private investigators, and are usually done when there is suspicion of wrongdoing (a woman has her husband followed, for example, because she believes he’s cheating on her with another woman). This involves physically ‘shadowing’ the individual and creating evidence (usually photographic).

So what – exactly – is the problem?

The problem is that, regardless of how we view ourselves personally, people have more and more they wish to hide as society has become more and more public.

Up from #10 two short years ago, the #3 use of a private investigator in the United States is some form of research on a spouse or significant-other (in fact, the only other use with a faster growth rate is research of identity-theft).

These activities have been influenced heavily by the internet; as couples meet through the net from all over their respective countries (and, in some cases, the world), they’re increasingly seeking information to put their minds at ease regarding someone for whom they might move a great distance in order to start a new life.

The ‘immediacy’ of the internet, particularly with mainstream dating-sites, has impacted the trend of background-checks. With the time from reading a profile to third ‘date’ and beyond happening in a matter of weeks, rather than months, the time needed to ‘get to know’ the other party is by nature limited.

Each of these trends, not present in society to any degree little more than a decade ago, have put pressure on couples to learn more about each other.

So – what’s acceptable, and wha
t’s not?

Most people today realize that while individual pieces of their personal data are still private, the history represented by that data is public. It follows that we have to determine the cut-off point – what is, and what is not, a reasonable response, and at what point in a relationship.

Backgrounding is the determination of history – what a person has done. While it’s not generally done during the ‘casual acquaintance’ aspect of a relationship, many people are choosing to do so once the relationship has reached a point where both parties might become serious about each other.

(As I mentioned in my prior post, many dating sites offer this service as a part of the initial membership fee).

Several dating-clubs across the U.S. require that a member have a valid backgrounder prior to joining. Yet other dating-sites offer the service on a ‘voluntary’ basis, by way of enhancing the member’s own status.

Surveillance is the determination of current events – what a person is doing. To me, this is where the line is drawn (if I’m suspicious enough of a person that I’d have to hire a P.I. to find out if they’re telling me the truth, it’s probably a good idea not to proceed any further).

(Note: If you’re involved in a relationship already, are not married, and suspect the other party of ‘cheating’ on you, it’s important to remember that the law in most states here in the U.S. still does not permit you to surveil a person. This is called ‘stalking’ in most states, and can land you in jail. If you suspect your S/O is cheating on you, and you want to find out about it that badly, then pony up the $1,000 or more to pay a licensed P.I. to find out. If it’s really not that important – and it shouldn’t be – then just break it off and find a more-honest person).

So, why did all this start?

In case you’ve not noticed, dating has become a scary business – and increasingly, not one to be left to any form of chance.

From date-rape drugs to kidnapping, women are probably more vulnerable in America than they’ve ever been before. HIV and other STD’s have contributed widely to medical-testing in dating couples, and as mentioned earlier, identity-theft and other fraud have completed the ‘scene’.

So – what about you?

Would you go this route?

If so – why?

If not – why not?

I’m Sick. Enjoy….

Today, I’m sicker than anyone has a right to be and still be upright. I’m running a fever and I’m a giant snot-factory.

In honor of everyone who took umbrage at some of my views the other day (why on earth does a dating-blog attract such commentary?) — here’s a piece I know you’ll all enjoy, and which will only offend a few of you:

The Teletubbies Make Tubby-Custard

(Tell me there’s not a sexual reference buried somewhere in there; that big purple spout goin’ ‘squirt-squirt’)…..

Enjoy…..

Dating for the New Millenium….

…or, “Why Social-Networking’s Next Frontier Is Boy-Meets-Girl….”

“The only thing lacking here is water and a better class of people. Then again, that’s the only thing lacking in Hell.”

— General Phil Sheridan

I did quite a bit of research in the early-mid-’90’s into the then-nascent internet, and what might well be a good ‘product’.

The conclusion I reached was that a lot of the ‘computer dating’ services which were charging $1,200 or more for a membership could be completely co-opted by an internet-based dating-service, for which a membership could be charged directly after an ‘introductory’ period.

I didn’t pursue it – I thought that, with Yahoo’s “Personals” being free, and the ‘net being the province of free-for-all-sex, even then, that it wouldn’t ‘fly’.

Of course, what I learned was that while the ‘net was in its infancy, it mirrored other markets and conditions – only the time taken to do so was vastly compressed by the nature of the medium and the speed by which it could grow.

Lycos, Match.Com, Matchmaker.Com, American Singles, and two or three others started all about the same time, all using the ‘introductory’ pricing-formula I’d considered.

From 1997 through 2000, these companies struggled for dominance in a new field. Their popularity increased to the point where not only serious daters were attracted; as the products matured, ‘players’ and other types who were not-so-serious began to use the services – to the point where a couple of them actually faced lawsuits from not-so-thrilled users.

As T.O.S. (terms-of-service) agreements became tighter, there were others who put a ‘spin’ on the dating services: They began background-checks.

(Now, before I date anyone seriously, I run a check on them to see if they’re [1] still married to anyone who might put an axe in the middle of my back sometime; [2] an adjudicated felon, or [3] running out on some bills. It’s just a good idea.)

However, one such site, True.Com, has featured a background-check as a part of its services. They don’t ‘play’ – if you’re married, you won’t be granted a membership.

eHarmony.Com is another such site – founded in 2000, they feature not only a background check, but a comprehensive profile-system intended to weed-out anyone who isn’t ‘marriage-minded’.

Put another way, it’s possible to be rejected as a member from a dating site nowadays.

Apart from the hurt feelings (there’s even one fellow who has created a website and written a book based on his rejection from eHarmony – settleforbrian.com is his site), this belies another fact which the more-restrictive sites would just as soon not have you know: No matter how good the ‘filters’, there are people who can, and do, answer the questions in a manner which will ‘run the blockade.’

eHarmony made no bones about the fact that they were aiming their product at Christian singles – in fact, their initial success was largely due to being a regular feature on James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” radio-show. One of the founders, Dr. Neil Warren, stated that one of his goals with eHarmony was to reduce the divorce-rate from its current level of near 50% to somewhere around 10%.

Potential users seeking a same-sex partner, under age 21, suffering severe depression, or having two or more divorces result in an automatic rejection, along with the obvious ‘still married’ criteria.

While their statistics have not been submitted for independent study, they claim their matches have resulted in ‘marriage satisfaction scores’ which are higher in 90% of cases than a control group of marriages which were not made using eHarmony’s criteria.

While one might disagree with the founders’ premise, it’s impossible to disagree with their success. eHarmony is a very profitable company, having been started with $3 million in venture capital.

True.Com, after a spectacular startup (part of which was chewing through $52M in venture capital, mainly for advertising), has run into several problems regarding its business-practices. Noteworthy is the fact that a recent review of True.Com users found that most have ranked it at only one ‘star’ out of five, citing no better ‘quality of member’ than the general public at large, and problems obtaining refunds.

This ‘new generation’ of dating sites hasn’t been without its problems. In addition to eHarmony’s reputation for being unduly restrictive, several have had to lay off personnel and defend themselves against lawsuits.

It appears that the cracks are in the plaster with regard to internet dating – none of the sites, either the ‘classic’ ones like Match.Com, or the ‘new generation’ like eHarmony, can provide a better dating experience than taking one’s luck from the general public-at-large.

Enter social-networking.

While there have been plenty of matches from sites like Facebook and MySpace, it appears that there are a couple of companies which are merging classic dating-sites with social-networking, enabling people to get to know each other under a no-pressure-to-meet environme
nt (Social21.Com is just one of these new sites; their only requirements are that members must be over 21 and in the U.S. or Canada for now.) I know that Yahoo has considered, through the use of one of its “Mash” modules, a similar service; the other ‘classic’ dating sites such as Match.Com are seeking to reverse their fortunes by adding a social-networking component.

Why does social-networking work?

I’ll say this – it works for now.

The same reasons which brought Match.Com and the others to the crucial juncture of exclusivity vs. mediocrity was simple – membership grew, and thus came to represent a cross-section of everyone.

Social-networking sites will quite likely encounter this as well, as I stated in a prior post. Sooner or later, all of the people you don’t want to meet will wind up on one or another social-networking site – and they’ll find you.

Until then, social networking is the new frontier for dating. It allows people to get to know each other, then make that ‘move’, minus any expectations. Getting to know other people in a social setting – seeing how an individual ‘operates’ – is far better than an artificial ‘boy meets girl’ environment where, as we’ve all learned by now, you’re not guaranteed to meet a better class of people – no matter how hard the site-owners try.

Reading:

eHarmony (review; Wikipedia)

True (review; Wikipedia)

Social21 (review; Mashable)

Matchmaker (review; Wikipedia)

edateview.com (review site for internet-dating sites)

datingsitereviews.com (review site for internet-dating sites)