Stan Taylor

OK, let’s see if I really do have any readers here. I need some advice.
It’s about our dog Tippie. She’s half Husky, half German Shepherd, and she’s 11 or 12 years old now. Under normal circumstances–when we’re home with her–Tippie is a great dog: loving, gentle with the kids. She’s in excellent physical health for her age.
But she has always been high strung: very energetic and prone to occasional bouts of anxiety. In particular, she is afraid of loud, unfamiliar noises. That makes fireworks and thunderstorms a problem. If something scares her, she tends to dig and chew at doors and windows. We’ve replaced many a door casing and window screen over the years.
Her anxiety level has increased over the years. Many years ago, thunderstorms didn’t really bother her. Now, she paces around the house and digs at corners until we tranqualize her.
Due to the damage that Tippie occasionally inflicts on the house, about a year ago or so, we started crating her when we’re not home. She goes willingly to the crate, but she cries and digs at it.
A few months ago, she started peeing in her crate occasionally. Now, she pees every time we put her in it. She holds her bladder all night in the house, and we had her checked out by the vet, so we don’t think it’s anything physiological. The vet thinks it’s mental. So, we put her on Prozac a couple of months ago: 20 mg every other day. That seems to make her slightly mellower, but it hasn’t had any visible effect on her worst symptoms: the peeing and anxiety attacks.
The vet is currently investigating other pysch meds for her. I thought I’d see what advice my readers (assuming I have any) can offer. Please leave a comment on this post or send me an email.

I just finished the abridged audio edition of City of Light by Lauren Belfer. I enjoyed it a lot. I particularly enjoyed the interplay of scheming and naïveté and the narrator’s dawning understanding of the powerful forces shaping her life.

I’m afraid I’m still living in the last century. Yesterday, we were showing our family quilts to some friends, and I explained that one of them had survived a flood with my grandmother “in ’97.” Without stopping to calculate the probable timeline of my family, our friend responded, “1897?” Of course, I’d meant 1997.
Then, this morning, I was composing in my head a blog post about a book I’m reading. It takes place in ‘turn-of-the-century Buffalo, NY,’ I thought. To me, I realized, ‘turn of the century’ refers to the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. I’m not sure that’s true with everyone. Maybe I’m just getting old…

Last summer, Katie bought me a Sony Cybershot DSC-W1 digital camera, and I have really enjoyed it.
But during our short vacation in Galveston in May, my photos developed black spots. I quickly concluded that Gulf sand must have gotten inside the camera and settled on the optics or the digital sensor. I took it to a local camera shot, and they confirmed my diagnosis.
The camera shop employee suggested that I send it to Sony for cleaning/repair. When I mentioned that it was purchased just less than a year ago, the employee told me he doubted Sony would clean/repair it under warranty. That made sense to me, as dirt getting inside probably was not due to faulty workmanship or parts.
Well, I sent the camera off to Sony service, and it came back exactly one week later, fixed at no cost. I was pleasantly surprised–both that Sony fixed it under warranty, and at the fast turn-around.

When I was first trying out Flickr, I uploaded a test photo of our golden retriever Xena, and tagged it with ‘Xena‘.
Today, I happened across my Flickr photos and clicked on the link to see all photos tagged with ‘Xena‘. To my surprise, almost all of them were of pets, and only a few were of the television character. In particular, the user Kevin Steele really likes to photograph his cat Xena:

I was searching the Texas sex offender database (out of morbid curiosity) when I ran across this ‘offender’:

(Click on image for larger version)

I saw this bumper sticker this morning on a passing car:

If guns are outlawed…Only outlaws will be able to shoot their children accidentally

I grew up in a family that had a lot of guns. I learned to shoot at a young age, had a BB gun, hunted as a teenager. And my dad was big on gun safety: I learned gun safety first thing.
Despite that, I can recall two accidental gun firings in my family: my dad once shot a hole through the garage wall while handling a loaded rifle. And my sister’s first husband kept a loaded shotgun leaning agaist the corner in the closet (OK, that was not so safe). One day, it went off while he was taking something out of the closet. He came pretty close accidentally blowing his own brains out.
So, my point is, I guess, that the bumper sticker is closer to the truth than most people might realize.

I just listened to the audio edition of Jewel by Bret Lott. Written in the first person, a southern woman tells her life story throughout the twentieth century. I enjoyed the story and the way the narrator found connections between different parts of her life, but at times, these reflections got a little heavy for me. Also, I listened to an abridged audio edition. Large periods of the narrator’s life were summarized in a few sentences. I found that a little unnerving, and I wonder what details I missed.

The Theory of Evolution: Just a Theory?, by William D. Rubinstein, has been making the blog rounds the last few days. PZ Myers has already posted a thorough critcism of how Dr. Rubenstein misrepresents the scientific method and the science behind evolution.
At the beginning of the essay, Dr. Rubinstein claims that his questions are not motivated by religious belief, but then he goes on to employ several common creationist attacks on evolution. After I read his essay, I immediately concluded that his claim about motivations must surely be disingenuous.
While I totally disagree with Dr. Rubinstein’s arguments and conclusions, I have a certain appreciation for his rhetorical methodology. He has been effective at getting people to take his essay sersiously.
Let’s take a look at his rhetorical framing, starting from the beginning of the essay:

Historian Prof. William D. Rubinstein shares his doubts about the theory of evolution. He raises questions about evolution to which he seeks answers.
Like most people with enquiring minds, I have at least a desultory interest in many fields beyond my own narrow specialty, including the mysteries of science. I am not a scientist, needles to say, although I think I have as much common sense as the next man and probably more in the way of an independent viewpoint than most.

Dr. Rubinstein starts off by establishing his intellectual credibility and by distancing himself from ‘scientists.’ By mentioning his ‘independent viewpoint,’ he plants the idea that scientists who support evolution may not be motivated purely by academic objectivity.
Furthermore, he appeals to common sense, implying that anyone who sees the scientific data without an agenda should find the same questions as he himself.

I have thus long been fascinated by the great dogma of the Theory of Evolution, which of course was formulated by Charles Darwin in his seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859, probably the most important book published during the nineteenth century. The Theory of Evolution in its commonly-voiced form has long struck me as having so many dubious features that it is genuinely surprising that it has not attracted many more challenges than it actually has – although (I gather) a growing number of scientifically-trained commentators are also having their doubts.

In the next paragraph, Dr. Rubinstein continues his themes from the introduction. His ‘genuinely surprising’ statement again appeals to common sense and implies that anyone who does not question the ‘dubious features’ is working on some other, presumably prejudiced, basis. Furthermore, his use of the word ‘dogma’ in relation to evolutionary theory supports his implication that evolution’s supporters are prejudiced.

One reason for the failure of scientists to challenge Evolution is that the whole subject is tainted and pervaded by the religion vs. science question, such that anyone who questions Evolution is automatically dismissed as a “Creationist” who believes in the literal truth of the Bible and who is seen as having an agenda of religious fundamentalism behind his doubts. Let me make clear, then, that I am not a religious fundamentalist…

The next statement is Dr. Rubinstein’s pièce de résistance. The most common criticism of creationists is that they are motivated by religious dogma. Dr. Rubinstein draws together threads of the previous paragraphs and turns this argument against the scientists themselves, claiming that they are the ones who stick to dogma in the face of (presumably valid) criticism. Having established that, he claims that his questions are indeed not subject to any prejudice.
After having masterfully framed his argument, Dr. Rubinstein devotes most of the rest of the essay to the time-worn arguments of most creationists. The fact that so many people seem to be taking him seriously attests to the success of his rhetorical framing.

So, this guy won a contest with American Airlines. The prize: twelve flights for two people from any American city to any worldwide destination that American Airlines services. Cool!
He understood that he would have to claim the prize value as income on his tax return. But when he looked at the fine print of the offer, he realized that AA has assigned such a high ‘full retail value’ on the prize, that for all but the most distant and expensive destinations, he would owe much more in income tax for each ticket used than a comparable ticket would actually cost him retail. Crazy!
(Via This is Broken)