Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Wedding Planning: A Bridal Registry for Murder Weapons

My boyfriend and I got engaged between Christmas and New Year’s and being the practical, career-driven type, we sensibly decided to punt the whole wedding planning effort until we had lined up our next jobs (we’re both in transition this year). Meanwhile, all of our friends and loved ones who have been waiting expectantly for years for us to decide to get hitched couldn’t wait to send cards with well wishes and in some cases, engagement gifts.

This is where announcing an engagement without a solid idea of when you’re getting married becomes a problem. People start to ask when you’re getting married, (we’ll be the first to know that, thank you) where you want to honeymoon, (seriously? Can’t we find new jobs first?) and, worst of all, when you’re having kids (come on! We have a cat and 8 plants, isn’t that enough?).

So when my mother asked us, on behalf of a friend, whether we had decided what kind of crystal we’d like, my fiancĂ© and I decided to look online at Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s to see what fabulous options we had to choose from. First we had to get past the fact that the Macy’s website totally sucks and for some reason groups crystal by what’s on sale rather than by designer or by type of design. We attempted to browse their selection online but quickly realized that it was one of those “if you don’t know what you’re looking for, you aren’t going to find it” web experiences which is always frustrating.

The Bloomingdale’s website was much better organized, though we realized that we had no idea what the pieces actually looked like, as lighting and the inability to zoom in on many of them left us wondering whether the crystal was really “smoky” or whether the picture was taken in low light.

After about an hour of poking around on the web, we decided that we really needed to visit the crystal department of these stores to see and hold the actual pieces. We knew that we both liked the wine glasses with big bowls (suitable for snobbishly swirling red wine and checking out its “legs”) and thought that a decorative stem would be preferable to the classic cut crystal goblets our mothers had.

So after work we set off for the crystal department of Macy’s. We reasoned that since Macy’s had recently purchased every single other department store in the United States except Bloomingdale’s our wedding guests might have better access to it than to Bloomie’s. Plus, I’m from the South and thought that there was something pretentious about registering at Bloomingdale’s. Most of the weddings down South that I’ve been to register at sensible places like Belk or Target – Crate and Barrel is also acceptable though they have low market penetration outside of big cities like Raleigh and Charlotte. Plus, Bloomingdale’s calls up visions of fur-clad women with names like Mitzy and Buffy who have lunch at the Waldorf before stopping by Bloomie’s to pick out 1000 count Egyptian Cotton sheets for the maid’s quarters.

I’ll probably have to revise this particular view of Bloomingdale’s in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I’ll get to that later. First, the crystal department at Macy’s.

After the holiday crush I experienced last month, our Monday night expedition to Macy’s was refreshingly calm. A few folks wandered through, glancing at the post-Christmas, Post-Martin Luther King Day, Pre-President’s Day sale items. It was freezing outside, so most of them were probably just been getting out of the cold, I don’t think the sales were that great.

We rode the escalators up past the perfume and handbags, past the non-designer women’s apparel, through the designer women’s apparel, past the shoes, the bedding (oops, almost thought crystal was in with bedding but it’s SO NOT), though the children’s clothes and at last to the tippy-top of Macy’s where we found the crystal and china section.

The wedding and gift registry kiosk was helpfully located in the center of the crystal/china department and all the other couples were armed with a barcode readers and were scanning in items for their registries. My fiancĂ© and I, only planning for a reconnaissance mission, decided to skip the scanner and look at what Macy’s had to offer before committing to a registry there.

One thing I’ll say for Macy’s brick and mortar is that it’s much better organized than the web site. We browsed various designers: Waterford, Swarovski, Vera Wang for Waterford, Kate Spade for Waterford… I found myself reminiscing about when Kate Spade and Vera Wang had only designed apparel, ah, the good old days. We found some hideous things and some beautiful things, some reasonable things and some crazy-expensive things ($200 for a wine glass? Are you sure it’s not made of diamonds?) when suddenly we found… murder weapons.

We spotted them at the same time, snuck in among the crystal stemware. We picked them up and looked at each other laughing, “Oh my god! You could kill someone with this!” The gravity of the situation was immediate (plus they were really heavy) as we realized that not only could we register for pretty things but we could also register for… dangerous things.

We retraced our steps around the crystal section picking up heavy objects and remarking to each other, “Hey this could be a murder weapon too!” By the end of our shopping trip we had found a few crystal goblets that we would consider registering for and many more potential murder weapons. It was fun.

We left Macy’s without holding one of the snazzy barcode readers, and tonight we’re going to check out Bloomie’s (fur-clad Buffies notwithstanding). I can’t help but anticipate finding murder weapons more than finding that perfect crystal goblet. I hope planning the rest of the wedding is this entertaining!

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Celebrities and Science

I realized in December that of all the RSS feeds I have littering my personalized Google home page, I was clicking to read New Scientist more and more frequently. Sure, I love the Seed Daily Zeitgeist, but for unique, provocative content, New Scientist won hands down. So I got a subscription... as if I need more magazines to read! But in perusing the first issue (January 6-12) I was not disappointed. There on page 5 was a short piece that made me smile and feel that the world might just become a better place.

The article reported that a UK charity,
Sense about Science (SAS), launched a campaign earlier this month encouraging celebrities to promote scientific accuracy in their comments to the media. They've even developed this handy pamphlet debunking some of the most common misconceptions celebrities perpetuate about the importance of "natural food" and the danger of immunizing children. They also have a phone number celebrities can call to check information before making a statement in public.

But what makes misrepresentation of science so insidious is that most incorrect statements pass the "straight face test" and even sound plausible. The scientific community needs their own celebrities: charming, well-respected scientists who will speak out against public misconceptions and set the record straight.


What makes this difficult, however, is the very nature of science as a constantly evolving, theory-based way of assessing knowledge. The fact that the FDA said in December that eating meat from cloned animals is safe doesn't mean that 5 years from now, they may believe differently. However, by today's standards of food safety, eating this meat is just as safe as eating any other type of meat.

Perhaps the root of the problem with celebrities misrepresenting science lies the very basic fact that the general public does not understand science and thus does not have as well-developed a "BS Filter" when it comes to scientific misrepresentations. Or perhaps we, as a society, have simply grown incurious as information is delivered to us in increasingly well-digested, bite size pieces. Even I shy away from overly-long news articles; the one on celebrities and science was after all only 171 words long.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

My good friend, Interplanet Sarah, got me hooked on Firefly and Wonderfalls (all one season of them) and as a result, I can't wait for Drive to start. It's the latest Tim Minear show, yet like Firefly and Wonderfalls it seems destined for hardship before it even starts! According to TV Squad, Fox announced that Drive will begin March 1st in the 9 PM Thursday time slot recently vacated (thank God) by The OC.

Brett Love at TV Squad offers this analysis with which I completely agree:

"I continue to be baffled about the whole Minear/Fox relationship. It's a very Lucy with the football kind of thing. Here you go Tim, make another new show. This time we promise to support it, and give it a real shot. Really we do. Honest. And then right before the kickoff of the show.... whooops. Here's Tim on his back again.

"It would actually be a better idea for a sit-com than either of the two on their last
legs comedies that will be leading in to Drive. A vengeful programming executive is bent on tormenting a producer/writer so he hires him, and locks him into an exclusive deal, only to thwart his attempts at success at every turn. The big mystery is just what did our hapless producer/writer do to bring about such hatred. "

Seriously, folks, with the amount of crap on TV, can't you bump one of the mindless reality TV shows and schedule Drive in a timeslot other than the one currently occupied by Grey's Anatomy and CSI?

Monday, January 08, 2007

Stem cells... Get Yer Stem Cells!

In a surprising paper announced for publication in Nature Biotechnology this week, scientists at Wake Forest School of Medicine (Go Deacs!) and Harvard School of Medicine claim to have purified human embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid. (See report in Scientific American at: Science & Technology at Scientific American.com)

Why, you may wonder (if you wonder about such things at all), is this discovery any more important or any less controversial than previously documented methods of isolating stem cells from human embryos? There are a few reasons:

1. Amniocenteses are an extremely common procedure generally used in mothers over 35 to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities such as trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) and other gross chromosomal abnormalities. The procedure uses a long needle to extract amniotic fluid (the fluid surrounding a fetus) and does carry some risks to the pregnancy, but is nonetheless a common procedure.

2. The stem cells which authors estimate make up 1% of all cells in amniotic fluid do not appear to be required for embryonic development; these cells have been sloughed off or otherwise discharged from the embryo and float around in the amniotic fluid. This may prove to be a critical difference for individuals who believe that the current practice of generating human stem cells, removing them from the inner cell mass of early stage embryos, is tantamount to murder. The presence of stem cells in the amniotic fluid means that they are not being removed from the actual embryo, perhaps sidestepping certain religious and ethical objections.

Are these stem cells as good as the ones that have been previously isolated? So far it appears that these stem cells have the ability to differentiate into the three main tissue types: ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm from which all organs and tissues are made. The challenge, should this source of stem cells be proven to be as reliable as the inner cell mass, is to understand the growth factors and signals these cells require to differentiate into adult tissue types.

Perhaps such a benign source of embryonic stem cells is just what the field needs to escape the political rhetoric that currently circumscribes its research.