Cell Phones Cause Cancer!

Maybe.  I mean, they could, right?  The WHO (World Health Organization) said so, after all.  I mean, cancer is a pretty complicated disease, and seemingly trivial things can cause it, right?  I'm going into this blog completely blind, and we'll see where I end up.
Well, reading the WHO's article, I'm not impressed with their classification.  The idea that cell phones cause some radiation is not a new (or wrong) one, and the idea that it can cause tissue temperatures to rise makes perfect sense- that energy that isn't going into the air waves has to go somewhere, after all.  The cell phone produces radio waves, which go off into the air in search of (well, really just blindly toward) a tower, which copies them, and sends them into space, where they are redirected to another local tower, and then transmitted to the receiving phone.  The waves are emitted roughly in a half-sphere (hemisphere, I suppose) around the cell phone, and radiate outwards.  Half (or so) of the waves will hit you in the head, if you are holding the phone near it.  That much, at least, is fact (and even obvious).  In the short term, there don't seem to be any effects, but this isn't always indicative.  Cigarettes and asbestos don't have any immediate (cancerous) effects, either.  Cancer is a pretty nuanced state that cells find themselves in, it's not like a virus or other infection, and it takes years to develop, if it does at all.
Reassuringly, they ("Who?", "WHO." "Who?", "Right.") do set guidelines on how much radiation can be absorbed.  The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is an internationally recognized organization that sets various standards for the creation of electronic devices (among other things), and so items produced after 2005 are likely to be in accordance with them.  This is good, since most users (by which I mean I) change their cell-phones every two or 3 years, any recent phone is likely to maintain this standard.
On the other side, people seem to believe that the WHO went overboard in declaring cell phones potentially carcinogenic.  They say that what the WHO means is simply that it's possible that cell phones cause cancer.  It's possible that Elves are planning an invasion of the dark side of the moon with their thermal technology seized from Under Armour (only after they win the presidency, Come ON Ron Paul, Phase 1, remember?).  Of course, cancer is a bit more plausible, but let's instead look at the mechanism.
First, we need to understand cancer, and even with a medical degree, this is difficult. It's an exceptionally nuanced class of disease all its own, and it doesn't fit generalizations easily.  What is known is that it's a state that otherwise healthy cells get in, where they begin to replicate uncontrollably, creating masses of tissue, called tumors, through many and varied mutations.  They can even transport blood to the tissues, by hijacking veins to irrigate their tumor.  It would be beautiful, if it didn't kill almost everything it touched.  Not all tumors are cancerous, sometimes they are benign growths of normal, if misguided, cells, and won't kill you.
Exactly how cancer happens is somewhat of a mystery, which is not to say that it is misunderstood.  The main takeaway is that minor copying errors increase exponentially (much like evolution itself), protecting the cell from the body's built-in correction mechanisms.  Exactly how these errors occur is the mystery I speak of- by their very nature, they don't happen overnight (at least in the vast majority of cases), and can chug harmlessly along for decades until the "evolution" occurs- there's a random, precipitating event and a horrible arms race begins at the cellular level.  So the bad news is you probably already have pre-cancerous cells in your body, somewhere.  They might get killed off by the regulating systems, but they might lurk in the woods and eventually stage a coup like Communists in Czechoslovakia (I figured I'd go with that metaphor as it's unlikely to offend since they don't make Czechoslovakians anymore).
More to the point, can radiation trigger cancer? Yes.  Can cell phones? As I said above, the WHO says it's possible, but doesn't go much further than that.  I say, what't can't cause it?  With a definition so broad and triggers so delicate in their understanding, I doubt that something as benign (pun intended) as drinking purified water hasn't (or at least, couldn't) caused cancer.  While I quickly concede that cell phones are a relatively modern phenomenon, I don't think we're strangers to radiation or its ill effects, and on that basis I'm thinking no, cell phones aren't likely to cause cancer (after all, ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer except in extreme doses), and neither are power lines or televisions or microwaves. But the final say, e.g, evidence, is still out.  Check with me in the next 20 years, there may be new developments on that front.
For now, even staying away from proven carcinogens, there's no way to avoid cancer entirely.  The best studies have shown no correlation, and cell phones are far too useful to discard on such ephemeral bits of caution.  So eat, text and be merry, for we all probably already have cancer.

Bronies: Trolling is Magic.

Bronies are a new phenomenon that are currently sweeping through the internet, and I have little doubt that before long they will reach "critical mass", spilling over into popular culture and making their way into the everyday mainstream.  They might never be accepted (ask Star Trek/Wars geeks), but they do seem to be around for a while, and I'm fairly confident they're in for the long haul.  I think it's presumptuous to call it a movement, but for simplicity I will throughout this post.
For those few of you who don't know what Bronies are, they're just adults that enjoy the TV show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.  Well, maybe they're adults who enjoy it a little too much.  There are lots of YouTube videos made by these guys- and there's a lot of talent and imagination in the crowd.  It's a very large movement- Anthony Bourdain, Former President Bill Clinton, Stephen Colbert, Rebecca Watson are all either Bronies or have publicly endorsed it.  I have a friend who hated the movement a little bit too much, and before long he realized he had "become" one.  He described the transformation as more like he had a realization- he realized, he didn't want to be one but he was, and he just had to accept it.
I'm not sure I buy it.  I've watched an episode or two, and they're OK, I mean, no different from the Simpsons (except for clearer, lower pitched dialog, no pretense at being a kids show, and generally unambiguous messages about life, the universe, and everything), but nothing I could ever consider throwing myself behind.  Not because it isn't cool, because it just doesn't do anything for me.  Then again, I'm not a big fanboy, period.  I admit to an unfair appreciation of the Final Fantasy series, but mostly because it has deep, emotional ties in my childhood.  I like the Elder Scrolls, but the games are not without their significant flaws, I just enjoy the general freedom in play.  I never made up my mind between Kirk and Picard, Skywalker or Solo.  I just don't invest myself enough in media to change my daily life.  I enjoy Spock and Riker when I see them as much as I enjoy Voldemort or Dexter.  They're all just characters, and whether or not there's new stuff coming out, they're still just that, fictional characters I care next to nothing about.  I don't draw lines, or make judgments, I take them at face value.  As far as that goes, I don't care much for Fluttershy or Twilight Sparkle, but I can appreciate the ideas behind.  I can totally see the movement.  I just can't get behind it, anymore than I could any of the nation's other greatest fads.  I really enjoyed Army of Darkness (and the Evil Dead movies that came first), not enough to stand "behind" them, on any issues.
And those would-be-(if-I-were-talking)-air-quotes are, I think, the crux of this movement.  What are the requirements for entry into this movement?  Is it just an appreciation for MLP:FIM?  Is it just enough to acknowledge they're a good show, much like the Powerpuff Girls or The Adventures of Billy and Mandy or Invader Zim (I think it's evident I could go on)?  Or does it take more?  I'm asking, I don't presume to know the answer, and as I have only one contact in the Broniverse (to my knowledge, that term is copyright by me.  Originality is, after all, undiscovered plagiarism) I can't say with any certainty, but I do suspect  something more is required ("You're not a real Brony!").  An obsession with the culture.  And, as with House, Dexter, American Dad or Castle, I can't say I obsess.  I watch all these shows regularly, but I don't even engage in conversation about them, except for the occasional small-talk.  So I'm not a Brony, but there are a couple of sub-movements my friend has mentioned- maybe there's something .
The Pegasisters are Bronies who object to the idea that the term Brony is masculine.  If you've read my previous posts, you may be aware how pathetic I feel this argument is.  Many of them either feel men either shouldn't watch or should be ashamed of watching MLP.  It probably goes without saying that I find the needlessly sexist behavior off-putting if I'm feeling generous, and discount them without a second thought.  Many Pegasisters just refer to themselves as such because they aren't crazy about the title "Brony", given its obviously male implications.  I have no problem with them.
Then there are the Shippers, they write fanfiction (or sometimes just post/comment publicly, maybe make a Youtube video), usually romantic in nature, between characters in the series.  Consider "Huddy" fans, of House fame, people who publicly postulated that Drs. House and Cuddy should be (or were already) together in some romantic relationship, long before one actually started in the show.  Like the rest of the Brony movement, I have no problem with people writing fanfiction, even if it's of the romantic variety.  Practicing creativity is a good thing, and if some dragon-pony affair tweaks your muse, then so be it.  I won't read it, but I won't begrudge them for doing what they want.
Some mainstream Bronies don't take kindly to it, which is a little odd.  Their argument has to look something like:
Brony: "You wrote a story about Rainbow Dash and Applejack getting together?  That's weird."
Shipper: "That's weird?  I wrote a story about something I enjoy."
B: "Yeah, but they're cartoons.  And ponies."
S: "And?  I'm being creative."
B: "But it's a kids' show, and that weirds me out."
S: "So, you feel about me the way the rest of the world feels about you."
B: "Well played."  >.>
I admittedly haven't watched enough of MLP:FIM to get a good idea of exactly who it applies to, but they exist, and they draw some line there.  Again, I think it's a silly line to draw, but in any cult following, you end up with shippers, and you end up with "normal" members of the obsessive group disliking them.
My Brony friend doesn't think anything analogous to the Brony movement exists.  I don't think it's unique in any way.  Like any cult following of, well, anything (The Rocky Horror Picture Show comes to mind), it's a culture where people can meet each other and have a common ground.  Like 4chan and Reddit, some of the people within the movement are obscenely talented, and they put together technically impressive videos, or sometimes animate their own spin-offs which are nearly identical to the original.
I don't know what to expect from this movement.  Personally, I'm not overly impressed.  My friend seems to think it's a completely unique development, but I think I've shown it's nothing new, just a new object of fandom.  It's another movement, we'll watch it surge, wither and finally discover a sustainable homeostasis, eventually earning a solid position in society.  Or not.
What's the difference between Bronies and Twilight fans? (Team Rainbow Dash or Team Pinkie Pie?) Demographics, I'm guessing, and there's probably considerable overlap.  Being a Brony is just a level of fandom that started, I think, as a troll, and ended up with people legitimately enjoying what is nominally a kids' show, and spreading the magic to others (ie., growing the fan base).  But like most modern kids' shows, there are plenty of adult jokes embedded in the story.  It's clearly a charming, enjoyable show, and I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying it.  Or obsessing about it.  Whatever dills your pickle.

Sexism

Feminism, and usually soon after, sexism, keep coming up lately in both my personal life and on the interwebs.  I have some strongly held beliefs on the topics, which I find are seldom represented elsewhere, if at all.  I am a feminist, though many feminists I know will disagree with me.  So, let me climb into my asbestos suit before I continue.
First, let me define my terms.  In a nutshell, feminism is the the belief that both all genders are equal.  It is not women-are-superior-to-men-in-every-single-way-ism, which also appears and fits into the broader category of sexism, one gender being better than the others.  Again, I'm simplifying (read: Wikipedia disagrees with me) but these definitions are sufficient for the discussion at hand.
A trickier term to define is privilege.  As the name implies, privilege is always beneficial for the person being described.  Privilege is also usually invisible, in this context, to the person benefiting from it, such that unless I compare myself to someone outside of my group, I won't notice it.  For instance speaking English has many benefits; these benefits could collectively be referred to as the privilege of English Fluency (or something similar).  One benefit  is that it's much easier to find a job in the US.  It may not seem obvious, if you speak English in the US, but try not speaking it, but if you look into many workplaces, even without the confounding factor of discrimination, people who speak English just understand someone who also speaks English better.  They follow directions better- even if they're less intelligent, because they have a common ground. The Tower of Babel myth comes to mind.
Privileges come with all sorts of classes, whether something biological, as good looks, social, as speaking English, or through accomplishment, like being the CEO to a Fortune 500 company, possibly language as well.  All of these things have their privileges, but as a buzzword in discussions regarding feminism, privilege refers to the rights/benefits/entitlements of men, solely based on their gender, generally referred to as Male Privilege.
OK, now that the tiresome work of defining terms is done, lets talk about the debate.  It's a heated topic, with people on both sides making logical mistakes they'd almost never make in other areas of their life.  Ad Hominem attacks are common- "You think women have it easy?  You're just a misogynist."  "You want me to change my behavior?  You're a feminazi." (FemiNazi is also frequently said with a self-satisfied chortle, as though they invented the term themselves). These are brilliant people- but they seem to expect simple solutions to complex situations.  And sexism is a convoluted situation.
Consider for a moment this checklist.  Many items on it are legitimate.  Most are.  If you're a male, I highly encourage you to read through it for a bit- it's quite instructive.  There are a lot of things which are skewed in our favor, simply because of our apparent gender.  But there are some that smack of over-reaching (#23, for instance).  And some that are just outright wrong (#13, 20); they could be pleas for sympathy, attempts to flesh out an otherwise remarkable list, or something somewhere between these two- I wouldn't go so far as to say they are deliberately deceptive, however.
What I find most remarkable about the list is the absence of female privilege. If we're being fair-minded, for instance, #4, (from the point of view of a male) "If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities." A significant corollary, indeed one thing that terminates many careers for men, is that there are 20 times as many males in prison as females.  For no reason other than birth, I am 20 times more likely to go to prison than half of the US population.  #22 mentions driving discrimination, but it remains mum on 9% lower insurance. Or #33 "I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name." Changing your name after marriage is viewed askance at the very best or is illegal at worst- if you're male.
My point here isn't to nitpick (though believe me, I want to nitpick, it's sort of my thing), but to gently point these things out.  There are some very good biological reasons for some of the privilege- and some awful social ones.  There are some based in social culture that aren't based in animosity toward women.  Awareness is important, but once that awareness is raised, we need to reasonably recruit the other side to listen to our points of view.  Being a dick (take that, #29) doesn't advance anyone's cause, and for the most part, aside from the most hostile parties on either side, we want some measure of equality, and we're probably willing to listen. That said, fricking listen.  Progress comes much more slowly from a never-ending series of self-destructive collisions.
In large part, sexism is the result of a series of social constructs generally built around the way we have lived for centuries.  Much of them can be dispensed with in a generation or so- the wrongheadedness about women not being able to vote, or marry, or drive, or show their ankles, these have all gone by the wayside.  And, in large part, they needed help from progressively-minded folks.
Chivalry is a favorite point of non-feminists.  They like to talk about holding open doors.  Many of the extreme feminists took this to the other extreme, making a point of opening the door themselves.  What changes?  If you don't want to be pampered, well, it's going to take a lot more than opening your own doors to do it.  (On a sinking ship, I wonder, would the same impulse be as strong to allow whoever was first in line to the lifeboats?) Personally, I hold the door for anyone, because you're (except for the one turtle) a human being.
But this discrimination has a good point, biologically!  The general idea that women's life is more important than male life is true, biologically-speaking.  A population can have its males decimated (literally divided in ten) and continue to survive, reproducing the numbers back to 50/50.  Do the same thing to the female population and it's nearly certain extinction within a couple of generations.  Nature makes us different.  There's nothing wrong with embracing that difference.  And when there are more important battles to be fought out there, the frustrating thing is watching smart people butt heads over it day in and day out with no gains made, when deep down they're both rational and intelligent and want the same (ultimate) thing- a better place to have more arguments.
My advice?  Take care of other people's rights.  There are plenty of places where people love each other and can't marry, where people don't love each other and can't divorce, and brilliant minds that can't get an education.  I'll hold the damn door if I want to.  I'm not doing it to be superior, I'm doing it because I like turtles.  If it offends you, let me know, and I'll let it close in your face the next time- because that wouldn't be rude.  And, for the love of Thor, leave the English language out of it.  But that is a post for another day.