and

In retrospect, the first picture kind of makes sense.

Like most Americans, when I first became aware of the possibility of using Science and Technology to create my own Humanzee, my first question was, "How do I create the ideal Humanzee work slave?" with a followup of, "How do I create the ideal army of Battle-Humanzees, who are loyal only to me, and who will fight to the death in my maniacal quest for total world domination?" Fortunately, the Wikipedia article provides exactly this sort of insight:

Possible candidates for breeding with humans

Bonobo

Among the great apes, the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) has the closest DNA to that of a human. Plus, it is characteristically more docile than the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). This would make it a more natural choice. The common chimpanzee is known for its vicious territoriality, hunting of other animals (such as the baboon) and even murder groups that among their own kind eliminate the weak and the foreign. Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control. The gorilla is known to be very docile and extremely strong. This ape would be a good choice for producing humanzee labourers. [ ... ] Although orangutans are generally passive, aggression toward other orangutans is very common; they are solitary animals and can be fiercely territorial. Immature males will try to mate with any female, and may succeed in forcibly copulating with her if she is also immature and not strong enough to fend him off. A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females. Of course the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced. The entire purpose of a humanzee is to combine human and ape characteristics. Higher intelligence might buffer the ape temperament, but it won't change the nature of the humanzee, whichever it turns out to be. (Emphasis mine)

Christ, I love Wikipedia. Look at the author's exceptional commitment to the NPOV. He's just reporting the facts here, with no editorial slant of his own. He's letting you decide what sort of ape/human hybrid is the best for you. For example, the common chimp is pretty good at fighting; but on the other hand, he's hard to control.

Tune in next week, when you'll find out how construction of my Humanzee Warrior Clone Army is progressing. I'll tell you what works, and what doesn't -- so you don't make the same mistakes I did.

• Twins 2006 regular season highlight reel
• What the "Smell 'em" thing is all about
• What the "pirhanas" thing is all about
• Smell 'em T-shirt design
• Fan recording at Metrodome: Twins players, fans celebrate as Detroit coughs up central division by losing to KC
  
• Twins Sportscaster Bert Blyleven drops the F-bomb TWICE on live TV, later is suspended for 5 games
• Kirby Puckett 1991 World Series Game 6 highlights

 GO TWINS!

(Click for full-sized image)

The essay comes from the Medicine section of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), which bills itself as "a peer-reviewed, open-access journal." Wikipedia's entry for PLoS states, "The PLoS is a nonprofit open access scientific publishing project aimed at creating a library of scientific journals and other scientific literature under an open content license," and that "(it) began in early 2001 as an online petition initiative by Patrick Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory."

I hadn't even heard of the PLoS before, but it sounds like an exciting concept: all the benefits of a well-controlled, peer-reviewed legitimate scientific journal (eg: Nature, NEJM), but with the accessibility of open-license content on the web, (eg: Wikipedia).

The jist of the essay: Authors Jeffrey R. Lacasse and Jonathan Leo believe that antidepressant manufacturers usually overstate their claims of efficacy in their advertisments, without the evidence to back those claims up. For example, an SSRI advertisement claims, "depression may be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and Zoloft works to correct this imbalance." Lacasse and Leo ask the obvious: Do we know depression can be caused by a chemical imbalance of seretonin? Does Zoloft change the levels of seretonin in the brain? And if so, where is the proof?

Since SSRIs like Zoloft are the most popular antidepressants on the market, and since they are purported to specifically target seretonin in the brain, you'd expect to find mountains of evidence linking seretonin deficiency to depression. Lancasse and Leo show this evidence is skant at best, whereas evidence to the contrary is relatively common. Unconvinced, they write, "Contemporary neuroscience research has failed to confirm any serotonergic lesion in any mental disorder, and has in fact provided significant counterevidence to the explanation of a simple neurotransmitter deficiency. Modern neuroscience has instead shown that the brain is vastly complex and poorly understood." [emphasis mine]

Reading this article was a bit vindicating for me, because in May 2006 I wrote this blog post based on my own experiences with antidepressants. As I say in that post, it's not the drugs or doctors that I have a problem with; rather, it's the tendency of the doctors and drug companies to overstate how much they know about depression, and how effective these drugs are in treating it. It's nice to see there's at least someone in the scientific community who agrees.

Whether this essay reflects a wacky far-out notion largely ignored by mainstream psychiatry, or whether it is indicative of a beginning trend in how mainstream psychiatry represents itself, I can't say. Either way, I highly recommend reading the PLoS essay and then making up your own mind, particularly if you are on antidepressants or are considering them as therapy. 

I will again state that I do not advise anyone quit their antidepressants or stop seeing their physician, and I fully admit that these drugs can and do provide relief for many sufferers of depression. If you are taking these drugs and they are working for you, you win. If you're not taking them but thinking about it, I'd advise you to arm yourself with as much information as possible from as many sources as possible. It's the best defense you have against the negatives of using antidepressants.

Let me explain.

I am well aware that Chipotle is not a broker of the potato in any form whatsoever. Their complete lack of support for this fine vegetable cannot be denied, and I myself have taken Chipotle to task many times for this egregious conduct.

Next, I would point out that my work as a potato advocate cannot go unnoticed. For decades, my unwavering support of this outstanding tuber has been without question, and my reputation in this regard remains untarnished.

I believe that it's important that we, as Americans -- whether we be public leaders or regular citizens -- can come together on issues that polarize us, that separate us. This is the key to building a healthy society, and the cornerstone of good government. Where my detractors say "waffler," I say "consensus-builder." Where they say "flip-flopper," I say "open-minded patriot."

By eating at Chipotle yesterday or even today, I do not believe I am being inconsistent within my own views and arguments. Rather, my ability to see both sides of an issue allows me the flexibility to make decisions that increase the net good for all, regardless if those decisions conflict with my own personal philosophies. This is not inconsistency; it is just common sense, and furthermore, it's good public policy.

In closing, I'd just like to say it's been my privilege and honor to tirelessly promote the potato in all its forms throughout the years. Please, visit Chipotle today, and vote YES to potatoes in this year's upcoming election.

Thank you. 

If an atheist was to show up on your doorstep trying to convert you, how would you feel about it? What about a Jew, or a Satanic witch? What if these atheists/Jews/witches showed up repeatedly, so that you were compelled to answer the door repeatedly to hear them speak?

Even if you were extraordinarily open-minded for a person of your beliefs (and I tend to find very few open-minded people that share your beliefs), how many of these atheist door-knockers would you endure, before you simply decided to tell them to go away? How many more would you endure before your tone became even ruder, and shorter?

If you can understand this, you're starting to see where I'm coming from.

I agree with your philosophy about as much as you agree with the philosophy of atheism. Please understand that I am totally secure in my beliefs, and they are source of great happiness and spiritual benefit for me personally.

That you pretentiously assume I need your help -- that my soul must be “saved” in some fashion -- is rude in the extreme. You need to stop being so rude. Your beliefs are no more correct or right for me, than my beliefs are for you.

Your certainty that you have an “obligation to use means for the conversion of heathen” is flawed, arrogant, and unethical. It is flawed because it wrongly assumes you are doing work that makes the world a better place. It is arrogant for two reasons: first, because you think your beliefs superior to all others; and second, because you think it is your job to correct others' beliefs. It is unethical because you do not treat others as you would have them treat you (again, you would not allow an Atheist or a Jew the repeated opportunity to convert you).

Please, stop this nonsense immediately. The rest of the world will thank you for it.

Sincerely;

A person who happily does not share in your beliefs.

It was a grueling race this year and your vote is needed to honor the dedication, discipline and valor of your favorite RAAM cyclist! Use your own criteria for any cyclist – solo or member of a team.

e-mail info@perimeterbicycling.com today with your selection! In order to validate your vote please include your name, your e-mail and your address.

Votes will be counted on Friday, July 14, 2006, so please vote NOW!

All RAAM cyclists (solos and individual members of the relay teams) are eligible for this prestigious award. Amongst other accolades, the winner will receive:

Round-Trip airfare (U.S only, sorry!) to participate in the 2006 First Magnus El Tour de Tucson XXIV presented by Diamond Ventures on Nov 18, including complimentary entry and 4-day hotel accommodations. El Tour is the largest Perimeter Bicycling event in the U.S. welcoming over 8000 participants from all over the world including Olympic & pro-level racers as well as families at all levels of cycling experience.

Two complimentary tickets to the El Tour Dedication Dinner, where he/she will be introduced.

Recognition at the El Tour Grand Cycling Awards Ceremony after the event on Saturday, November 19

Thank you for participating! Please feel free to pass this on to others you feel would like to have their voice heard!

If you’ve already voted – THANK YOU! You are part of the Sprit of RAAM

Please vote today!