23 And My First Degree Relative

So, my brother got a special rate on 23andMe testing for a genetic assay for only $99. It usually runs $400. Anyway, he shared his results with me and, since we're brothers much of his results apply to me. There were really no surprises though it pointed out two things I'd long suspected: a) I likely have a remarkably high tolerance for caffeine (a caffeine slow metabolizer) and b) I have a higher than usual susceptibility for heroin addiction (which explains my fondness for Vicodin: aka, the best part of breaking your wrist and getting your wisdom teeth pulled)

The caffeine tolerance is what I find most interesting. I've often wondered why some of my friends will have a small latte and get all hyper and excited and I'll have a large drip and I pretty much just get a wee bit more alert. Evidently some people metabolize caffeine very slowly. Unfortunately there is conflicting research to suggest that either coffee drinking will reduce your chance for heart attack or increase it. Still, I do enjoy my morning coffee.

Seattle was fun. Tuesday night I went out with a bunch of work folks and hit two bars in particular (both in Capitol Hill). The first was Smith, which made both a very fine Manhattan and also a Sarah Smoke, which I reckon is a cocktail of their own devising. Evidently Smith is well known for making all their own bitters, hence the emphasis on whiskey drinks for the evening. After that we went to Tavern Law where I had an utterly amazing drink that had earl grey gin, honey, and other stuff in it. I'd really like to recommend it but they do not have their cocktail menu online. So. You win at mixing drinks Tavern Law, but you fail at the internet.

And in the current events: we have BP desperately trying to shape public opinion about them and the increasing fiasco in the Gulf. Of course, by fiasco I mean devastating environmental (and probably economic) catastrophe. Rachel Maddow had a good bit about a similar spill that happened 30 years ago and how the same attempts to fix the leak all failed until relief wells could be drilled. It seems to me that the US may want to follow Canada's lead on this one and require as a matter of law that all off-shore drilling include the drilling of relief wells in order to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

There has also been a great deal of discussion about Obama's handling of the the spill, with both Republicans and Democrats jumping on the "Obama's Katrina" bandwagon. Personally I think this is a big disingenuous. By my reading of the situation Obama's biggest mistake was taking BP's word early on about the scale of the problem. But, to be fair, who else's word would he take? The fact of the matter is that they didn't know how bad it was for the first week or two. The real problem is that federal regulations were probably not stringent enough to require more safety failsafes to be installed to prevent this type of disaster.

Maureen Dowd had an interesting piece in The New York Times where she basically called out Obama not for the steps he's taken but rather for the attitude and countenance he's adopted while taking his steps. She is basically arguing that Obama should be on TV and in person talking, reassuring and comforting both those directly affected and the nation as a whole; reassuring all of us that all possible steps are being taken to resolve this problem. And, you know, she's probably right. That is probably what most people want. For better or worse, however, I prefer a rational well-though out response rather than vaguely comforting remarks.

And then, of course, there's the Flotilla. I'm not going to wade too far into this mess. I have Jewish friends who are both pro and anti Israel's treatment of Palestine and the Gaza strip. I do despair, however, that it has become common to levy a charge of anti-semitism against anyone who is both not Jewish and not supportive of Israel. This is a cheap shot and intellectually dishonest. You can be a-ok with Jews but not too happy about Israel.

Regardless, Israel and Palestine are emotional hotbeds where, it seems to me, passions get inflamed rather easily and careful reasoning tends to be replaced by clever rationalizations. But here is my reading of the situation: the people on the Flotilla knew what they were doing and assumed the risk. Israel likely miscalculated the public's response to their enforcement of the blockade. Also, their boarding of ships in international waters is somewhat less sympathetic than if they had let the flotilla enter Israel's waters. I'm just saying, you don't get to defend your home from trespassers when they're outside on the sidewalk.

And then there's the argument that the crew of the flotilla fought back. Yes, they fought back. With what have been described as metal or wooden poles or clubs. Keep in mind that 10 crew members were killed by Israeli military. And how many of the military were killed? Zero. Though there have been reports of some of them being "lightly injured". This was a very asymmetrical confrontation.

Whether or not you agree with Israel's blockade of Gaza is beside the point. In this particular case you have a well armed, expertly trained military boarding a flotilla of peace activists deep in international waters and killing ten of them. You know, it's just a bit hinky.