Updates

I am sure everyone is sitting, impatiently awaiting the blog’s update. The blog has been quiet lately, what is Inga up to? I bet she’s living it up, having little time for trivial things like her blog…

Well, in fact, I have been living it up. Mainly in the form of eating and sleeping. And watching useless television. In addition, I’ve:

* had a great New Years party. New Years parties are generally a tricky thing. Once in a while, I feel like having a gigantic bash, but most of the time a low key event with friends feels much more appropriate for me. I think age plays a factor in this as well, I (not so fondly) remember going to some New Year’s party in 2001 where I drank too much champagne which caused me to leave a trail of vomit from the Upper West Side all the way to Sunset Park, Brooklyn. The worst part of that New Year’s was waking up in someone’s apartment (luckily my friends were with me the whole time) still dressed in my winter coat with vomit all over it. I was so hung over that day (or really, still totally drunk) that I, very slowly, walked for about 30 city blocks to sober up so that I could get into the subway at Columbus Circle and make it to Sunset Park without throwing up. I think the rest of the day was spent in my bed, barely moving. Oh, I also omitted the part where I vomited in the subway. Yes, I was one of those annoying people who vomit in the subway and leave it all stinky. The following couple of New Years weren’t so memorable, although I vaguely remember showing up at some party in Park Slope, using the toilet (not to vomit this time) and promptly leaving. There was another New Year’s party where I inhaled too much smoke (yes, that kind) and felt so out of my mind that I sat on the balcony for an hour, trying to avoid talking to people and hoping that the car would come soon to pick me up. This time, my walk home (which lasted a good 30 minutes) was much more sobering. Fortunately for me and my aging friends, the past two New Years have been spent eating tons of food and drinking in the company of 10 or so good friends while counting down to midnight. Then the dancing would start. And all this would happen within walking distance of my apartment so I would be golden.

*watched the movie Munich. There is a small caveat to this story. When I first saw the poster for the movie, one of the letters was obscured by a column so when I looked it, I saw “unich” with a picture of a man with his head hanging low. Now, I realize that “unich” is spelled “eunuch” but at the first glance, I thought that Steven Spielberg has made a movie about eunuchs. Incidentally, the New Yorker had article about male baldness this week and according to it, castration has a 100% guarantee of prevention of baldness. Anyways, originally we tried to go see another movie but it was sold out so Munich was the only one that seemed most interesting. Well, let me tell you – don’t go see it. Unless you are willing to sit in a movie theater for 3 hours, it’s just not worth it. Even if you have great interest in Israel/Arab relations, don’t go see, you’ll be bored because there isn’t that much political analysis. There is tons of action in the movie (somebody gets blown up pretty much every 3 minutes) but it gets really boring after 2 hours of watching people getting blown up. Also, Spielberg tried to intertwine an emotional story about a sensitive family man with morals (blah blah) yet either the acting was poor or the story line was so boring that I did not care for the hero with morals nor did I identify or care for any of the characters in the movie. And (now, if you don’t want for the ending to be given away, don’t read the rest of this), the uber cheesy cheap shot at the very end was ridiculous. I rolled my eyes and laughed. The “hero” of the movie says something along the lines of, “if we keep killing them, they will find more evil people to replace the killed ones and where will it all end?” (or something along those lines) Cue crappy sappy music and pan camera to a background shot, focus on the World Trade Center Towers. Yes, that’s how crappy the movie was.

*read Freakonomics. So my friend told me earlier about Steven Levitt’s argument that the reason for low crime in 1990s was due to the abortion rates among poor disadvantaged women. Levitt argues that people who were more likely to commit crimes, those of low socio-economic ranks, lack of education, lack of supportive parent(s), etc, were effectively killed before they were born. Ok, an interesting argument. Yet, I wasn’t blown away. Or “dazzled” as Malcolm Gladwell’s blurb says on the cover. Once Levitt makes his statement, the rest of the chapter peters out. Or he switches to a more conventional topic. In general I think Levitt tends to make a statement that shows some correlation yet there is little convincing evidence for causality. He addresses this in a chapter by providing an example of snow and temperature. He says that there is correlation between cold weather and snow yet this correlation does not provide evidence that cold weather causes snow or that snow causes cold weather. Which is exactly my point since snow, a type of precipitation, is caused by the hydrologic cycle, while changes in weather, including Earth’s temperature, is caused by the heat from the sun (whew, finally, all those years spent around astronomers has come in handy). As a current researcher, I have (actual) authority to say that Levitt doesn’t self-criticize or acknowledge the weak points of his argument, something every good scientist would address. Without addressing holes in his arguments, in my eyes, Levitt’s book is not “dazzling.” Just “interesting.”

Happy New Year everyone!