Troublesome TfL

Last year I wrote a post on my blog about the victim-blaming rape culture we live in, in which the primary focus is still on telling women to alter their behaviour in order to avoid rape, when what we need to be doing is addressing the rapists and condemning them (which, thankfully, at least some places are doing, with apparently positive results)

“Oh but everyone knows rape is wrong, what’s the point in that? Nothing wrong with giving people some well-intentioned advice about staying safe.”

No, sod off. Clearly everyone does not know it’s wrong. That alone is clear, since if you leave the word ‘rape’ itself out of questionnaires and phrase them carefully, a shocking majority of people will admit to thinking force is justifiable in certain circumstances.

Recently we had an outcry directed at ITV and Eamonn Holmes specifically for his callous comment to a high-profile rape survivor, who aided her assailant’s conviction by deliberately leaving genetic material for later forensic detection.

For some reason he decided it would be a good idea to tell this woman that she should just take taxis in future. Right, thanks. Because no rapists are ever found driving licensed cabs.

With this in mind, some female friends and I, in a pre-Christmas 2011 exercise, received the following e-mail from Transport for London:

—

Dear Ms Baker,

I am writing to remind you that unbooked minicabs picked up off the street are dangerous and put you at risk of sexual assault. The safest way to get a minicab home is to:

• Book it – by phone, email or in a minicab office to guarantee your trip is carried out by a licensed, insured driver and vehicle
• Check it’s yours – ask the driver to confirm your name and destination before you get in the car, and check the driver’s photo ID
• Sit in the back – and carry your mobile in case of an emergency

Our Cabwise text service makes it easier to find and book a licensed minicab or taxi near you.

For further details please visit tfl.gov.uk/cabwise

 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Burton

Director of Community Safety, Enforcement and Policing

 —

Well, gosh, thank you, Steve, for your care and concern. Apparently getting in random cars isn’t a good idea any more, because you’re likely to get raped. It’s not like we haven’t been hearing the don’t-trust-strangers message since we were children, is it?

Interestingly, this mail only went to female users of TfL. There was no suggestion to men not to let their friends – male or female – take unbooked cabs. There was no suggestion that men taking them might also be putting themselves at risk of violence (sexual or otherwise).

You can put a hundred women in outfits of differing styles, in varying degrees of drunkenness, with or without friends and with different personalities into the same kind of situations over and over. But it’s not victims who cause attacks, it’s the attacker. It is their presence, not a woman who’s drunk or wearing a short skirt, that results in the crime. She can go about her business in the majority of situations, but only when she comes into contact with a rapist is that violation going to occur.

Someone recently commented on my post:

Applying the same logic to other crimes highlights the absurdity of it all “sorry I just couldn’t help myself, he just looked so stabby in that flimsy t-shirt that I just couldn’t help plunging the knife into him, why did he have to wear that t-shirt?!” etc.

If there really is evidence that unlicensed cabs are the problem here – harbouring a particularly high number of (known or suspected??) rapists, then how about tackling that issue, instead of targeting the victims and innocent among us? We all keep ourselves safe as best we can. No one wants to be the victim of an assault.

This kind of communication holds within it the suggestion that the problem is in fact women – our actions and behaviour – if only we changed that (silly women, just be more sensible!) then maybe everything would be OK. Well no, it wouldn’t.

Target the criminals, please, and leave the rest of us to go about our business – stop making us think we could and should have done something different to help ourselves avoid whatever horrible things might befall us.

Our culture finds it perfectly acceptable to shift the blame onto the victims of certain crimes – particularly sexual assaults – and it is this that we should be recognising and addressing. Constantly telling women to be careful achieves nothing except belittling victims, discouraging people from coming forward and generally normalising the idea that sometimes it’s OK to do what you want because there are certain excuses that are acceptable.

A 1984 study looked into the justifications used by a cohort of convicted rapists. The general themes included:

- women as seductresses (she’s asking for it really – tacit consent)

- women mean “yes” when they say “no” (again, she does want it despite what she says)

- most women eventually relax and enjoy it (we all want to be dominated!)

- nice girls don’t get raped (her past could be justification for your crime)

- guilt in a minor wrongdoing (people don’t self-identify as rapists, though they will often admit to something less serious).

Men should be more offended by the suggestions so often trotted out about them being unable to control themselves. Here in our society, this often translates into friends covering for friends they may suspect, while elsewhere it manifests as laws requiring women hide themselves from view almost entirely, to avoid provoking the menfolk.

Don’t patronise us, Tfl, and don’t blame us for the failings of law keepers and our rape-sympathetic culture.

 

We’re not asking for it.

 

Interacting on the Interweb

The latest furore surrounding the ‘potentially damaging’ nature of things like Facebook and Twitter is in swing, with the Daily Mail (safe to click! Minus images) interpreting a scientist’s views as social networking turning your kids’ brains to mush. Note that Martin does of course disagree – as do I.

Sciencepunk has taken the time to speak to Susan Greenfield herself to try to get a clearer idea of exactly what her concerns and suggested solutions might be, under all the media distortion and so on. He’s written up the interview for New Scientist. I take up her invitation to join the debate.

Unfortunately, listening to her speak I still find myself vehemently disagreeing with most of what she says for various reasons, including the fact that she clearly has very little or no personal experience of what she talks about, is missing some key issues and appears to wilfully ignore positive outcomes in favour of potentially negative ones.

That’s not very scientific!

So, let’s get ranty.

Context is everything

First I recall a comedy sketch (apologies for forgetting whose, do say if you know!) based on the occasions when Facebook is suddenly down/unavailable, in which the bereft individual wanders the streets shoving photographs in people’s faces and shouting “DO YOU LIKE THIS??”.

I laughed, because it’s absurd, we don’t do that… but hang on! We kind of do. I quite often show people pictures I’ve taken, be it on my camera, my phone, downloaded to my computer or even (omg old!) albums with pictures on actual photo paper!

Important to remember is that we behave differently in some situations compared to others; it’s a ridiculous fear that online behaviour is going to replace offline behaviour. They’re different things that don’t translate. Just as you don’t put your feet up on the table in a meeting vs. in the lounge, or take your shirt off and sit on your friend’s shoulders at a posh indoor concert at a swanky theatre.

We like to share our experiences with our friends, and sometimes if we’re a bit more serious about photography, get people’s input on our creative endeavours. That’s not a fault, it’s perfectly normal behaviour and taking feedback/constructive criticism/praise onboard is a good way to improve ourselves if that’s the goal.

Small-talk, seeking approval and helpful suggestions, presenting an image of ourselves – this is what we do in life, not just online. Does she also have a problem with in-person small-talk? Should we only ever be having super-meaningful conversations?

Sorry, but after our lab meeting we like to go and have lunch, talk about the weather, take the piss out of each other and show holiday photos, for example. We don’t spend all day talking about work or the latest world crisis; that would be draining and rather unhealthy, I’m sure most would agree.

In the same way, not all of my tweets or facebook status updates are serious. I share articles, I have a moan about things, we’ll have some discussions. But other times I’ll be swearing about a minor injury, taking a photo of the mouthwatering foods/lovely scenery I see before me or friends/pets making tits of themselves. Because life is a mixture of these things and if it weren’t, it’d be bloody boring.

Greenfield seems to want to make a connection between things like increasing autism rate and internet use. I’m pretty sure it’s well-accepted that the ‘increase’ in rates of conditions like this is due to better diagnosis and a clearer definition of what the condition actually is – these are recent things. There’s no good evidence (that I know of) to suggest the perceived increase is due to vaccines or playing on computers or anything else (edit: Jon Brock says it is indeed demonstrably false); it’s likely always been there, we’re just picking up on it better now. Which is good, because it means more people get the help and support that they need.

Also there’s been a ‘shocking rise in things like happy-slapping’?? Well of course there has, because again this term applies to a phenomenon that’s only been able to exist since mobile phones got video cameras. That does not mean that people didn’t go around beating other people up for fun and to show off to their friends before this era. Sadly I know this from personal experience as I’m sure many do, but good for her if she’s never had to deal with such things.

I do not believe for a second that these kind of people only exist because the internets have created them, by eroding their empathy circuits. There have always been nasty ****s and there always will be, sadly. Don’t blame the internet, or video games, or whatever the latest demon-you-don’t-get is.

When pressed for evidence, instead of offering some, she instead asks if we want to wait and see what kind of evidence emerges? *Ominous sound effect* – That is not an answer, it’s just silly scaremongering. She’s even placing weight in parental concerns, on anecdotes.

Parents will always be concerned about what their kids are up to, it’s the generation gap – every generation is both very different from (in terms of technology in particular) and the same as (regarding concerns, ‘we never did such things!’ ‘you whipper-snappers without any respect’! etc.) the previous ones. Again this is nothing new. To me it just sounds like she’s scared of change and using popular fears as an excuse to criticise.

It’s not so much the technologies in and of themselves that I’m criticising but how they’re used

Nail on the head. If your kid is spending 6 hours straight in front of the TV, damn well turn it off. Go for a walk. You can’t blame Nintendo for the people who spend their lives with the console running, you can’t blame Google for someone staying up until 5am looking at random websites. Discipline your kids and yourself and these things are like any other activity – perfectly healthy in reasonable amounts. Also if my child wanted to hug people for 6 hours, I’d be concerned at the level of clinginess they’d somehow developed.

Hi Ho Silver Lining

What gets me in a real rage about these attacks on social media, the internets and so forth, is that people (especially people who don’t even use it themselves, infuriatingly) are so very quick to not even bother considering the positive outcomes.

I’ve made similar points in the past but I’ll do so again ‘cos I can.

Some people aren’t comfortable in social situations. If you’re so concerned about the people on the austism spectrum, take a bit of time to learn what it is they struggle with, and what helps them. Even for those of us without personal experience of such things, sometimes we all have those days when we’d just rather not have to put on a smiley face and be around people.

For some, that’s more the default setting. That’s not because interaction with other people is completely off-putting, but sometimes the trappings that come with getting together ‘irl’ are just too much. If people are put off by the poking, liking and kind of sharing that happens on FB/Twitter then take a step back and look at what we do offline.

How should I dress? What should I say? What is the tone of my voice conveying? Is this rude? Will I upset them if I say that? What should I do in this situation? Do I have to smile now? Is eye contact creepy? No, if I look away, that’s impolite. Wait, I’m staring. Oh she thinks I’m a complete weirdo. I need to buy the next round? What are they laughing at?

Et cetera. You might not have ever thought these things, but many do, and social interaction can be a stressful experience – think of a time you just wanted to go home to the TV/a book/bed.

But most of us want to talk with people and share bits of our lives. If the above is a regular issue then the internet is an absolute godsend. Again I’m not going to waffle on about my personal reasons for thinking this but would encourage those who are scared of online things ‘replacing real life interaction’ to just stop and reconsider. Maybe, just maybe, the internet is actually a very fulfilling and stimulating environment that does give people a sense of identity and belonging in plenty of cases.

Of course, writing this on a blog isn’t the best way of conveying such a message, I know. So don’t whine at me about that!!

The wealth of information online, both factual things to learn and giving better access to ‘real life’ events and so on, it’s a huge resource that helps people immensely. Liaise with friends, make new ones, find a place to stay at short notice… the list is extensive.

People seem so hell-bent on discovering how damaging the interwebnets are for our brains, they don’t seem to be bothered about the good it’s doing. This happens with every technological leap, like television as she mentions herself; will it replace books?! No, of course not.

If you think Twitter is all people saying what they had for breakfast, I don’t want to talk to you about it. Either give it a try or listen to the people who explain it really isn’t, at least try to get a better idea, or shut up. Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it, as they say.

If you only update your facebook page to broadcast your personal life then don’t complain it’s all about gossip and invasion of privacy. These experiences are user-driven, they are what we make them, and if I see more of this pointless demonising, I will shout louder.

My friends, whom I cannot refer to as ‘online’ or ‘offline’ because they are largely both (except when there are huge oceans in the way), have kept me afloat when I’ve been too upset to talk on the phone, too much of a mess to leave the house or present myself to people face-to-face.

Thank FSM for the internet because without it… well, imagine! Where would I get to see parrots dancing to horrible pop songs hilariously or cats in all manner of sickeningly cute predicaments. Or indeed hear first-hand accounts from countries descending into civil war, or kids getting beaten by police at legal protests.

Life is not simple, nor is our virtual world. Embrace it/keep your distance, whatever. But don’t be so quick to demonise what you have not even tried to understand or see good within.

That’s the remit of rags like the one that published the silly, distorted story in the first place.

—

I’m not going to go into the video games criticism much; saying that actions don’t have consequences and this could affect how people think is just another I’ve-never-played-them sourced view, in my opinion, and I’ve had rants about all that before as well.

Edit: more people are irritated!

Dorothy Bishop has written an open letter to Greenfield regarding her comments. Edit (2): having received much support and thanks for her letter, one academic chooses to challenge her position. If you want to see how scientists fight, take a look.

Martin has a more serious piece addressing Greenfield’s somewhat shaky claim that she has never linked autism to internet use, following more high-profile individuals losing their rag with her, including Carl Zimmer – documenting the rise of the most amusing #greenfieldism hashtag.

It’s even made it to the Wall Street Journal!

Breaking!! Susan Greenfield causes autism!

16/8/11: More recently, Andrew Maynard (my fellow I’m a Scientist! 2010 contestant) has published an excellent analysis of Greenfield’s latest outing, which came in the form of a video statement published on the Guardian website.

50 ways to kill your lover?

My most-listened-to radio station is currently XFM. I just like most of the stuff they play and the chat isn’t excessive or overly juvenile. Usually.

On Monday morning I was walking to work with my phone tuned in and found my jaw dropping at this day’s text-in subject.

It started fairly innocuously. Paul Simon’s enjoying a bit of a come-back at the moment so the ‘50 ways to leave your lover‘ discussion was revived; I really like this song actually. In it, Simon talks about encouraging a friend to leave a relationship they’re unhappy with. Something most of us have done or at least witnessed.

In the song, Simon suggests 5 ‘ways’ to leave one’s lover:

1)    Just slip out the back, Jack
2)    Make a new plan, Stan
3)    You don’t need to be coy, Roy
4)    Hop on the bus, Gus
5)    Drop off the key, Lee

So the text-in game was to come up with a further 45 ways, as long as they rhymed. Fair enough. The suggestions were as follows, and maybe you can spot why I was shocked by it:

6) Fake your own death, Geoff
7) Tell them they’re not slim, Jim
8 ) Sleep with her sister, mister
9) Push her out of a plane, Shane
10) Do a John Terry, Jerry
11) Do a Giggsy, Mr Rigsby
12) Change the locks when she goes shopping, Robin
13) Tell her you’re gay, Andre
14) Put his stuff in a skip, Pip
15) Become increasingly cold and distant, Vincent
16) Take her to see Celine Deon, Leon
17) Snowballed away, Jay
18) Kill her cat, Matt
19) Boil her bunny, honey
20) Engage the ejector seat, Pete
21) Have an affair, Claire
22) Put her out with the trash, Slash
23) Write a message in the sky, Kai
24) Get on the tube, Jude
25) Try and dodge her, Roger
26) Defriend on facebook, Brooke
27) Tell ‘em it’s gone down the pan, Fran
28) Tell him he’s smelly, Shelly
29) Get in your van, man
30) Don’t let her under the cover, brother
31) Send her a text, Rex
32) Do it by email, Dale
33) Sleep with a tranny, Fanny
34) Tell her she’s rank, Frank
35) Tell her she’s so uncool, Paul
36) Tell her she’s a dingbat, Pat
37) Toss her in front of the train, Wayne
38) Feed her to the lions, Brian
39) Bury her on Blackheath, Keith
40) Stick her head in the cooker, Mr Brooker
41) Sleep with her mum, chum
42) Push her off a cliff, Cliff
43) Tell her she’s old and grey, Ray
44) Trigger an allergy, Ramji
45) I’m with your sis, Fliss
46) Stop the sex, Becks
47) Ditch the witch, Mitch
48) Put him in the spam, Sam
49) Never wash, Josh
50) Jog her on, John

Here’s my issue. I expect there were more than 50 suggestions made and these were the ones deemed acceptable.

6-8 of them involve suggestions of killing the woman (9, 22  questionably, 37-40,42 and possibly 44). This is meant to be ways to leave someone, not murder them. Most of them are insulting, many involve some form of violence or adultery and the vast majority are men dumping women. Granted, there’s 48 (‘put him in the spam’) which is pretty ridiculous but it’d be unfair of me not to point out that there’s one such suggestion.

Yes, I’ve overreacted to something mostly harmless. I tweeted @Xfm to ask them not to applaud people who think it’s clever to allude to killing women but heard nothing back.

At the time it seemed like more were violent than there are, looking at the list now, but 7/50 is still a disturbingly high proportion, in my opinion, and the fact that the DJs read it out with apparent amusement even moreso.

Anyway, that’s my rant for the day. Any thoughts?

AMD ain’t no picnic

I’ve been a glutton for punishment again and read the Metro in more detail than is sensible this morning.

I came across this article that appears at first to be telling you that eating paella might stop you developing a debilitating eye disease.

On further reading, it becomes clear that the Metro mentions paella simply because it is made with saffron, the incredibly expensive crocus-derived spice.

Now stop it or you’ll go blind

The reason they’re writing about saffron is apparently due to research suggesting it could protect against AMD – age-related macular degeneration. Now, this is no laughing matter, it’s a very horrible disease that still affects a lot of people (though there have been some fantastic advances in the last decade or so largely due to animal research).

It’s of particular interest to me, since one of the treatment options for the ‘wet‘ form of AMD is trying to stop the growth of new blood vessels; anti-neovascular therapy. This is what our lab specialises in but in the context of cancer – so this kind of research, into angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels), can be applicable to other diseases, including some affecting the eyes like AMD.

A quick Google and trip to Churnalism.com shows that this is a bit of a recycling exercise of a story that came out in a slightly different guise back in February – using the Daily Mail article, we can see the Telegraph copied about half of it and the Express picked it up as well.

To go back to today’s Metro article, their press release seems to have come from one Dr Kim Julian. To quote the Persavita website (a nutritional supplement company):

Dr Kim Julian (Non-Executive Medical Director; Copenhagen, Denmark) is an eye surgeon and ophthalmologist who runs a private eye clinic in the capital city Copenhagen. Dr Julian has been helping patients with ophthalmo-medical and surgical eye problems in his clinic, and has been performing laser/oculoplastic surgery for the last 18 years.

Dr Julian contributes to every aspect of the business and research at Persavita including product development, and supervision of a pilot study with Saffron 2020^TM for eye health in early stage age-related eye problems.

He has proven experience in developing and marketing eye health and skin care products. Dr Julian is a partner at Ocumedic Aps and inventor of the eye health product Bioflagel for treatment of blepharitis, and the skin care product Epilar. Dr Julian is also CEO of Cold-on-Demand Aps, commercialising his latest invention, the ‘self-cooling can’.

Now, this is what we call in the trade a conflict of interest. He is simply promoting a product.

Saffron 2020

No, it’s not a lovely yellow/maroon cricket kit. This is their product being so kindly promoted by the Metro here, as we see at the end of the article:

Instead of recommending we eat platefuls of paella, he has given his backing to the new Saffron 2020 health supplement which contains 20mg of the spice in each capsule.

Well of course he does, he wouldn’t make any money from you cooking lots of curry, would he?

The one published study I can find is that covered by the Telegraph back in February, from Prof. Bisti’s group. They reported on 25 patients given 20mg saffron daily for 3 months then either 3 months placebo or further saffron, compared to placebo (nothing at all) alone for 6 months, which obviously isn’t really a sensible comparison. You would probably expect them to be receiving some treatment, not nothing, so comparing to placebo is quite likely to make your treatment look good, whatever it is.

Also since these patients have already started developing AMD, I’m not sure why the leap is then taken to marketing capsules of saffron as a preventative measure (apart from making the cash, of course – clinical reasons, I mean!).

Dr Julian, however, is not on this paper so there’s no obvious, immediate connection – I’d suspect that Bisti’s group are actually seriously researching the effects of saffron’s components on AMD (despite alt med proponents’ claims, lots of research groups are looking at naturally-occurring compounds and how they might be incorporated into medicine) and we won’t know the real implications until their further studies have been published.

It seems very presumptuous and opportunistic to be jumping on this preliminary result, making these pills that have all sorts in them:

Saffron 2020^TM is a proprietary new once-daily nutritional supplement made of saffron, vitamin A, vitamin B2, and natural carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin.  Each capsule contains 20mg of highest quality saffron stigma powder, with color value of 270, indicating high concentration of crocin, the active compound with eye health benefits.
Saffron 2020^TM also contains vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, copper, and  resveratrol, a naturally occurring polyphenolic compound also found in red wine, which together can help protect DNA, proteins and lipids from oxidative damage and help maintain healthy eyes and normal vision.       Saffron 2020^TM is formulated as a convenient once-daily capsule, with 30 capsules in a bottle.

So you have to buy a bottle of the stuff every month and they’re £25 each (but a handy 3-for-2 offer on now!!). The wiki page does link to evidence of lutein and zeaxanthin possibly having beneficial effects as well, but again this is a preliminary finding that, as is usually the case, requires much more research to allow a solid conclusion to be drawn.

In addition, the Cochrane reviews (here and here) of reported effects of various other vitamins, antioxidants etc. on AMD reports:

There is no evidence to date that the general population should take antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent or delay the onset of AMD. There are several large ongoing trials.

Basically, don’t waste your money.

And shame on the Metro for churning out this promotion for another expensive and probably pointless supplement.

NB/ the Metro letters page: mail@ukmetro.co.uk and London Office News Editor: Sarah Getty, Fax: 020 7651 5342, E-mail: news.london@ukmetro.co.uk

In the US of A

At the beginning of last month I flew over to Orlando, Florida, with a few colleagues for the American Association of Cancer Research conference.

This is a long-overdue mishmash of my impressions of the tiny bit of the country I’ve now seen – I’ve never been to the states before so it was my first trip over the Atlantic and first immersive experience of our cousins separated from us by a common language across the pond. I’ve got some ranting to do as well. So if you’re looking for something sciencey, not this time!

I enjoyed the long flight actually; watched some films, food was fine. But we had to change at Newark and having been awake for too long already, hanging around the airport was quite dull and then the shorter flight to Orlando was hellish. I had a really bad cold at the time and anyone who’s flown with one surely knows how f*@&%$! painful it is.

The conference

An utterly overwhelmingly huge thing it was, with around 16,000 delegates – held in the Orange County Convention Centre, the second-largest in the States, according to wikipedia. The four of us in our lab plus a few other people from our building presented posters and our boss flew over just for one day (!) to give a talk. So we went to a few presentations and discussion groups but… well the sun was out most of the time

I’ve never really been one for lazing in the sun, but someone lent me a couple of Sherlock Holmes stories so ended up reading these by the pool; the feeling of some warm sun and a light breeze… silky and extremely pleasant. Turned me into a bit of a sun-worshipper it has! Can also recommend A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of the Four – will have to check out some more.

Different!

The first adjustment was to the general environment; to the differing flora and fauna. Palm trees everywhere, the grass is odd (really thick, stumpy blades – obviously where it’s been cut – compared to ours); birds mostly different but still pigeons, starlings and collared doves; little lizards everywhere, which I think is brilliant but people from non-UK places were not bothered at all.

Then there’s just the scale of everything. Used to being all squished and cooped-up (cozy!) in England but their buildings are huge and far apart, because they can be.

Food

Of course, it’s the one aspect we really know about, but like just about everything else, it’s not until you experience it that you can really appreciate the difference.

It varied in quality, as it does everywhere, from expensive-and-horrific to surprisingly-cheap-but-quite-amazing.

For the most part, things were horribly over-processed, artificially coloured and sweetened and for all the work we’ve still to do here in optimising food quality with availability, it’s undoubtedly many times worse there – and we know what the consequences are.

We need this chain here in the UK but I guess we don’t really have as ready access to the ingredients. Totally fell in love with Red Lobster – great cocktails, friendly staff, tasty lobster (obviously).

Again, we’re aware the portions differ somewhat. You can’t get a small coke, it’s a litre whether you want it or not. Starters are the size of my main meal for the day – the idea of anyone sitting down for a full 3-course meal turns my stomach a bit. But again,  people clearly do and not that infrequently.

Tacky

Americans have quite a different idea of entertainment from us, in a lot of cases, it seems. We’re a bit more down-to-Earth here, we like our tradition, things that are ‘proper’ and fitting for the occasion. Perhaps it’s similar to the famous English manners, I don’t know, but American things seem plasticy and artificial. Whether it’s your restaurant or evening entertainment, it seemed the cheap-and-cheerful was far more common than anything else.

I’m sure it’s a case of going to the right places, but it wasn’t just food and such.

Seaworld

I had reservations about going to Seaworld – I don’t agree with keeping huge animals in captivity generally, I’m not a big fan of going to zoos generally (I appreciate conservation work, but seeing things pacing their enclosures, bored out of their minds, it upsets me).

I wasn’t sure about their standards or their sources but did a bit of research beforehand and was recommended to go by a few friends. I might not be in Florida again and our hotels were walking distance, plus the conference gave us money off tickets so why not. Apparently it does a lot to educate people about wildlife, I appreciate that. Let’s check it out.

The walk-through tunnels were lovely, I do like aquariums – fish are hardly very aware of their surroundings so I don’t feel quite as sorry for them (.. racist?). We wandered over to the Shamu stadium to catch thebig show, which has been changed dramatically since one of the trainers was killed – they don’t get in the water with them any more.

Overall, I enjoyed it. They are fantastic animals (I’d seen them at Bristol zoo as a kid so not my first time) and it was a good show. However…

BELIEVE!!

The over-acting by the trainers, the ridiculous Disney music, making such a huge deal out of people’s ‘dreams’ and much less about the animals themselves… the worst bit was that they kept showing a short film about a boy who loved whales, made a wooden whale tail necklace etc. and at one point they picked a girl from the audience (clearly rehearsed) and asked her what she wanted to be.

A doctor!

“Oh wow what an amazing dream, that’s fantastic. Well, I’ve got something really special for you, stand up, come down here..!” We thought she was going to get to touch a whale or something and were incredibly jealous. But then it was her onscreen with a trainer as he put one of the whale necklaces* on her. It was so very awfully cheesey, I felt quite ill.

*Of course, said necklaces were available from the shops and from wandering vendors all around the park for a small fortune.

It was a recurring theme, lots of ridiculous ‘follow your dreams!’ type crap and we were all just staring at each other with boredom/disbelief at times.

Also at the start they did… something, to get people to cheer the armed forces “of the USA and our allies in the United Kingdom and everywhere else!” – the trainers asked them and members of their families to stand up while everyone applauded. As the camera went around you could see people getting very excited, except for the actual soldiers, who looked very embarrassed.

It really amazes me that people still think what they want is applause and glory. Those who do are the ones pictured with their thumbs up next to dead bodies, the trigger-happy idiots (I knew one or two myself). The rest have experienced traumatic things and what they need is support, not cheers. You’d think people would have learned by now, but apparently not. I felt very uncomfortable surrounded by so many people whooping and cheering for the war. I have nothing personal against servicemen, but I found it pretty distasteful.

The dolphin show was possibly even worse for the cheesiness, with some unfollowable sort-of-plot around parrots and, I don’t know, maybe a princess.

The thing that annoyed me most about the park in general was lack of educational info. You had to hunt for it and when found, it was minimal. Most surprising was when a huge Andean condor flew over the crowd in the dolphin show, without warning or repeat, and I presume you had to ask the trainers at the end what it was if you wanted to know. Heard most people talking about vultures and monsters (they are rather scary). Hardly inspiring awe in nature now, is it?

I’ve got an angry comment on my youtube video – apparently I’m just not getting the ‘connection’ between the trainers and the animals. Sorry, but if you claim to be showing people how great animals are and how awesome nature can be, making big plastic sets, playing stupid music and doing set-pieces with kids just cheapens everything and brings it all back to humanity in its selfishness and over-inflated sense of importance. These creatures are magnificent and they manage to make them seem more unreal than anything else – not in a good way.

I think I’ll stop there, could whine about that for ages. But the rollercoaster was rather good fun.

Miami

After the conference we drove down to South Beach, Miami in a (massive, naturally) hire car.

It’s pretty much what you expect; lots of plasticy-pretty people, loud bars, pool parties, mostly-naked beach bums an unnatural shade of brown (or red!), ridiculously buff people running/skating around and loads of limousines.

The main thing that had my brow furrowed (probably its usual state) was the overwhelming amount of pro-surgery stuff around. Saw a lot of scary women who had been under the knife far too many times, adverts on buses for surgery clinics and probably most shocking to me, the mannequins.

Over here we sometimes have problems with window models that are ridiculously small; they’re a size 0-4 or something. There, they were… huge. But only in the chest area. Like Lara Croft huge, but moreso. Mad.

Everglades

One of my favourite parts of the whole trip, I think. Obviously an amazing ecosystem, I very much enjoyed seeing some wildlife and getting some actual snippets of education from the locals. Still somewhat for-the-tourists in the safari park, of course, but even then they did well to get a lot in and be very entertaining at the same time.

I paid my $3 to have a hold of little Snappy (left)!

We went a bit further down to the actual national park bit, where you’re more free to just wander around. Unfortunately it was so hot we had to leave after quite a short time but it was lovely to see so many baby alligators milling about in the river. It’s amazing how well-camouflaged even the huge ones are. And a little scary.

Going home

I slightly regret that we couldn’t see more of the Keys; I hired a bike and cycled around the first one, Key Biscayne, for an hour, which was lovely – especially when you can jump in the sea to cool off afterwards! Definitely should have copied Bernardo’s lobster-for-last-lunch decision, too.

On the way to Miami airport in the shuttle I ended up next to a leathery older guy wearing a Power Balance Band. It took quite a lot not to blurt out that they’re utter bollocks, but I managed it, partly out of fear that he’d throw me out of the window or something.

The flight back was somewhat uncomfortable due to sunburn (through F50!) from a day on South Beach, the usual crying children and inability to sleep. Massive Virgin Atlantic plane though, quite impressive. They give you nice things like a blanket, eye mask, toothbrush etc.! I like free things.

In summary

I don’t think I’d want to live in the States. I would still like to visit San Francisco and New York and see some of the landscapes around the country; Yosemite, Rockies, Grand Canyon, that sort of thing. Feels like it should be done. But the culture I can do without, it really ain’t my style. Although that was expected. They don’t like the heathen atheists either; I can do without that worry.

It was a nice break, interesting and one more place to add to my pitiful travel experience!!

Some random video bits: