My other reason would be Sebastian Smee. But thinking that made me fear he was taking a package, so I asked the Post’s “Ask” if he worked there. Apparently they don’t know. “As of the available information, Sebastian Smee works for The Washington Post as an art critic.”
Being a very white person who adopted two African American children (yes, this is related), there are certain things you know you’ll have to face right away, such everybody noticing your child looks nothing like you, and less obvious things, like hair care. But there are classes you can take for this! They will explain to the well meaning but hopelessly ignorant straight haired people exactly what’s going on, and (more importantly) what needs to be done. I bring this up because one of the first things they showed us was a sample of African American hair in a microscope, and how it wasn’t at all a simple cylinder shape like the stuff we grew up with only curlier. Each strand has a very complex circumference, changing and warping and bending along its length, which necessitates a different kind of care.
Anyhow, I can easily see how hair follicles, which for years had been pumping out boring straight hair (like mine when I had it), then got shut down by chemotherapy, when coming back online might not initially output things exactly according to the specifications they had always adhered to. Not saying I’d expect a full fro, but certainly some curls.
The bad news is that if I’m right about this, as they continue to recover they’ll probably go back to spitting out boring straight hair.
I went through chemotherapy at 47. My formerly thick, straight, dark blonde hair came back darker and curly, but gradually became straight again, much thinner, lighter, and now graying. I wish I had my thick hair back, but I still sometimes walk down the hair product aisle and give thanks that I have hair at all. And more important, at 69 it's very good to still be here. It was worth it.
As I said when I posted an archive today link to Rachel's terrific piece in the last newsletter, it's too bad the paper formerly known as the WaPo has apparently decided to go largely humorless (except for those well-known satirists, Thiessen and McCardle and an occasional political cartoon). "Rachel on Life" would be a worthy continuing column. Consisting themselves of rapidly dividing cells, the hair follicles get the chemo cancer cell knock out punch as well, with those strange (usually temporary) resulting "aftergrowth" hair changes in texture and even often color.
In the category of headlines you thought you'd never see comes: "A new species of tarantula has been named for its gigantic genitalia" from National Geographic. Further, in explanations you thought you'd never read is this helpful tidbit: "Females in this genus are extremely aggressive, so scientists speculate that their males evolved ginormous genitals to keep a safer distance during mating."
That last sentence by Nat Geo is rather misleading. It implies that male tarantulas "decided" to evolve larger genitals in order to better protect themselves from their aggressive mates. My understanding is that genetic mutations occur randomly - sometimes inadvertently providing an advantage (in which case the affected creature will have a survival advantage and is thus likely to pass this trait on to its offspring), or conversely, the mutation will inadvertently provide a vulnerability which compromises survival; in which case the affected creature is less likely to survive. Same fate for any offspring carrying the trait. Sloppy writing from National Geographic.
More a matter of your interpretation of the word "evolved," and presumably its use as an active verb. You are obviously aware of natural selection and the evolutionary adaptations behind it. Nothing in that sentence you find misleading suggests anything different. What the scientists are speculating about is not whether male tarantulas somehow consciously decided to grow larger genitalia to survive --- no arachnologist worth their salt would suggest that --- but those that did survive by avoiding being attacked and eaten by females during sex happened to have had larger genitalia and passed on that genetic trait over time, to where all or most surviving male spiders had it. So, in a real sense, they did actively "evolve" the phenotype by surviving and passing on the genetic trait for it, just not consciously.
"...their males evolved ginormous genitals to keep a safer distance during mating."
blah, blah, blah
You're quibbling here. Whether the male spiders evolved consciously or unconsciously is not the issue. However this occurred, it was NOT "to keep a safer distance during mating". That just happened to be the fortunate result.
Let me try this one more time. The speculation is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, those male spiders (in this new species) that survived had larger genitalia which likely prevented the females from attacking and eating them during sex by giving them the necessary separation to be able to escape. This is based on observation of common tarantulas' mating habits. That this trait was obviously beneficial meant that the spiders that inherited it had a far greater chance to survive than those that did not and moreover, to pass it on. So ultimately more surviving male spiders had the trait. And as I recall, you're the one who raised the issue of the offending sentence somehow (wrongly) indicating to you that the male spiders "decided" --- a conscious effort --- to "evolve" larger genitalia for protection. So any "quibble" was yours. Fortunate occurrences may happen in nature by chance but they don't persist by chance.
No, Dale, it is you who mistake my point. I understand perfectly. It was indeed sloppy writing for a scientific article. Speaking of scientific, I can't recall scientists (in any field) using terms such as "ginormous". Also, thanks for the additional five dollars - though my husband is becoming a bit perturbed.
Your "point" being what exactly? That a chance occurrence turned out to be beneficial to survival and the genetic trait for it was passed down through the evolutionary process of natural selection? Or something else? And you're obviously confused about the article and what National Geographic is. It's not a "scientific" article. It's a popular piece on a scientific discovery. National Geographic is not a scientific journal. Its mission is to inform, educate and inspire the layperson through images and easily understandable language. The scientists involved didn't use "ginormous," the National Geo writer did. I would imagine your husband is often perturbed.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, by current visual evidence, Rachel has a ways to go in flattering you. Although fortunately, best as I can determine, there are no known instances of women suddenly growing a salt-and-pepper Zapata moustache.
While "cancer" is an inspired ironic choice for a hairstylist in an article, don't think it will quite catch on as a business name. As ii happens, no doubt assuming subconsciously a future Invitational would have Invitees come up with snappy names for barbers and hairdressers, I have collected a few in anticipation. There's "A Cut Above," "From Hair to Eternity," "Hair Today, Gone Today," "Cutting/Remarks," "Clip Joint," "Bounding Mane," and "Tress D'UrbanVille."
Don't ever accuse me of crimes against humanity again. For pun-ishment, you shouldn't just wear a hairshirt, you should don a full hirsute. And then I'll jump up and down in a frolicle.
Congratulations, Rachel - you will no longer have to pay money for permanents (and live with the stench for days) as many of us have done. I hope your curls are permanent, but if not, at least for now, your hair has body. My best friend from grammar school had bright copper-colored hair that was curly. I envied her and tried red hair (from a box). It didn't work as well on me[Today, her hair is all white and still curly - grrrrrr, I'm even more envious!] Again, congratulations on your being DONE with Chemo and moving forward. Don't get too comfortable, though. You overcame one huge challenge. You still have Gene and Grandpa.
Radiation for me, 2 years and change out. 7 years and change left on the warranty. The cuts to research for the CDC and friends scare the crap out of me. Pretty soon, I'm likely to need what is bleeding edge today.
Another brilliant column from Rachel, and possibly the only reason to maintain a subscription to the former paper of record.
Another reason is Tom Seitsema. .
I am so over Sietsema. The metro area needs new blood in restaurant reviews.
And the Capital Weather Gang.
My other reason would be Sebastian Smee. But thinking that made me fear he was taking a package, so I asked the Post’s “Ask” if he worked there. Apparently they don’t know. “As of the available information, Sebastian Smee works for The Washington Post as an art critic.”
Rachel is such a great writer. She should write for somewhere else besides the Post.
Being a very white person who adopted two African American children (yes, this is related), there are certain things you know you’ll have to face right away, such everybody noticing your child looks nothing like you, and less obvious things, like hair care. But there are classes you can take for this! They will explain to the well meaning but hopelessly ignorant straight haired people exactly what’s going on, and (more importantly) what needs to be done. I bring this up because one of the first things they showed us was a sample of African American hair in a microscope, and how it wasn’t at all a simple cylinder shape like the stuff we grew up with only curlier. Each strand has a very complex circumference, changing and warping and bending along its length, which necessitates a different kind of care.
Anyhow, I can easily see how hair follicles, which for years had been pumping out boring straight hair (like mine when I had it), then got shut down by chemotherapy, when coming back online might not initially output things exactly according to the specifications they had always adhered to. Not saying I’d expect a full fro, but certainly some curls.
The bad news is that if I’m right about this, as they continue to recover they’ll probably go back to spitting out boring straight hair.
Post-chemo hair generally returns to pre-cancerous style within about 2 years.
Well yeah, if you don’t want to stretch it out for several paragraphs.
I went through chemotherapy at 47. My formerly thick, straight, dark blonde hair came back darker and curly, but gradually became straight again, much thinner, lighter, and now graying. I wish I had my thick hair back, but I still sometimes walk down the hair product aisle and give thanks that I have hair at all. And more important, at 69 it's very good to still be here. It was worth it.
As I said when I posted an archive today link to Rachel's terrific piece in the last newsletter, it's too bad the paper formerly known as the WaPo has apparently decided to go largely humorless (except for those well-known satirists, Thiessen and McCardle and an occasional political cartoon). "Rachel on Life" would be a worthy continuing column. Consisting themselves of rapidly dividing cells, the hair follicles get the chemo cancer cell knock out punch as well, with those strange (usually temporary) resulting "aftergrowth" hair changes in texture and even often color.
In the category of headlines you thought you'd never see comes: "A new species of tarantula has been named for its gigantic genitalia" from National Geographic. Further, in explanations you thought you'd never read is this helpful tidbit: "Females in this genus are extremely aggressive, so scientists speculate that their males evolved ginormous genitals to keep a safer distance during mating."
Hmmmm....spider porn?
Arachnofeelya.
That last sentence by Nat Geo is rather misleading. It implies that male tarantulas "decided" to evolve larger genitals in order to better protect themselves from their aggressive mates. My understanding is that genetic mutations occur randomly - sometimes inadvertently providing an advantage (in which case the affected creature will have a survival advantage and is thus likely to pass this trait on to its offspring), or conversely, the mutation will inadvertently provide a vulnerability which compromises survival; in which case the affected creature is less likely to survive. Same fate for any offspring carrying the trait. Sloppy writing from National Geographic.
More a matter of your interpretation of the word "evolved," and presumably its use as an active verb. You are obviously aware of natural selection and the evolutionary adaptations behind it. Nothing in that sentence you find misleading suggests anything different. What the scientists are speculating about is not whether male tarantulas somehow consciously decided to grow larger genitalia to survive --- no arachnologist worth their salt would suggest that --- but those that did survive by avoiding being attacked and eaten by females during sex happened to have had larger genitalia and passed on that genetic trait over time, to where all or most surviving male spiders had it. So, in a real sense, they did actively "evolve" the phenotype by surviving and passing on the genetic trait for it, just not consciously.
"...their males evolved ginormous genitals to keep a safer distance during mating."
blah, blah, blah
You're quibbling here. Whether the male spiders evolved consciously or unconsciously is not the issue. However this occurred, it was NOT "to keep a safer distance during mating". That just happened to be the fortunate result.
Let me try this one more time. The speculation is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, those male spiders (in this new species) that survived had larger genitalia which likely prevented the females from attacking and eating them during sex by giving them the necessary separation to be able to escape. This is based on observation of common tarantulas' mating habits. That this trait was obviously beneficial meant that the spiders that inherited it had a far greater chance to survive than those that did not and moreover, to pass it on. So ultimately more surviving male spiders had the trait. And as I recall, you're the one who raised the issue of the offending sentence somehow (wrongly) indicating to you that the male spiders "decided" --- a conscious effort --- to "evolve" larger genitalia for protection. So any "quibble" was yours. Fortunate occurrences may happen in nature by chance but they don't persist by chance.
No, Dale, it is you who mistake my point. I understand perfectly. It was indeed sloppy writing for a scientific article. Speaking of scientific, I can't recall scientists (in any field) using terms such as "ginormous". Also, thanks for the additional five dollars - though my husband is becoming a bit perturbed.
Your "point" being what exactly? That a chance occurrence turned out to be beneficial to survival and the genetic trait for it was passed down through the evolutionary process of natural selection? Or something else? And you're obviously confused about the article and what National Geographic is. It's not a "scientific" article. It's a popular piece on a scientific discovery. National Geographic is not a scientific journal. Its mission is to inform, educate and inspire the layperson through images and easily understandable language. The scientists involved didn't use "ginormous," the National Geo writer did. I would imagine your husband is often perturbed.
Been there, done that. Onward!
Terrific writing! Wishing Rachel all the best, curly or straight.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, by current visual evidence, Rachel has a ways to go in flattering you. Although fortunately, best as I can determine, there are no known instances of women suddenly growing a salt-and-pepper Zapata moustache.
OUCH!!!
While "cancer" is an inspired ironic choice for a hairstylist in an article, don't think it will quite catch on as a business name. As ii happens, no doubt assuming subconsciously a future Invitational would have Invitees come up with snappy names for barbers and hairdressers, I have collected a few in anticipation. There's "A Cut Above," "From Hair to Eternity," "Hair Today, Gone Today," "Cutting/Remarks," "Clip Joint," "Bounding Mane," and "Tress D'UrbanVille."
Don't ever accuse me of crimes against humanity again. For pun-ishment, you shouldn't just wear a hairshirt, you should don a full hirsute. And then I'll jump up and down in a frolicle.
This is what comes from not wearing a mask when reading your comments.
I thought all the bad pun names were already in use. Definitely have seen A Cut Above. But not Tress D’UrbanVille. One of my faves is Curl Up and Dye.
Agreed. I've seen many of these in small towns. There's also "The Mane Event" and a bunch of others I can't remember offhand.
I used to pass a place called "Curl up and Dye."
To be accurate, Rachel's stylist is chemotherapy.
Rachel rocks!
Congratulations, Rachel - you will no longer have to pay money for permanents (and live with the stench for days) as many of us have done. I hope your curls are permanent, but if not, at least for now, your hair has body. My best friend from grammar school had bright copper-colored hair that was curly. I envied her and tried red hair (from a box). It didn't work as well on me[Today, her hair is all white and still curly - grrrrrr, I'm even more envious!] Again, congratulations on your being DONE with Chemo and moving forward. Don't get too comfortable, though. You overcame one huge challenge. You still have Gene and Grandpa.
Great piece. I almost canceled my Post subscription when I saw the latest Jeanine Pirro op ed but I’m going to hang onto it for now…
Jeanine couldn't have written that column. It had complete sentences and decent grammar, as if a sober person had written it.
Radiation for me, 2 years and change out. 7 years and change left on the warranty. The cuts to research for the CDC and friends scare the crap out of me. Pretty soon, I'm likely to need what is bleeding edge today.
Once again, the Waste Post wants my personal info to read Rachel.
And once again archive today comes to the rescue.
http://archive.today/9yEPq
Thank you, again.
Maybe I'll wise up to bookmark the site?
Thank you