Cellphones and brain explosions

A while back there was a rumor circulating that using cellphones could give you brain cancer.  A study published in 2010, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, indicates that there is no correlation between cellphone use and cancer, which caused sighs of relief from the thousands of people who like to discuss details of their sex lives and intimate health issues in public places.

Now, however, thanks to a scary email I received yesterday, I find that cellphone users have worse things to worry about than brain cancer; using your cellphone can simply make your head explode.

Don't believe me?  I'll show you.  I excerpt part of the email below:

Do not pick up calls under the following given numbers:  9888308001, 9316048121 91+, 9876266211, 9888854137, 9876715587.  These numbers will come up red in color, if the call comes from these numbers.  It's with very high wavelength, and very high frequency.  If a call is received from mobile on these numbers, it creates a very high frequency and will cause you to have a brain hemorrhage.

It's not a joke, it's TRUE.  27 people have died receiving calls from these numbers.  This has appeared on news programs and has been verified as true, it's not a hoax.  Please forward this on to all the people you care about!

Well, first off, it's a little ironic that I was the recipient of this email.  My wife recently perused the cellphone use by the members of our family, and found that in the months of May and June I accrued a grand total of seven minutes of cellphone use time.  I suspect that this was actually unusually high, because during May I was away teaching classes at a music workshop weekend in Pennsylvania, and had much higher need for my cellphone than normal.  I use my cellphone so infrequently that when I do need it, I often (1) can't find it, and then when I do find it, (2) the battery is dead, so I have to (3) locate my cellphone charger, and (4) wait several hours for the battery to charge, by which time (5) whatever need I had for a cellphone is long since past.

I think my problem is that besides being a Luddite, I just hate telephones in general.  I actually enjoy being in a place where I can't be reached by telephone.  I'm sort of like Pavlov's dog -- but instead of salivating, when the telephone rings, I swear.  The idea of taking a telephone with me, so I can be reached anywhere, has about as much appeal as taking along my dentist on vacation so that he can interrupt my lying around on the beach by doing a little impromptu root canal. 

But I digress.

For those of you who actually can find your cellphones, and do use them occasionally, should you worry about picking up your cellphone, for fear of your brain exploding?  The answer, fortunately, is no, and we don't need to have a study funded by the National Brain Explosion Institute to prove it.  Without even trying hard, I can find three problems with the contents of the email:

First, there's no way that a cellphone could transmit sound waves at a high enough volume to cause any damage.  Cellphone speakers are simply not capable of producing large-amplitude (high decibel level) sounds -- cellphone use isn't even damaging to your ears, much less your brain.  You're at more risk of ear damage from turning your iPod up too high than you are from your cellphone.

Second, how do they know all of this, if all the people it happened to died?  Did the victims pick up their cellphones, say "Hi," and then turn to their spouses and say, "OMIGOD I JUST RECEIVED A CALL FROM 9888308001 AND THE NUMBER CAME UP RED AND NOW I'M HAVING A BRAIN ANEURYSM ACCCCCKKKKK"?

Third, the email itself indicates that the originator has the intelligence of cream of wheat, because anyone who's taken high school physics knows that it's impossible for a wave to have high frequency and high wavelength at the same time, as wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional, sort of like IQ and the likelihood of watching Jersey Shore.

So, anyway, feel free to continue using your cellphones without any qualms, and I'll continue to not use mine.  Maybe one day I'll eventually arrive in the 21st century, and stop being such a grumpy curmudgeon about telephones, and consent to carry one around so I can have constant, 24/7 availability to receive calls from telemarketers.

But don't expect it to happen any time soon.

I don't want to go on the cart

A comic once stated that “everyone wants to live forever, but no one wants to be old.” Largely true, I fear, on both counts.  The continuing American obsession with cosmetics and surgeries designed to give an appearance of youth has been so thoroughly commented upon that I won’t do more than mention it; the question remains, is it possible to extend actual youth and life span significantly?

Apparently, it is.  Aubrey de Grey, Cambridge-educated biomedical gerontologist and director of the California-based SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Foundation, recently stated that he believes that the first person who will live to be 150 years old has already been born, and the first person who will live to 1000 will be born within the next twenty years.  His team is currently working on a suite of therapies that focus on reversing cumulative cellular damage -- the culprit behind many of the diseases that eventually kill a lot of us, such as heart disease, dementia, and some forms of cancer.

"I call it longevity escape velocity -- where we have a sufficiently comprehensive panel of therapies to enable us to push back the ill health of old age faster than time is passing," de Grey told Reuters in an interview last week.  "And that way, we buy ourselves enough time to develop more therapies further as time goes on.  What we can actually predict in terms of how long people will live is absolutely nothing, because it will be determined by the risk of death from other causes like accidents, but there really shouldn't be any limit imposed by how long ago you were born.  The whole point of maintenance is that it works indefinitely."

De Grey's statement is looking less and less like science fiction.  A recent study showed that by manipulating only two genes, it was possible to extend the average life of yeast cells by a factor of ten – comparable to altering humans to allow them to live 800 years.   If you’re thinking, “hey, wait, that’s yeast; they’re simple single-celled life forms. How can we extend that to humans?” you should keep in mind that yeast, like humans, are eukaryotes.   The two species, however different they appear, have a remarkable overlap in genetics (of the six kingdoms, animals and fungi are the two which are the most closely related in the cladistic sense).  Most relevantly, the two yeast genes that the scientists manipulated also exist in humans, and apparently have a similar function in both organisms -- preventing senescence.

Now, I hasten to add that no one is claiming that a gene knockout procedure which extends yeast life spans by a factor of ten will have exactly the same effect in humans.   It’s merely suggestive that the possibility of significantly extending human life span exists.  As I continually harp upon in my AP Biology class, the developmental genes – which are the ones largely associated with aging – are notoriously dangerous things to mess about with.  There’s a constant tightrope-walking that the genetic substructure of the body undergoes.  If the developmental genes shut off too early, or too completely, the body becomes unable to heal itself and ages much more quickly.   If they stay active too long, it increases the risk of cancer.   (This is a significant oversimplification, but it highlights the fact that almost never can you alter a single factor in the body genetically – the vast majority of genes are pleiotropic, meaning one gene locus with many functions.)   The recent discovery that carrying the allele for Huntington’s disease (which dooms you to a lingering death by debility and neural degeneration) almost completely eliminates your risk of cancer highlights that fact.

But consider if they could do such a thing.   The mechanisms which control aging, physical growth, sexual maturity, emotional maturity, and intellectual maturity all seem to be relatively independent of one another; so think of a world where you reach your adult height at 18, your sexual maturity at 15 or 16, your emotional and intellectual maturity in your twenties… and then you go into a kind of stasis.  A thirty year old and a three hundred year old would look, and feel, substantially the same.  You don’t really start to age until you are 500 or so.  Barring accidents, you would live to see your far distant descendants.   Birth rates might not increase that much (women would probably still become menopausal in their forties, as this is a separate genetic construct from aging) but death rates would plummet.   Population growth would skyrocket.  You think that the Social Security and retirement systems are in crisis now?  On the other hand, people would probably not want to retire in their sixties – they’d still have hundreds of healthy years' worth of contributions to make.  (On the other hand, in my own case the prospect of teaching biology in the same classroom for the next 600 years falls into the "just shoot me" department.)

It would require a complete restructuring of society, not to mention a complete restructuring of how we personally look at life.  What would you do if you knew that you had, not forty or fifty more years of potential good health and vigor, but 400 or 500 years?   It would slow us all way down, not just physically but emotionally.   No need to rush; you have time.   It reminds me of the line from one of the old Star Trek episodes, from a character who was essentially death-proof; “Immortality consists largely of boredom.”

Of course, there’s the pessimist in me that feels like even if this becomes possible, we’ll get our comeuppance.  Cancer, if not unknown, was at least far less common before 1800, because infectious disease generally got people before they’d lived long enough for cancer to set in.  When infectious disease was largely eradicated, at least in the first world, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, cancer rates jumped because (among other things) we were not dying of other causes quite so much.   You have to wonder what new and devastating diseases might occur if we push the life span a lot further than we already have.

So, the inevitable question arises in my mind as to what I'd do if such a therapy were offered to me.  Honestly, I have to say that if the risks were sufficiently low, I'd probably go for it.  I'm not particularly afraid of dying, but I hate the thought of aging -- the insidious physical and mental weakening, the loss of vigor, and (especially) the eventual dependence on others.  If I could put that off for a few hundred years?  Yeah, no question about it.

It's not, however, without some ethical qualms.  Decisions made in self-interest aren't, sometimes, in the best interest of the world as a whole, and the social and environmental outcomes if such a therapy became widely available are mindblowing.  So, the bottom line is that I’m not anxious to die, myself, but the whole thing has me worried.  I’m not particularly enjoying aging, but I’m not sure that the alternative might not be worse.

Bigfoot DNA found... maybe.

The Erickson Project is a privately-funded study, begun in 2005, with one aim: to prove the existence of Sasquatch.  Its founder, Adrian Erickson, says,

The objective was to conduct the first long term study that would once and for all, prove the existence of the Sasquatch. In order to do so I asked [outdoorsman and experienced tracker] Dennis Pfohl and [Princeton-educated evolutionary biologist] Leila Hadj-Chikh to join me, and we set out to try to awaken the scientific community, attempted to bring awareness to the general public, while silencing the armchair critics, and tried to vindicate the tens of thousands of witnesses who have been ridiculed for speaking out. [parenthetical notes mine]

As far as this goes, I think it's pretty awesome.  As I've commented before, no one would be more thrilled than me if it turned out that Bigfoot actually existed, and as far as I'm concerned, the only way to convince skeptics is to look at the evidence using the rigorous lens of science.  Much as I'd like to be, I'm just not convinced by grainy photographs of Blobsquatches and film footage of guys in gorilla suits.

So the Erickson Project at least seems to be going about things the right way.  And now, we have news leaked from the project that some Project-funded DNA studies have borne fruit.

If the leaks are to be believed -- and it's a big "if" -- there's material worth looking at here.  Richard Stubstad, an Erickson Project member who is the origin of the leak, states that the team analyzed nuclear and mitochondrial DNA from six samples that were alleged to come from Bigfoot.  (One sample was called "unknown hand;" the others were not specified by the information coming from the leak.)

Stubstad claims that the DNA analysis, which was performed under the leadership of Dr. Melba Ketchum, Director of DNA Diagnostics, Inc., and a forensic geneticist of some note, produced fascinating results.  The mitochondrial DNA, which only is inherited through the maternal ancestral line, was substantially human; the nuclear DNA was considerably different.  The nuclear DNA was analyzed at sites which show large numbers of variations (called polymorphisms); the average number of differences at these sites is an indicator of evolutionary distance. 

This is a highly reliable technique, and has been used on hominid DNA before.  For example, a thorough analysis of Neanderthal DNA by Swedish geneticist Svante Pääbo, director of the Department of Genetics at the Max Planck Institute, found that compared to modern humans, DNA extracted from Neanderthals shows about a 99.5% overlap, and has even been able to identify specific genes that are lacking (or are different) in the Neanderthal genome. 

The leaked information from the Erickson Project states that Neanderthals had on the order of 3,300 differences in polymorphic sites studied, as compared to modern humans.  Denisova, a recently discovered hominid from Central Asia, had 6,600 differences at those same sites; modern chimpanzees have 33,000.  The DNA extracted from the alleged Sasquatch remains showed 12,675 differences at these polymorphic sites.  (As I do not know which sites were studied, I have no way to verify these numbers, so take them with a grain of salt.)

Not surprisingly, Erickson Project members are unhappy about the leak; Dr. Ketchum especially was perturbed by the fact that the information got out prior to publication of a paper that was supposed to coincide with the release of an Erickson Project-sponsored documentary called Sasquatch: The Quest.  Apparently there has been a falling out between Erickson, Pfohl, and Ketchum, with threats of lawsuits and various other unpleasantness.  Erickson, for his part, has sunk three million dollars into the study, and is obviously invested in its success.  Unfortunately, this kind of pressure is not necessarily conducive to producing good science.  It's to be hoped that his desire for proof of Bigfoot's existence would not blind him to accepting negative results if that's what the outcome is (or worse, fabricating false positives).

In any case, I'm hoping that whatever the outcome of the spat is, the data is presented to the scientific world in such a way that the peer-review process can take a look at it.  That is the only way that the whole Sasquatch thing will be settled.  Being a biologist myself, I'm understandably excited by the possibility -- think of what a coup for the evolutionists this would be!  But if the study is found to lack rigor, or if allegations of falsification arise, then we'll be right back where we started -- with anecdotal tales, fuzzy film footage, and claims that are supposed to be accepted without evidence.

Tapping in

One of the more peculiar versions of "alternative medicine" is the practice of "tapping."  Tapping is the brainchild of Gary Craig, a realtor with no medical training whatsoever, who apparently studied some books about "neurolinguistic programming," a counseling and therapy method now generally considered to be pseudoscience, and decided to go one step further and create a pseudoscience of his own.

Officially known as the "Emotional Freedom Technique," tapping involves first questioning a patient about his/her emotional and physical problems.  Having ascertained the type and intensity of the issues the patient is struggling with, the practitioner then has the patient repeat an "affirmation" as (s)he taps on the patient's body.  The tapping points are supposedly places where the "energy meridians are blocked," and the tapping process "inputs kinetic energy into the meridians," and thus "releases negative energy" and relieves the symptoms.  (Practitioners are cautioned that watches, glasses, and bracelets should not be worn by either practitioner or patient during the procedure, because they can "create a disturbance in the electromagnetic field that interferes with energy flow.")

Well.  Where do I start?

Perhaps the best thing to start with is a 2003 study at the University of Lethbridge, which compared the results of tapping "correctly" (i.e. using the supposed positions of energy meridians involved in various emotional issues) to those achieved by just tapping random spots on the patient's body.  Both the experimental and control groups showed the same level of improvement (not much) in their complaints.  EFT practitioners responded to the study with howls of indignation, stating that the positions of energy meridians differ from one person to the next, and therefore only a "trained professional in EFT practice" could determine what the appropriate tapping point was going to be.

All of which sounds mighty convenient to me.  It's the same thing as you hear from the psychics, clairvoyants, and mediums: your big ugly nasty old skepticism is interfering with the process.  So, basically, just "trust us."

The problem, of course, is that the people who do trust charlatans like the purveyors of EFT might not seek medical attention for problems that should be treated promptly.  Because now, the technique has progressed beyond the original vision of Gary Craig, which was to use it to treat psychological issues -- people like Joseph Mercola (read about him here) recommend tapping for treating chronic pain, weight gain issues, allergies, addictions, and sleep issues!  (Interestingly, they do include a disclaimer, which I quote:  "Meridian Tapping is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or psychological disorder. They urge that Tapping is not a substitute for medical or psychological treatment."  Seriously?  So what the hell is it supposed to be doing, then?)

What it's supposed to be doing, of course, is making people like Dr. Mercola and Gary the Realtor lots of money.  Mercola's site has for sale a book (Discover the Power of Tapping) and a DVD (The Tapping Solution), $39.97 if you buy them both at the same time.  And the true brilliance of this scam is that because the book and DVD teaches patients to perform their own tapping, there's no chance of a malpractice lawsuit -- if someone reads a book and then thinks he can fix his bee-sting allergy by thumping away on his "energy meridians," well, sucks to be him.

The whole thing makes me crazy.  We have here all of the hallmarks of voodoo science -- unverifiable claims, anecdotal reports, appeal to authority, vague use of words like "energy" and "field," and probable placebo effect.  Yet tapping is skyrocketing in popularity, and in fact has been endorsed enthusiastically by Jack Canfield, who founded the wildly popular Chicken Soup for the Soul series (latest titles:  Primordial Soup for the Biochemist's Soul and Atheists: No Soup for You!).

So my recommendation is: if someone suggests some ridiculous therapy for curing your physical or emotional problems, apply some critical thinking skills, for cryin' out loud.  Learn a little science.  And then see a doctor.  Doctors aren't perfect, but if it comes down to a choice between an MD and someone who claims he can cure my arthritis by tapping his fingers on my forehead, I'm going with the doctor.

Civility, unions, and the sanctity of marriage

Last week, New York became the sixth state in the United States to legalize gay marriage.  Predictably, this has been greeted with equal measures of celebration and outrage.  Pat Buchanan, that stalwart defender of America's cultural identity (white, Christian, conservative, and heterosexual) railed about the "death of the moral community" (read his article here), and in particular singled out a column by Richard Cohen that lauds the New York decision as "pretty much saying that since the time of Christ, Western history has been an endless Dark Age dominated by moral ignoramuses and bigots."

This statement is unintentionally hilarious, because the era of western history in which the church had its greatest uncontested power, and was fused seamlessly with the government, is called "the Dark Ages."  And given some of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of god by leaders during the last two millenia, I think an excellent case could be made that the words Buchanan places in Cohen's mouth are factually correct.

There may be something I'm missing here, but the fervently anti-homosexual stance of most of the sects of Christianity has always struck me as perplexing.   Yes, I know that in the bible homosexuality is considered sinful.  The problem is, so is usury (lending money at interest), and yet this is the foundation of our economic system.   You don't hear most Christian pastors railing against banks and mortgage officers, despite a clear prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:19 ("You shall not charge interest to your brother... interest on money or food or anything that is lent out.").

There are a whole lot of things considered sinful by the biblical authors that we don't really worry much about.  Touching the skin or flesh of a pig, for example is supposed to make us ritually unclean (Leviticus 11:7-8 -- "And the pig... is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses.").   This would kind of put paid to the Superbowl, wouldn't it?   Bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwiches would be out, too, which would be a bit sad.

As an aside: my mom, a devout Catholic, always used to make a baked ham on Easter.  A little ironic, that.

So, anyway, the bible is full of prohibitions that no one much takes seriously these days.  But gay marriage, for some reason, is in a class by itself.  It is reviled on the basis of a few bible verses, and nevertheless is the only issue besides abortion which galvanizes the religious right so thoroughly.  Why?  Perhaps it's because the members of the religious right are skeeved out by the idea of two people of the same gender having sex.   Or perhaps it's because they believe that accepting homosexuals as having equal rights under the law will suddenly cause hundreds of little fundamentalist children to say, "Wow!  Good!  Now I can run right out and have sex with people of my own gender!"  I don't know.

I really, truly, don't understand how denying a fundamental right to an entire demographic is a moral stance.  My general feeling is if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, then don't marry a gay.  Your choice.  But how limiting the rights of others somehow "defends the sanctity of marriage" is baffling to me.

I have an idea which would solve the whole thing, actually. How about separating the concept of "marriage" from the concept of "civil partnership" for everyone?  I mean, why are the religious so desperate to have the government sticking their fingers into the Sacred Ritual of Marriage in the first place?  You want to get civilly unionized, or whatever the hell would be the verb form of that expression, you go for it.  Any two adults past the age of consent can have one.  You and your partner can then be recognized by the government as a pair for all the legal purposes, e.g. taxes, insurance, privacy laws, and so forth.   If you also want to get married, then you have to go through the appropriate religious authority in the Belief System of Your Choice, and then -- like any other religious ritual -- you have to abide by whatever the rules of that religion are.

This would basically nullify all of the Attack on Marriage propaganda.  The government would have nothing to say, nada, on the subject of marriage; that would be the bailiwick of the churches, and more power to 'em.   On the other hand, no one would be denied the right to the benefits granted to heterosexual unions; no one would have to fight to get a partner accepted for medical insurance; no one would have to go through being denied access to the medical records of a grievously ill partner because that partner happened to be of the same sex.

The churches, then, would have to turn to other matters besides what people do in their bedrooms.  It might be snarky of me to say that I think some of them would be disappointed to lose this talking point.   Is it just me, or do some of these people actually seem to relish going on for hours on this topic?   Hmm.  Protesting too much, perhaps?

In any case, it would free them up to find some other sin to dwell upon.  I doubt that it will be usury, considering how rich that practice has made many of these churches.  And considering how popular football is, the don't-touch-a-pig one is probably a non-starter, too.  Hey!  I have an idea!  Maybe they could take a page from their past history, and concentrate on denying civil rights to sorcerers.  Here you have something that is (1) clearly proscribed in the bible, and (2) would have no effect whatsoever, because there's no such thing as a real sorcerer, but (3) would still keep the severely religious busy enough not to bother the rest of us.

Could work. I propose a new law, the "Statewide Anti-Sorcerer Act."  Anyone proven to have successfully practiced black magic would hereafter be banned from holding public office.  Hillary Clinton might have some 'splainin' to do about her seances, but for the most part, we could all just go back to our ordinary lives in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.

Ghost retrievers

A couple of days ago, I posted some ideas about new "In Search Of" titles, suggesting that a sponsor network pay me large quantities of money and fly me around the world for free to look for cryptids.  The reader response to this concept was overwhelmingly positive, and I now have plenty enough volunteers to staff a film crew, provide artistic direction, and give technical support, with some left over to act as extras, be "key grips" (whatever the hell those are, but they must be important because they're always in the credits), and to wear the gorilla suit and jump up and down in front of the camera on slow days.

So, I thought I was doing pretty well in the creativity department.  But I find that once again, the pre-existing unreality shows have gotten the jump on me, idea-wise.  I just found out that Syfy's Ghost Hunters has hired a new member of the cast: a dog.

Their latest addition is named Maddie, and is a "trained ghost-hunting dog."  Which brings up a question; how do you train a dog to hunt ghosts?  It's not like you could give her a dog cookie for retrieving one, or anything.  Do you reward her for barking like hell at nothing?  Do you praise her for going into "point" when she sees an old bedsheet hanging from a clothesline?

One of the creators of the series, Jason Hawes (who is also a founding member of The Atlantic Paranormal Society, or TAPS), said, "As the newest member of the TAPS Ghost Hunters cast, Maddie has senses that are so much better than humans, and has proved to be a great asset in alerting the team when she feels a ghostly presence around."

To which I say: that makes perfect sense.  After all, look at how useful a dog was to the ghost-hunters in Scooby Doo.  It was Scooby who always ran into the ghost, said "Ruh roh," and then jumped, shivering, into Shaggy's arms.  And it was usually Scooby who discovered that the ghost was just the carnival owner in disguise, and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for You Darn Kids And Your Mangy Mutt.

So, inspired by the unequivocal successes every Saturday morning on Scooby Doo, the crew on Ghost Hunters decided to take Maddie to the Alex Johnson Hotel of Rapid City, South Dakota, the site of an alleged haunting.  "The Ghost Hunters team caught images, voices and movements at this hotel that cannot be explained from any other natural source," Hawes said.  "Paranormal activity is alive and well today in many of the locations that our team has visited.  Now with Maddie, the dog, on board, she might be able to lead us in the right direction more quickly than it takes to explore the entire building we are investigating."

You always hear that claim, don't you?  Dogs are "sensitive" to ghosts.  Myself, I think that's just people's way of rationalizing the fact that their dogs act weird and bark a lot.  I know my own dogs, for example, seem to go into spontaneous fits of barking pretty much round the clock.  Sometimes I can figure out what triggered it -- a knock on the door, farm equipment driving past, a car honking its horn, someone in an entirely different zip code sneezing -- but sometimes the impetus seems to be just anomalous activity in their brains ("thoughts") and they have to express their shock over this unfamiliar sensation by running around the room barking and knocking over furniture. 

But then I was thinking; maybe when Doolin and Grendel are yammering like crazy, seemingly at nothing, it's just that they're sensing the presence of spirits.  Perhaps I could work on "training" them in this ability, and they could help me on my cryptid-hunting television series.  I could show the dogs a picture of, say, a Bigfoot.  My dogs are both very earnest, and I'm sure they would both try their hardest, and would stare at the picture with furrowed brows and worried expressions.  Then we would get out the leashes.  Then there would ensue twenty minutes of trying to catch them as they leap about, rebounding off of walls and giving little quivery yips of canine excitement, because Going For Walkies is the high point of their day.  Once we've calmed them down and I'd attached the leashes, we'd open the door, and then there'd be a pause as the Staff Medic was called over to reset my two dislocated shoulders.  Then off I'd go into the woods, being dragged along behind the dogs, as they perform the critical cryptid-hunting skills of sniffing around, being distracted by squirrels, and peeing all over everything.

So, okay, maybe it isn't such a good idea.  But somehow, we need to harness my dogs' Natural Sensitivity to Paranormal Phenomena, so I can bring them along with me when I'm filming.  If the Ghost Hunters team gets to bring Maddie with them, it's only fair that I should be able to bring along Doolin and Grendel.  So, look out, cryptids: Gordon and His Faithful Hounds are on your trail.

Ruh roh.

I am the vine

We've had people seeing Jesus on tortillas, highway underpasses, grilled cheese sandwiches, fogged windows, pizzas, flaking paint on a barroom wall, a piece of tarnished sheet metal, and the wood grain in a cut tree trunk.  But this is a new one, in my experience -- people are seeing Jesus in a bunch of kudzu vines hanging on a utility pole.

A fellow named Kent Hardison, who works at Ma's Hotdog House in Kinston, North Carolina, drives past this utility pole every day to work.  He noticed that kudzu, the invasive vine that is sometimes called "Mile-a-Minute Vine" because of its ability to grow fast enough to completely cover barns, abandoned cars, and slow-moving farm animals, had grown up the pole and was now hanging from the wires.  At first, he thought that he should contact the county maintenance people and tell them to get in there and spray it with RoundUp.  But then, he suddenly realized something that made him stop in his tracks.

“I glanced at it, and it looks like Jesus on the cross,” Hardison told reporters.  “I thought, ‘You can’t spray Jesus with RoundUp.’”

Hardison told some of his friends and coworkers, and soon the place was flocked with people who wanted to take a look.  While a few scoffed, most seemed impressed.

“Maybe it’s a sign of the times,” Kinston resident Michelle Davis said.  “There’s been a lot going on in this area.  I think it's a sign that Jesus is watching over us.”

Hardison agrees, and mentioned, in a comment that I swear I'm not making up, that kudzu was actually an appropriate medium for the Lord and Savior to express himself.  “It doesn’t matter what you do, kudzu is going to be around,” he said.  “Ain’t that a lot like Jesus?”

I bet by now you're just dying to see what this apparition looks like.  So I found a photograph someone had taken of it and posted online, and here it is:

My overall reaction is:  *shudder*  I'm not seeing a resemblance to Jesus, To me, this looks more like a monster from an episode of The X Files, reaching out its hungry tendrils to wrap around your neck and strangle you.  I don't quite see how it could inspire anyone to devotion.  But of course, the last appearance of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich looked more like Bob Marley than it did like Jesus, so I guess there's the whole eye-of-the-beholder thing.

But even so, the pious residents of Kinston have thus far prevented maintenance crews from breaking out the herbicide.  There have even been small gifts left at the base of the pole, along with little notes with prayers. 

My thought is that at least it gives the devout a hobby, and keeps them distracted from their efforts to reinstitute prayer in public schools.   So I suppose it's harmless enough.  You have to wonder how they'll react, though, when winter comes, and it all dies after the first hard frost.  I guess they'll have to look elsewhere for their devotional images.  I predict an upsurge in orders at delis for grilled cheese sandwiches.