In my last blog entry, I mentioned the Tornado siren warning in my neighborhood and a tornado that knocked down a few telephone poles and blew away some signs.
The next day a big tornado blew through Moore, OK.
This is what I wrote on Facebook on the day.
"I got out of 3 hours of sample processing in an isolated room. Only to find everyone else is gone home, and the news is talking about 2 mile debris ball and tornado a few miles away. Storm season in OK......"
Twenty four people including children died. Many homes were blown away and left a pile of rubble. Some of my friends' friends were affected directly, they were injured or lost their home. Many of my friends have been volunteering for cleaning up/disaster relief work since then.
My family and coworkers were all safe.
Disasters do happen in life. I do not want to encounter one, but I do want to have strength to survive and resilience to recover when I meet one.
************************************
"Dance and showmanship" was something I was thinking during the Robert Royston party last week. I 'd write about it later.
May 26, 2013
May 19, 2013
Science: Angelina Jolie on cancer, tornado siren
Quoting Wikipedia about Angelina Jolie,
"On February 16, 2013, at the age of 37, Jolie underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer. She has a defective BRCA1 gene resulting in an increased risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Jolie's family history warranted a BRCA mutation genetic test: her mother, actress Marcheline Bertrand, had breast cancer and died from ovarian cancer at the age of 56, while her maternal grandmother had ovarian cancer and died aged 45. Jolie's mastectomy lowered her chances of developing breast cancer to under 5 percent. Testing of the removed breast tissue showed no signs of cancerous cells. She reportedly intends to undergo a preventive oophorectomy, as she still has a 50% risk of developing ovarian cancer."
Link to her own account "My Medical Choice" (May 14, 2013, New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html
What do you think about her decision? I'm sure it was a tough call for her. And I support her decision.
In the net there have been many responses to her decision. Certainly she is an influential person in this world.
I thought some responses were somewhat off-target. Some off-target responses were made because the speaker did not know much about cancer.
One response assumed all breast cancers are the same or similar. No, they are not. Cancer is a collection of diseases, and each case is different. In this case she is talking about breast/ovarian cancer predisposed by the BRCA1 mutation, and it is different from sporadic breast cancer.
A majority of breast cancer is sporadic. In general, the development of sporadic cancer is a slow, age-influenced process with progressive acquisition of genetic mutations and/or epigenetic alterations under the influence of environmental and other external factors. Sporadic cancers tend to develop later in life. The right diet and life habits can reduce the cancer risk further, although the risk cannot go down to zero. In fact, a part of my research concerns this cancer chemo-prevention aspect. I am an expert, you know.
There is a class of cancers that are strongly influenced by genetics, or cancers caused by pre-existing gene mutation(s) passed down in a family. In many cases the gene product plays a major role as a signaling hub in the cell, and the gene mutation has a devastating effect on operations in the cell. A consequence is much accelerated cancer development. Cancers influenced by familial gene mutation tend to develop early.
She knew her family history and she knew she might carry one of familial mutations. It was wise to check that out.
Another response questions efficacy of mastectomy and the reasoning for cutting off an apparently "healthy" (non-cancerous) body part.
The familial mutation(s) is carried in all cells in the body, but in many cases only certain organs are affected, as in breast and ovarian cancer development with the BRCA1 mutation, or colon cancer development with an APC mutation. The organ specificity is interpreted to have something to do with how the gene product is used in the particular organ. Different organs do different things, and express different set of genes and proteins for the function. Surgically removing the body part at high risk can effectively take away the target organ for the particular type of cancer and provide a much better chance to live cancer free for the rest of your life.
As I understand, Angelina Jolie's advocacy goes toward genetic testing for women with a family history of cancer. These women are likely to carry a gene mutation that makes them prone to cancer development, and gene testing can justify further preventive steps that can include a mastectomy. She is not advocating everyone to test gene mutations.
Sure, in an ideal world everyone should know their genetic strengths and weaknesses (well, come to think of it, is that really an ideal world?) and people don't have to worry about the cost of genetic testing. In this world, it may still be too costly. I think limiting the genetic test to a certain segment of population, like to the people with notable family history or already identified risk, is a reasonable compromise.
She made a choice that leads to a better chance to live a life without developing cancers she is genetically predisposed to. She made a rational choice to increase her chances of living with her family and doing many things only a living person can enjoy. And she is in a position far more influential than many others. In this case, I think she made the right decision, and I want her case to be a champion to others.
************************
After writing about half of this, the tornado siren went off, and the news said there was a tornado touchdown about a mile away from our place. We decided to drive to house of my wife's family to get out of the possible danger. Although I am still very optimistic about the slimness of the possibility of a tornado blowing away our place, apparently this kind of precaution is common among tornado alley locals. After a while of weathering, we drove back in nice weather right after the storm was gone.
********************************
Last night our Swing Dance club invited a champion WCS dancer Robert Royston for workshops. I'll write about it later.
"On February 16, 2013, at the age of 37, Jolie underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer. She has a defective BRCA1 gene resulting in an increased risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Jolie's family history warranted a BRCA mutation genetic test: her mother, actress Marcheline Bertrand, had breast cancer and died from ovarian cancer at the age of 56, while her maternal grandmother had ovarian cancer and died aged 45. Jolie's mastectomy lowered her chances of developing breast cancer to under 5 percent. Testing of the removed breast tissue showed no signs of cancerous cells. She reportedly intends to undergo a preventive oophorectomy, as she still has a 50% risk of developing ovarian cancer."
Link to her own account "My Medical Choice" (May 14, 2013, New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html
What do you think about her decision? I'm sure it was a tough call for her. And I support her decision.
In the net there have been many responses to her decision. Certainly she is an influential person in this world.
I thought some responses were somewhat off-target. Some off-target responses were made because the speaker did not know much about cancer.
One response assumed all breast cancers are the same or similar. No, they are not. Cancer is a collection of diseases, and each case is different. In this case she is talking about breast/ovarian cancer predisposed by the BRCA1 mutation, and it is different from sporadic breast cancer.
A majority of breast cancer is sporadic. In general, the development of sporadic cancer is a slow, age-influenced process with progressive acquisition of genetic mutations and/or epigenetic alterations under the influence of environmental and other external factors. Sporadic cancers tend to develop later in life. The right diet and life habits can reduce the cancer risk further, although the risk cannot go down to zero. In fact, a part of my research concerns this cancer chemo-prevention aspect. I am an expert, you know.
There is a class of cancers that are strongly influenced by genetics, or cancers caused by pre-existing gene mutation(s) passed down in a family. In many cases the gene product plays a major role as a signaling hub in the cell, and the gene mutation has a devastating effect on operations in the cell. A consequence is much accelerated cancer development. Cancers influenced by familial gene mutation tend to develop early.
She knew her family history and she knew she might carry one of familial mutations. It was wise to check that out.
Another response questions efficacy of mastectomy and the reasoning for cutting off an apparently "healthy" (non-cancerous) body part.
The familial mutation(s) is carried in all cells in the body, but in many cases only certain organs are affected, as in breast and ovarian cancer development with the BRCA1 mutation, or colon cancer development with an APC mutation. The organ specificity is interpreted to have something to do with how the gene product is used in the particular organ. Different organs do different things, and express different set of genes and proteins for the function. Surgically removing the body part at high risk can effectively take away the target organ for the particular type of cancer and provide a much better chance to live cancer free for the rest of your life.
As I understand, Angelina Jolie's advocacy goes toward genetic testing for women with a family history of cancer. These women are likely to carry a gene mutation that makes them prone to cancer development, and gene testing can justify further preventive steps that can include a mastectomy. She is not advocating everyone to test gene mutations.
Sure, in an ideal world everyone should know their genetic strengths and weaknesses (well, come to think of it, is that really an ideal world?) and people don't have to worry about the cost of genetic testing. In this world, it may still be too costly. I think limiting the genetic test to a certain segment of population, like to the people with notable family history or already identified risk, is a reasonable compromise.
She made a choice that leads to a better chance to live a life without developing cancers she is genetically predisposed to. She made a rational choice to increase her chances of living with her family and doing many things only a living person can enjoy. And she is in a position far more influential than many others. In this case, I think she made the right decision, and I want her case to be a champion to others.
************************
After writing about half of this, the tornado siren went off, and the news said there was a tornado touchdown about a mile away from our place. We decided to drive to house of my wife's family to get out of the possible danger. Although I am still very optimistic about the slimness of the possibility of a tornado blowing away our place, apparently this kind of precaution is common among tornado alley locals. After a while of weathering, we drove back in nice weather right after the storm was gone.
********************************
Last night our Swing Dance club invited a champion WCS dancer Robert Royston for workshops. I'll write about it later.
May 13, 2013
Dance: OK Tango 2013; "You never graduate Tango" or will we?
We attended OK Tango's 2013 event (5/10/13-5/12/13) for the Saturday night milonga. Our two hour drive was well worth it. The turnout was good, and we had fun time.
This year the event's main organizers were Walt and Cindy, with other support from the city community. The Tulsa Tango community certainly is bigger than the small community in Oklahoma City and has a few groups of people who take charge. It is a strength. They invited Homer and Cristina Ladas to be the main instructors. The website for the instructors can be found here (http://www.theorganictangoschool.org/). I particularly like their philosophy.
During the milonga I had a short chat with Karenna, who runs the Tango place "Casa Tango" in Tulsa and is one of the central groups of the Tulsa Tango community.
She said,"You never graduate Tango."
I both agree and disagree. In the chat I just mentioned my disagreement, "Some people think they do."
The chat was short. I want to elaborate the comment a bit more.
Tango can be a lifelong journey. Serious Tango dancers know this. Serious students of any other art know it, too. If you see an art as a whole, there are stages. Imagine the stages as a school system, from kindergarten/preschool, elementary school, junior high, high school, college, graduate school, then junior faculty to full Professor, etc. In each stage you'll never stop being a student, and can never "graduate" from the art including Tango. In this sense she is right.
However, there are also many places you can "graduate." There is almost always a higher level, but you can see where you are and can declare you have graduated a previous stage and stay there.
In learning, there is a certain level or stage that can give you a sense of happiness, achievement, or perhaps resignation. There is a certain level that you can comfortably stay, or say "this is good enough." That is where you think or say "graduated," with or without a diploma, which can be just a piece of paper anyway.
You can see this from another viewpoint. People who stick to an art long enough to "not" graduate; they may be the people who cannot find happiness or satisfaction at a lower level. They can endure a state of suspense and endless scholarship without a conclusion.
Do you envy them? Really?
If you see the entire picture this way, the passion for an art looks not unlike a case of insanity.
The passion/insanity is the only way to get you far and forward. After all Karenna is in a teaching position for Tango, and those who feel "graduated" are likely not. Insane, abnormal, genius... all refer to someone who does not conform to ordinary levels.
How do I make the distinction between positive passion and negative insanity? It is where the passion is targeted and the overall outcome (where you are).
If your passion for the art makes you elevate or improve, it is positive passion and the outcome is likely positive. You can attract others if you get past a certain level, and it can turn you into a professional. But if your negative insanity makes you think others should do the same thing, or when what you primarily want is to change others, you are stepping into the dark side of power hogging through the art. Some fanatics are more troublesome than attractive.
People who "never graduate" can go far. Positive passion and tenacity is the key.
***************************************
Our cat chewed out my eyeglass frame. *shrug* He is changing our ways of living in many fine points, like where we keep toilet paper roll. On Sunday we went out to make new eyeglasses. They should arrive in 10 days.
This year the event's main organizers were Walt and Cindy, with other support from the city community. The Tulsa Tango community certainly is bigger than the small community in Oklahoma City and has a few groups of people who take charge. It is a strength. They invited Homer and Cristina Ladas to be the main instructors. The website for the instructors can be found here (http://www.theorganictangoschool.org/). I particularly like their philosophy.
During the milonga I had a short chat with Karenna, who runs the Tango place "Casa Tango" in Tulsa and is one of the central groups of the Tulsa Tango community.
She said,"You never graduate Tango."
I both agree and disagree. In the chat I just mentioned my disagreement, "Some people think they do."
The chat was short. I want to elaborate the comment a bit more.
Tango can be a lifelong journey. Serious Tango dancers know this. Serious students of any other art know it, too. If you see an art as a whole, there are stages. Imagine the stages as a school system, from kindergarten/preschool, elementary school, junior high, high school, college, graduate school, then junior faculty to full Professor, etc. In each stage you'll never stop being a student, and can never "graduate" from the art including Tango. In this sense she is right.
However, there are also many places you can "graduate." There is almost always a higher level, but you can see where you are and can declare you have graduated a previous stage and stay there.
In learning, there is a certain level or stage that can give you a sense of happiness, achievement, or perhaps resignation. There is a certain level that you can comfortably stay, or say "this is good enough." That is where you think or say "graduated," with or without a diploma, which can be just a piece of paper anyway.
You can see this from another viewpoint. People who stick to an art long enough to "not" graduate; they may be the people who cannot find happiness or satisfaction at a lower level. They can endure a state of suspense and endless scholarship without a conclusion.
Do you envy them? Really?
If you see the entire picture this way, the passion for an art looks not unlike a case of insanity.
The passion/insanity is the only way to get you far and forward. After all Karenna is in a teaching position for Tango, and those who feel "graduated" are likely not. Insane, abnormal, genius... all refer to someone who does not conform to ordinary levels.
How do I make the distinction between positive passion and negative insanity? It is where the passion is targeted and the overall outcome (where you are).
If your passion for the art makes you elevate or improve, it is positive passion and the outcome is likely positive. You can attract others if you get past a certain level, and it can turn you into a professional. But if your negative insanity makes you think others should do the same thing, or when what you primarily want is to change others, you are stepping into the dark side of power hogging through the art. Some fanatics are more troublesome than attractive.
People who "never graduate" can go far. Positive passion and tenacity is the key.
***************************************
Our cat chewed out my eyeglass frame. *shrug* He is changing our ways of living in many fine points, like where we keep toilet paper roll. On Sunday we went out to make new eyeglasses. They should arrive in 10 days.
May 5, 2013
Dance: Newcomer/Novice Jack and Jill
Recent news from Japan said that Japanese professional Shogi (Japanese Chess) players were beaten by computer software for Shogi. It was sensational because people were assuming that in a complex game like Shogi (in which you can reuse the enemy's piece unlike Western Chess, so that the complexity is enormous), computers could not win over human intuition and beat professionals created after 450 years of tradition and collective endeavors for the game.
The lesson is that, to win a game, you don't have to be human. Seek the best move, execute, and you (are more likely to) win.
Professional gamblers are said to act in a similar manner to computers. They follow their rules and strategies. They just do what they think the best move to win. Love is an attachment that clouds their judgement, so they don't love the game in the same manner that we do. They would strategically retreat from the game if the tide turns.
Another common trait among the software and the professional gamblers? Their top priority is winning, and is not enjoying the game. Enjoyment is secondary, or perhaps is even detrimental to the purpose of winning.
Yesterday our swing dance club welcomed Melissa Rutz for day-long workshops and a demonstration. She teaches, competes and judges all over the world and is ranked among the top West Coast Swing dancers. I had a dance with her, and my intuition/feel-good meter indicated that she is a top notch dancer. Yup, I trust my own judgement. And thank you, Melissa, for an interesting dance.
In the party, we had Jack and Jill contests for Newcomers and for Novices. These were contests, and three judges decided who won.
What I thought while watching the contests was that few people knew the rules of the game. They are there for enjoyment, and not for winning. Sure, it was the right attitude for a dance contest, but just in case some of you are wondering, I'll share the rules of winning in Newcomer/Novice contests.
The first rule is that In the Newcomer/Novice category, you got to show or demonstrate that you've got the West Coast Swing basics and can execute them cleanly. It is imperative.
In other words, the judges are not watching how great your dances are, or how cool your moves are. Forget what you see in YouTube, like the great improvisational dances and all the playing by pros. Showmanship, which is critical for the pros, is NOT what they seek primarily in this Newcomer/Novice category.
The judges will first check the lady's footwork and the timing. If she is not stepping on the beat of the song, the couple is pretty much out. Both the lead and follow better make sure she steps on the beat, and is doing the basics (step-step, step-step-step(triple step), and step-step-step(anchoring triple step)) nice and clean.
The leader has to ensure she does the right steps with the right timing. Good teamwork is what the judges look for. You want to be a solid leader who can lead, or let her do the right thing. For Newcomers it is sufficient. All the body rolls and wiggling, which you might think add interest to the dance, are more likely distractions for demonstrating your clean dancing.
Only when the very basics look good, the judges would start looking at other things, like smoothness or variety of moves. Dancers with a little bit awkward but correct basics would beat smooth but sloppy dancers 9 times out of 10. Your presentation, including musicality, improvisation and showmanship, count only after you've shown your good basics.
Since a contest is a game that follows artificial rules, there are many associated tricks and considerations you can use. For example, if you've only got a minute to dance, it is difficult to fix if you start out wrong. Spending 5 seconds to ensure the right start would be a good thing to do.
Notice the rules can change according to the contest category, although they may not spell them out. In the Newcomer/Novice category, you are judged by a standard of whether you are carrying on the tradition of West Coast Swing dance. In the Intermediate/advanced category, good execution of basics are given. How you use them becomes more important. Boring (i.e. basics only) dancers fade in the background, and dancers with musicality, improvisation and showmanship would prevail.
Of course, these rules are artificial and only for the game of contests. They matter only if you want to win the contest. I say your enjoyment is a reward by itself. So, you choose.
The lesson is that, to win a game, you don't have to be human. Seek the best move, execute, and you (are more likely to) win.
Professional gamblers are said to act in a similar manner to computers. They follow their rules and strategies. They just do what they think the best move to win. Love is an attachment that clouds their judgement, so they don't love the game in the same manner that we do. They would strategically retreat from the game if the tide turns.
Another common trait among the software and the professional gamblers? Their top priority is winning, and is not enjoying the game. Enjoyment is secondary, or perhaps is even detrimental to the purpose of winning.
Yesterday our swing dance club welcomed Melissa Rutz for day-long workshops and a demonstration. She teaches, competes and judges all over the world and is ranked among the top West Coast Swing dancers. I had a dance with her, and my intuition/feel-good meter indicated that she is a top notch dancer. Yup, I trust my own judgement. And thank you, Melissa, for an interesting dance.
In the party, we had Jack and Jill contests for Newcomers and for Novices. These were contests, and three judges decided who won.
What I thought while watching the contests was that few people knew the rules of the game. They are there for enjoyment, and not for winning. Sure, it was the right attitude for a dance contest, but just in case some of you are wondering, I'll share the rules of winning in Newcomer/Novice contests.
The first rule is that In the Newcomer/Novice category, you got to show or demonstrate that you've got the West Coast Swing basics and can execute them cleanly. It is imperative.
In other words, the judges are not watching how great your dances are, or how cool your moves are. Forget what you see in YouTube, like the great improvisational dances and all the playing by pros. Showmanship, which is critical for the pros, is NOT what they seek primarily in this Newcomer/Novice category.
The judges will first check the lady's footwork and the timing. If she is not stepping on the beat of the song, the couple is pretty much out. Both the lead and follow better make sure she steps on the beat, and is doing the basics (step-step, step-step-step(triple step), and step-step-step(anchoring triple step)) nice and clean.
The leader has to ensure she does the right steps with the right timing. Good teamwork is what the judges look for. You want to be a solid leader who can lead, or let her do the right thing. For Newcomers it is sufficient. All the body rolls and wiggling, which you might think add interest to the dance, are more likely distractions for demonstrating your clean dancing.
Only when the very basics look good, the judges would start looking at other things, like smoothness or variety of moves. Dancers with a little bit awkward but correct basics would beat smooth but sloppy dancers 9 times out of 10. Your presentation, including musicality, improvisation and showmanship, count only after you've shown your good basics.
Since a contest is a game that follows artificial rules, there are many associated tricks and considerations you can use. For example, if you've only got a minute to dance, it is difficult to fix if you start out wrong. Spending 5 seconds to ensure the right start would be a good thing to do.
Notice the rules can change according to the contest category, although they may not spell them out. In the Newcomer/Novice category, you are judged by a standard of whether you are carrying on the tradition of West Coast Swing dance. In the Intermediate/advanced category, good execution of basics are given. How you use them becomes more important. Boring (i.e. basics only) dancers fade in the background, and dancers with musicality, improvisation and showmanship would prevail.
Of course, these rules are artificial and only for the game of contests. They matter only if you want to win the contest. I say your enjoyment is a reward by itself. So, you choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)