Society's bigotry against night owls

I wrote about this a couple of years ago, but here's another excellent article on what it's like to live with Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder and, in the process, endure society's bias against night owls:

Both environmental and genetic factors have been linked to these offset circadian rhythms, so people with delayed sleep can’t fully control when their bodies get tired, or when they’re ready to get up.  

This doesn’t stop articles, schedules, or well-intentioned friends from insisting we’d be better off if we just made ourselves go to bed “at a normal time.” 

Night owls remain a misunderstood, maligned minority. We defy the conventional wisdom, missing out on the proverbial worm and whatever instincts make early risers “healthy, wealthy, and wise.” Researchers estimate that about one in 10 adolescents go through a period of delayed sleep, but just a fraction of 1 percent still have the condition into adulthood. 

Because so many teens and college kids naturally stay up late and sleep in longer, people associate that pattern with immaturity and childishness. Staying up until the wee hours is something you’re expected to grow out of; adulting means you embrace your 6 am wakeup with joy. (For bonus grown-up points, you complain that you can’t make it to midnight, even on New Year’s Eve.) 

Those of us still hours from our alarms when others have completed their morning routines know we’re getting the figurative side-eye for staying in bed. I sense a bit of rise-and-shine smugness from the friend who posts a list of the things she got done before 9 am or even the countless articles on how to become a morning person. We’re all expected to conform to the early bird schedule; Real Simple and Women’s Health aren’t doling out tips on how to stay up later.

Society's bias towards early risers - and the pressure it puts on night owls to conform to a "normal" schedule even though they might not be biologically predispositioned to do so - is, quite frankly, a form of bigotry. I'd like to believe that we night owls are finally beginning to find our voices - after all, science seems to have our backs - but the false perception that late risers are lazier or less effective than early birds will require continual challenge.

For all the knocks against night owls, we remain regarded as more creative, impulsive, and strategic thinkers. There’s something to the caricature of the artist, inventor, or writer staying up chasing their ideas. Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated documentary director, said working late is part of his process: “I’m a night owl, and luckily my profession supports that. The best ideas come to me in the dead of night. My friends know I’m up, so they can call at three in the morning. Just don’t call me at, like, 8.” 

I get it. I feel most clear-headed, productive, and energized in the evenings, free to work as long as I’d like. If you’ve ever gone to work in an empty office — on a weekend or holiday or a day when everybody else was on vacation — that’s what working after midnight feels like. There are no meetings, no places to be, no disruptions. It’s eerily quiet, just you and your thoughts. 

The more we give night people the freedom to lean into their after-dark rhythms, I believe the more we’ll continue to see the benefits of flexible schedules, as employee satisfaction and efficiency thrive.

I don't know if I have DSPD, but I have always been a night owl. Right now it's well after 11 pm, and after I finish this blog entry I have a few other tasks to do before I finally crawl into bed. This is how it is for me virtually every night: I feel especially energetic and productive during these late hours. I'm not the least bit sleepy, and if I tried to go to bed right now I'd simply toss and turn and stare at the ceiling for a couple of hours. This is who I am, this is how I live, and at 43 years of age I'm not going to change.

Early birds are free to rise at 5:30 am; they are even allowed to feel superior for doing so. But they're not allowed to think of us night owls as a lazy degenerates simply because we don't conform to their schedules.

17 Reasons Why You Should Not Attend the University of Houston

I'm usually not a fan of clickbait listicles such as these, but this one made me smile.

Especially #9. Go Coogs!

(One quibble about #14, though: I'm not sure I'd call the squirrels on the University of Houston campus "friendly." "Aggressive," "fearless," and "demanding" are better terms...)

There must be some amazing spices in that chili

As seen on the local news last night:

(Seriously, KPRC? It's bad enough that people confuse that country's flag with our state flag...)

Drone taxis

Coming this summer to... where else?

There’s been lots of talk in recent years about self-driving cars. Now, it appears as if self-flying passenger drones are next -- and they could flying in one major city as soon as this July. 

That’s according to a plan revealed Monday in Dubai, where the head of the Dubai Roads and Transportation Authority said it wants to develop passenger-carrying drones as a way to move people around the United Arab Emirates’ biggest city. Officials said flights could begin in July, though few other details were offered.

The Associated Press reports the drone type being pursued for Dubai’s passenger service is the Chinese-made EHang 184, “an egg-shaped craft with four legs sticking out, each with two small propellers.”

The drone, which can travel about 30 miles on a single battery charge, would be completely automated. Passengers would select a destination on a touch screen in front of the seat; the drone’s flight would be monitored remotely from a control room staffed with Dubai RTA personnel and the passenger would have no control over the drone.

That sounds a bit scary, but according to the co-founder of EHang the drone will have software that calculates the most optimal route for the passenger and avoids collisions with other drones. It will also have back-up systems to take over in the case of any primary system failures. Truth be told, these drone taxis might end up being safer than Dubai’s regular taxis!

One problem with the drones (aside from the cost of the fare, which is likely to be substantial) is that they can only carry a person weighing up to 220 pounds. Which means that my fat ass is going to have to lose some weight before I can get in one.

My (landlord's) pretty azeleas

I can't take credit for them because they were here when I moved in, and they might not be as pretty as the ones in my parents neighborhood, but the azaleas in front of my house are putting on a decent enough show:

Usually they don't bloom until March or even April, but thanks to the warm excuse for a winter we've just had, they've decided to make an early appearance.

2017 UH Cougar football schedule released

The 2017 University of Houston Cougar football schedule has been released:

     Sat Sep 02     at Texas-San Antonio (San Antonio)
     Sat Sep 10     at Arizona (Tucson)
     Sat Sep 16     Rice
     Sat Sep 23     Texas Tech
     Sat Sep 30     at Temple (Philadelphia)
     Sat Oct 07     SMU
     Sat Oct 14     at Tulsa (Tulsa)
     Thu Oct 19    Memphis
     Sat Oct 28     East Carolina
     Sat Nov 04    at South Florida (Tampa)
     Sat Nov 11    (off)
     Sat Nov 18    at Tulane (New Orleans)
     Fri Nov 24     Navy

There's a rumor that the Labor Day weekend game against UTSA at the Alamodome could be moved from Saturday to Sunday or even Monday if the networks so decide; if that happens I'll update this post accordingly.

Structurally, this is a decent schedule. It features two "Power 5" schools, crosstown rival Rice, only two non-Saturday games (it looks like a game on Black Friday is becoming a tradition) and has the three teams the Cougars lost to last season - SMU, Memphis and Navy - at home. My only gripes are the fact that the Coogs start the season with back-to-back road games, and don't get a bye week until very late in the season. This is also the first time in a few seasons that the Cougars don't have seven home games.

Given last season's relative disappointment as well as the fact that the Cougars have a completely new coaching staff and are losing a lot of talent on both sides of the ball, this schedule might present some difficulty on the field. Arizona and Texas Tech are not elite Power Five teams but will nevertheless be challenges. UTSA beat the Coogs the last time the two teams played. Conference road games against Temple, Tulsa and South Florida will be tough, and even schools like Rice and Tulane are going to give the Cougars their best shot.

Win or lose, I'm going to make the best of it. Roadies to UTSA in San Antonio and Tulane in New Orleans are already on my calendar. I'd also like to make the trip to Tucson to see the Arizona game - my cousin and his family live there so I'd have a place to stay - if I can get the finances to work.

The soft tyranny of Donald Trump

Andrew Sullivan, who's back to (semi-) blogging after a two-year hiatus, ponders it:

With someone like this barging into your consciousness every hour of every day, you begin to get a glimpse of what it must be like to live in an autocracy of some kind. Every day in countries unfortunate enough to be ruled by a lone dictator, people are constantly subjected to the Supreme Leader’s presence, in their homes, in their workplaces, as they walk down the street. Big Brother never leaves you alone. His face bears down on you on every flickering screen. He begins to permeate your psyche and soul; he dominates every news cycle and issues pronouncements — each one shocking and destabilizing — round the clock. He delights in constantly provoking and surprising you, so that his monstrous ego can be perennially fed. And because he is also mentally unstable, forever lashing out in manic spasms of pain and anger, you live each day with some measure of trepidation. What will he come out with next? Somehow, he is never in control of himself and yet he is always in control of you. 

One of the great achievements of free society in a stable democracy is that many people, for much of the time, need not think about politics at all. The president of a free country may dominate the news cycle many days — but he is not omnipresent — and because we live under the rule of law, we can afford to turn the news off at times. A free society means being free of those who rule over you — to do the things you care about, your passions, your pastimes, your loves — to exult in that blessed space where politics doesn’t intervene. In that sense, it seems to me, we already live in a country with markedly less freedom than we did a month ago. It’s less like living in a democracy than being a child trapped in a house where there is an abusive and unpredictable father, who will brook no reason, respect no counter-argument, admit no error, and always, always up the ante until catastrophe inevitably strikes. This is what I mean by the idea that we are living through an emergency.

I understand what Sullivan is sensing, because I'm beginning to see it in my own life. I check the news websites several times a day just to read his latest tweet or to see what his administration's latest ridiculous pronouncement or action is. I see that the majority of the posts of my Facebook feed are political in nature. I watch every new episode of Saturday Night Live just to see Alec Baldwin's latest takedown of him (Melissa McCarthy's Sean Spicer has me in tears, by the way). And all anybody wants to talk about at the bar or at the Super Bowl party is Donald Fucking Trump.

It's relentless. It's discomforting. And it's only been three weeks.

Crushed, I am...

Well, I guess this means that the Dallas Cowboys won't be coming to town for Super Bowl LI after all. And I was so looking forward to our city being graced by the presence of their obnoxious, insufferable fanbase! I guess now I won't get to listen to them explain to us how much Houston (both the team and the city) sucks, or how "Dem Boyz" are still "America's Team" even though they haven't won a Super Bowl in 21 years. And I guess those hordes of bandwagon, t-shirt Cowboy fans (who would have come down for the day so as not to pay for a hotel) aren't going to materialize to loiter around Discovery Green or along Washington Avenue after all. Alas!

It'd be a real shame if Pittsburgh beat the Patriots next weekend, so that the (almost equally insufferable) New England wouldn't be able to make it to town, either.

As for the Texans: given that this franchise is institutionally mediocre, I guess a 10-8 overall record and AFC South title is about the best they could have hoped for. One can only wonder what this team would be like if it had an actual quarterback and some semblance of innovation on offense.

But at least the Texans won a playoff game. Which is more than than can be said for the Cowboys.

More idiots with guns

Texas State Representative Armando Martinez (D-Welasco) was hit in the head by a stray bullet shortly after midnight on New Year's Day. Fortunately his injuries are not serious, and he is looking into ways to restrict or ban celebratory gunfire as the new legislative session approaches.

Martinez isn't yet sure what the legislation would look like. He spent the time immediately after being shot in the head at Valley Baptist Medical Center. He's since been released. 

But, Martinez told The Texas Tribune that any legislation would definitely involve celebratory gunfire and that he would talk with sheriffs and prosecutors about ideas on how to handle the problem. 

Some states, including Texas, have penalties for injuring someone with joy shots in the air. It's a misdemeanor carrying a $4,000 fine and a year in jail if caught and convicted. Killing someone opens up a shooter to more serious charges.

I empathize with Rep. Martinez, if only because I could have suffered a similar injury about a decade ago: some moron nearby fired a gun into the air, and the bullet landed near to where I was standing at the time.

However, I'm not sure what his proposed ban on celebratory gunfire would accomplish. As the article notes, there are already laws on the books for people who recklessly fire live ammunition into the air.

It also brings up a question that I (who admittedly is not in law enforcement) wonder about: even if you do recover a bullet from a weapon fired in celebration and are able to perform ballistics tests on it, how are you able to actually match it to a weapon in order to secure a conviction? Especially at midnight of the New Year, when legions of idiots are firing their guns into the air? (Seriously: much of Houston turns into Stalingrad at the stroke of midnight every January 1st.) How does law enforcement determine who shot the offending bullet, at least with enough precision for a judge to issue a search warrant so that police can recover, test and match a suspected firearm?

The point being: even if Rep. Martinez's proposed legislation against celebratory gunfire did cover something that's not already on the books in the State of Texas, it seems that prosecuting and convicting somebody for celebratory New Year's gunfire would be a difficult task. You'd practically have to catch them in the act of shooting.

With all that said, firing live ammunition into the air is stupid. It is reckless and lethal, and nobody who truly considers themselves a "responsible" gun owner would do such a thing.

So just stop doing it, people.

Was 2016 really the "year of death?"

2016 might seem like it was the "year of death," considering all the celebrities and other famous people who shoved off this mortal coil this past year.

Musicians such as David Bowie, Prince, Leonard Cohen, George Michael, Merle Haggard, and Glen Frey. Actors such as Garry Shandling, Gene Wilder, Alan Rickman, Alan Thicke, Carrie Fisher (and her mother, Debbie Reynolds, just one day later). Sports greats such as Muhammad Ali, Gordie Howe and Arnold Palmer. Authors such as Umberto Eco, Elie Wiesel, Harper Lee and Richard Adams; playwrights such as Edward Albee; world leaders such as Shimon Peres, Fidel Castro, Boutros Boutros-Ghali and King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand; news media icons such as Morley Safer and Gwen Ifill; even astronauts such as Edgar Mitchell and John Glenn. 

Even Abe Vigoa and Zsa Zsa Gabor passed away this year, and I thought those two were immortal. Here's a rather lengthy list of celebrities that died in 2016.

This, of course, is in addition to all the non-famous people who have passed away this year. Two friends of mine lost their husbands this year (both of them were in their 40s... yikes!). Lots of lives have been lost to the carnage in places like Mosul, Aleppo and Yemen, or to terrorist attacks in places like Istanbul, Orlando, Nice, Baghdad and Berlin. 

For all the “damn you 2016!” and “2016 strikes again!” posts that have popped up on my Facebook feed every time a celebrity has died this year, I  think most people understand that 2016 did not “cause” any of these deaths. A year is an abstract concept, a measure of time. You could point out that a year is not completely abstract, because it does measure the actual physical phenomenon of one earth orbit around the sun, but its limits (i.e. January 1st to December 31st) are arbitrary constructs, and in any case a "year" is intangible and inanimate. Years do not kill people. 

So why does it seem like 2016 was "The Year of the Reaper?" There are a number of possible reasons for such a perception - and even that can be disputed - but I think it comes down to a socio-cultural quirk. "Celebrity culture," as we know it today, really didn't take off until the 1960s, as color televisions began appearing in every household and as baby boomers began to consume entertainment. That trend accelerated through the 70s and 80s, fueled by an expansion of entertainment outlets (for example, the ascendancy of FM radio and cable television; would Prince, David Bowie and George Michael have been as famous today had MTV not existed?). As these celebrities age, not only are Baby Boomers, but as well Generation X (and even Millennials), losing entertainers they grew up with. This mourning is amplified by social media - namely, Facebook and Twitter - in a viral manner that was not even comprehensible until a few years ago. For that reason, 2017 might not be any better. 

As Philadelphia columnist Will Bunch notes:

Almost everyone on the list of notable 2016 deaths affected the fundamental way we view what it means to be human, of what is possible in life. And it's important to note that these extraordinary people were the product of an extraordinary time in world history. The half-century that followed World War II -- particularly here in America, the nation of birth for most of the people on this list -- was a time when both affluence, especially for the middle class, and leisure time exploded. Those things offered humans an unparalleled new opportunity to innovate and create -- and the more they did, the more they also questioned the traditional boundaries of race, or gender, or human sexuality that had restrained their forerunners. 

Think back 100 years ago to 1916, and it is all but impossible to imagine a Prince or a Muhammad Ali or a George Michael as we came to know them in the latter 20th Century and beyond. It's also impossible to imagine how much spiritually poorer our lives would have been. We have been so blessed to be alive in an era of so many creative people -- and yet there is still one barrier of human experience that even John Glenn could not blast through. 

Everybody dies. And while it seemed like there were too many high-profile deaths this year, the reality is that these microbursts of sadness were the inevitable consequence of living in a time with so many remarkable people have been alive, inspiring joy and wonder. The truly important "news" about Fisher and Ali and Prince is not the moment that we heard that they died, but the years that we saw how they lived.

That's as good a way of looking at is as any. And while we mourn those we've lost over the last year, we will always be able to enjoy and appreciate what they've created for us. David Bowie and Prince are gone, but their music will always be with us. Gene Wilder has passed but Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory will be watched by generations yet to come. Edward Albee might be no more, but Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolff? will be eternal.

If 2016 really was the "year of death," then it only serves to remind us that we're all going to die, and that we should therefore savor every moment of our short and ephemeral lives.

Happy 2017, everyone.