7 Web Productivity Tools That'll Maximize Your Efficiency

7 Creepypasta That Will Scare You Silly

When Montana Residents Lost Their Right To Free Speech

“This is a rich man’s war.” —In reference to World War I, example of a statement that was considered a punishable crime by the State of Montana




After the terrorist attacks in the US in 2001, the Patriot Act was enacted, causing some Americans to fear that their days of free speech were over. However, Montana residents had already experienced a frightening loss of their free speech rights in the early 1900s during World War I. At that time, Montana’s new Sedition Law made it a crime to criticize the US government, including any opposition to the war. Even trivial infractions could be punished with fines and long prison sentences. The convicted were finally pardoned in 2006, but they were all dead by that time and the pardons couldn’t undo the damage to their lives.


After the terrorist attacks in the US in 2001, the Patriot Act was enacted, causing some Americans to fear that their days of free speech were over. The members of the nonprofit Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) were particularly concerned that they would be unable to champion human rights and arbitrate international disputes in some instances without going to jail. They argued that a section of the Patriot Act made it a crime to work on behalf of any group identified as a terrorist organization by the Secretary of State. By definition, that work would include counseling a designated group on how to settle conflicts in a peaceful manner or make an allegation of human rights abuse in front of the United Nations.

While this may seem like a new occurrence in wartime, free speech issues have surfaced before in America. Although it wasn’t exactly the same as the Patriot Act, Montana residents experienced a frightening loss of their free speech rights in the early 1900s during World War I. At that time, Montana’s new Sedition Law made it a crime to criticize the US government, including any opposition to the war. Even trivial infractions could be punished with fines and long prison sentences.
One of the most egregious cases was that of German immigrant Herman Bausch. He worked hard to establish a successful farm in Montana.

A pacifist, he was against America’s participation in World War I, which would cost him dearly. In April 1918, some prominent citizens of Billings, Montana, strode onto Bausch’s farm, insisting that he buy Liberty Bonds because he had the money. Bausch wouldn’t do it and voiced his opposition to the war openly. Declaring that his words were treasonous, the self-appointed group was going to hang him from a tree when his wife rushed outside with her baby son to stop them. Shortly after, Bausch was convicted under the Sedition Law in a two-day trial. His sentence: four to eight years in state prison. He served almost two and a half years of hard labor. During that time, he wasn’t permitted to see his sick baby son, who died of influenza during the pandemic of 1918–1919.

“My father came out of prison a broken man,” said daughter Fritzi Bausch Briner. “To not be considered an honorable citizen was a huge disappointment to him and he suffered mentally because of it. He was depressed and it all went downhill after that. We did not have a happy family situation.” Eventually, Bausch separated from his wife. He died in 1958.

Altogether, Montana tried 125 people under its Sedition law in the early 1900s. Seventy-nine were convicted and faced prison terms of as much as 10–20 years and fines as high as $20,000. Most of the convictions stemmed from casual remarks that were deemed to be anti-American or pro-German.
Paranoia spread, with residents informing on each other and the local newspapers questioning whether the enemy had already invaded Montana.

The prosecutions didn’t last long because World War I was over in late 1918. But the damage to these families was permanent in many cases. Some people lost their homes and their children, who were put in orphanages in some cases. Many siblings didn’t see each other again for decades. But as quickly as these lives were ruined, they were also forgotten for a long time. As a University of Montana law student once said, “This is a little embarrassing [for] someone who’s grown up in Montana her whole life, but I had no idea that such a law had ever been passed.”

On that same day in 2006, the convicted were finally pardoned. But they were all dead by that time and the pardons couldn’t undo the damage to their lives.

Show Me The Proof

Smithsonian: The Year Montana Rounded Up Citizens for Shooting Off Their Mouths
The Montanan: Speech Wasn’t Free
The Montana Sedition Project
NPR: Does The Patriot Act Violate Free Speech?

How A Swiss Mountain Town Ended Up In Africa

“No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place.” —Zen proverb

From finding hills in Kansas to palm trees in British Columbia, many places on Earth look nothing like you think. Well, we’ve found another one for you: Ifrane, Morocco, also known as Africa’s “Little Switzerland.” It was established by French colonialists in the 1930s as a hill station, a mountain retreat reminiscent of the Swiss Alps that served as an escape in the summer months from the uncomfortably hot conditions below. Africa’s lowest recorded temperature, –24 degrees Celsius (–11 °F), happened here. When Morocco gained its independence from France, local Moroccans began to move in, bringing some of their own culture to Ifrane. Nevertheless, the town remains a vacation playground for the wealthy.

From finding hills in Kansas to palm trees in British Columbia, Canada, many places on Earth look nothing like you think. Well, we’ve found another one for you: Ifrane, Morocco, also known as Africa’s “Little Switzerland.” The word yfran actually means “caves” in the Berber language of the region, which comes from the many caves carved out of the limestone plateaus surrounding the modern village. In earlier times, around the 1500s or so, local people lived in these caves. As they moved aboveground, though, the caves were used mostly for storage.

Modern Ifrane was established by French colonialists in the 1930s as a hill station, a mountain retreat reminiscent of the Swiss Alps that served as an escape in the summer months from the uncomfortably hot conditions below. Africa’s lowest recorded temperature, –24 degrees Celsius (–11 °F), happened here, just kilometers from the Sahara desert.

The first hill stations were established in India by the British. Hill stations then spread to many other countries, including Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Rather than the vacation playgrounds for the rich they’re often known as today, these towns and villages began as medical centers to treat tropical diseases such as cholera and dysentery that were rampant in earlier centuries. In the 1800s, one British doctor determined that a young soldier in peacetime had a fivefold greater chance of dying in India than England. At that time, English expatriates in India usually lived to only about 38 years old for the men and 28 years old for the women.

However, hill stations soon evolved beyond mere medical facilities to summer retreats from the hot weather and noisy cities at lower altitudes. They were designed to remind European expatriates of home, from the architecture to the parks and flowers. Ifrane is a stylish green oasis almost 1,700 meters (5,500 ft) above sea level in the summer that can double as a popular Alpine ski resort in the winter. However, snow doesn’t fall heavily every winter, so visitors can’t count on the ski season. Ifrane is a small village that often serves as a way station for tourists on their way to more bustling cities like Fez and Marrakesh.

When Morocco gained its independence from France, local Moroccans began to move in, bringing some of their own culture to Ifrane. Rich Berbers come for vacations and students for an education at the prestigious Al Akhawayn University, which opened its doors in 1995 as a public university with an American curriculum. The Moroccans made the town bigger by building a mosque, modern condominium complexes, and a public market. There are also gated housing plans and vacation centers popping up on Ifrane’s borders. The town is a popular destination for one-day skiing trips for the locals.

Show Me The Proof

Travel the Middle East: Ifrane, Morocco: Africa’s Little Switzerland
Smithsonian: Review of ‘The Great Hill Stations of Asia’
Amusing Planet: Ifrane, The Switzerland of Morocco
Morocco.com: Take a Trip to Ifrane in Morocco

The Strange Story Behind The Invention Of Revolving Doors

Chivalry died when women started readin’ the s—t in all them magazines. They got too much advice about men from other women.” —Dave Chapelle




In the late 1800s, Theophilus van Kannel supposedly designed a revolving door because he hated chivalry. He didn’t like to parry with other men over who should enter or exit a door first. Even worse, he hated to open doors for women. As early skyscrapers were built in US cities near the turn of the 20th century, revolving doors became important for internal temperature control. However, although a social phobia may have spurred van Kannel to design revolving doors, phobias, such as claustrophobia, may also keep people from using them.


Improving upon German inventor H. Bockhacker’s patent for a “door without draft of air,” Theophilus van Kannel received a patent for a “storm-door structure,” later called a “revolving door,” in 1888. As the story goes, van Kannel supposedly designed this type of door because he hated chivalry. He didn’t like to parry with other men over who should enter or exit a door first. Even worse, he hated to open doors for women, so we may have a social phobia to thank for his invention.
Fortunately for van Kannel, the revolving door turns etiquette on its head. Rather than wait for a woman to go first, a man is considered to be chivalrous if he leads the way through a revolving door, using his strength to push it into motion. “A gentleman should always go first and assist the woman through the revolving door, and I observe this on a daily basis,” said Joe Snyder, a doorman at the Park Hyatt Chicago hotel.

As early skyscrapers were built in US cities near the turn of the 20th century, revolving doors became important for internal temperature control. With regular hinged doors, outside air would rapidly flow in and rise to the top, making it difficult to keep buildings cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Revolving doors overcame that problem by producing airlocks, although people could still enter and exit. This type of door also reduced the influx of noise, dust, rain, and snow. In recent years, energy costs were estimated to fall by 30 percent when revolving doors were used instead of hinged doors.
However, revolving doors do pose one significant danger that became apparent when almost 500 people died in a fire at a Boston nightclub in 1942. The club had one revolving door that slowed the escape of fleeing patrons. As a result, many revolving doors now have traditional hinged doors placed on either side to make it easier to evacuate a building in an emergency.

Ironically, although a phobia may have spurred van Kannel to design revolving doors, phobias may also keep people from using them. Whether it’s the fear of being in a confined space, of getting your arms or legs caught in the door, or of getting trapped with another person in one of the compartments, many people avoid revolving doors. In 2006, some MIT researchers observed that no more than 30 percent of the students entering a particular building on campus used the revolving doors. The researchers put up some signs to encourage revolving door usage by touting their benefits.

Designer Andrew Shea repeated the MIT experiment a few years later at Columbia University in New York. He also observed that less than 30 percent of students entered a particular building through its revolving doors. When he placed signs on campus to promote the benefits of revolving doors, their usage increased to 71 percent.

Show Me The Proof

99% Invisible: Revolving Doors
Real Simple: A Man and a Woman Arrive at a Revolving Door. Who Goes Through First?
ABC: Circular logic: phobia, design and the revolving door
The Rockefeller University: Green Tip of the Month: Choose the Revolving Door

Michelangelo Made His Money With Forgeries

“Enough, enough, enough! Say no more! Lump the whole thing! say the Creator made Italy from designs by Michael Angelo!” —Mark Twain, “Innocents Abroad”




Michelangelo built his career on lucrative forgeries, although he went beyond mere imitation. He often borrowed drawings to make copies of them, keeping the original and passing off the copy as the real thing to the owner. In 1496, when he was only 21, he copied the marble sculpture Sleeping Eros. Through an art dealer, Michelangelo sold the fake for a large sum of money to Cardinal Raffaele Riario, a Roman antiquities collector. Instead of becoming angry when he learned of the forgery, Riario became the artist’s first patron.


At a young age, Michelangelo amassed great wealth that can’t be explained by sales of his original works. With antiquities up to 10 times more valuable than contemporary art during the Renaissance era, forgery was a lucrative profession. “We don’t have enough works like the David that we can connect to [his] money,” said art historian Lynn Catterson. “It means there might be a few more [forgeries by Michelangelo that] we don’t even know about that are hiding in Greek and Roman galleries pretending to be antiquities.”

Back then, forgery wasn’t considered a crime but instead a sign of artistic ability. It was also a way for young artists to train. Michelangelo built his career on forgeries, although he went beyond mere imitation. He often borrowed drawings to make copies of them, keeping the original and passing off the copy as the real thing to the owner. When Michelangelo made a painting of Martin Schongauer’s print of Saint Anthony, no one could distinguish between the two works. Michelangelo was skilled at using smoke to age his paintings, so they would look as old as the original.

In 1496, when he was only 21, Michelangelo copied the marble sculpture Sleeping Eros. Then he buried it to age it with scratches, dents, and stains. Through an art dealer, Michelangelo sold the fake for a large sum of money to Cardinal Raffaele Riario, a Roman antiquities collector.
Later, when Riario learned he had purchased a fake, he brought the sculpture back to the art dealer. By then, Michelangelo was Rome’s most popular artist, mainly because of his Pieta, the famous sculpture (seen above) in St. Peter’s Basilica that showed the Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Jesus. The art dealer eagerly took the return and resold the work of the now-famous Michelangelo to someone else.

In the Renaissance era, experts were often impressed by artists who fooled them. “Whether undertaken as a practical joke, to show that his work was as good as that of the ancients or for reasons of more nefarious intent, Michelangelo’s deception does not seem to have angered the original owner of the Sleeping Eros,” wrote art crime expert Noah Charney in The Art of Forgery. “Cardinal Riario became Michelangelo’s first patron in Rome.”

That forgiving attitude changed around the late 1800s, when forgery became an immoral deception. In modern times, many art forgers are unsuccessful artists whose own work was disregarded early in their careers. While money is certainly a factor, the main reason for most forgeries is passive-aggressive revenge. Art conservators who are forgers can also counterfeit documents to verify their fakes. That makes it difficult to detect some forgeries.

We used to rely on experts to authenticate works of art. However, the fear of costly lawsuits has stopped many art scholars from voicing their opinions, keeping some forgeries in the market and some recently discovered works off the market due to lack of verification.

Show Me The Proof

The Independent: Michelangelo’s fame built on forgery, claims author
NY Daily News: Forgery was part of doing business for Renaissance master Michelangelo: experts
CNN: Spot the fake: The art world’s pricey problem with forgery
Phaidon: Why forgery was a good move for Michelangelo
NY Times: In Art, Freedom of Expression Doesn’t Extend to ‘Is It Real?’

The Huge Controversy Behind Project Prevention

“How vastly important is it, then, for mothers to have a higher regard for their duties—to feel deeply the immense responsibilities that rest upon them! It is through their ministrations that the world grows worse or better.” —Timothy Shay Arthur, “The Mother’s Rule” (1856)




After Barbara Harris adopted four children abandoned by the same drug-addicted woman, she decided to found Project Prevention. This nonprofit actually pays addicts to use long-term birth control or undergo sterilization. As you might expect, it’s a pretty controversial organization.


Despite her drug-using ways, Destiny’s birth mom kept having and abandoning babies. It was so bad that one of Destiny’s brothers experienced severe heroin withdrawals for weeks after his birth. Angered by this woman’s irresponsibility, Barbara Harris began worrying about other children with smackhead parents. Not every child was lucky enough to end up in a loving, caring home like Destiny. That’s when Barbara decided to do something radical.

Inspired to save these kids from a horrible fate, Harris founded a non-profit called C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity), but today it’s best known as Project Prevention. Founded in 1997, Project Prevention has paid over 4,000 women $300 apiece to undergo tubal ligations or receive contraceptive implants.

 According to Barbara’s way of thinking, that’s thousands of kids who’ll never have to grow up in crack houses, scrounge in the streets, or suffer from years of abuse.

Over the years, Project Prevention has widened its horizons, and since 1997, it’s begun paying men to undergo vasectomies and has even opened up headquarters in the UK. Of course, not everyone agrees with Barbara’s methods. Quite a few people draw parallels between Project Prevention and the eugenics movement. Others claim she’s taking advantage of women when they’re incredibly vulnerable.

However, as RadioLab producer Pat Walters pointed out, the most interesting argument against Project Prevention is Destiny Harris, Barbara’s adopted daughter. While she was born to a drug-addicted mother, today she’s a college graduate with a loving family and a daughter of her own. But what if Barbara Harris had paid to sterilize Destiny’s mom? How many potentially happy lives has Project Prevention, well, prevented?

Of course, if you asked Destiny herself, she’d tell you in no uncertain terms that she supports Barbara’s program. In fact, if she had the choice between possibly growing up in a world full of drugs and abuse or never being born at all, she’d go with the second option. “I wouldn’t want to put it up to chance,” she says, “because what kind of life is that?”

Show Me The Proof

Project Prevention
RadioLab: What If There Was No Destiny?
VICE: An Interview with the Woman Who Pays Drug Addicts to Get Sterilized
TIME: Why Drug Addicts Are Getting Sterilized for Cash

When A 17-Year-Old Girl Struck Out Two Baseball Legends

“After all, there’s only one answer to be made to the young fellow who is asking constantly for advice as to how to hit. The answer is: ‘Pick out a good one and sock it!’ ” —Babe Ruth




Jackie Mitchell loved sports. This 17-year-old leftie was especially fond of baseball. So when she was offered a chance to play for the Chattanooga Lookouts—and thus become the second woman to play professional baseball—she jumped at the chance. And in her first game, Mitchell found herself pitching against two legends: Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth. And she got ’em both.


Her name was Jackie Mitchell, and she was the second woman to play professional baseball. Sure, that’s an impressive feat, but that’s nothing compared to what happened when Jackie stepped onto the field. In 1931, this 17-year-old southpaw went up against two of the greatest hitters in baseball history: Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth.
Growing up in Memphis, one of Jackie’s neighbors was Dazzy Vance, a future Hall of Famer who taught the girl how to throw a mean sinker. During her teen years, Jackie played basketball in winter and women’s baseball in spring, and that’s when she caught the attention of Joe Engel, president of the Chattanooga Lookouts, a men’s minor league team. Known as the “P.T. Barnum of Baseball,” Engel loved a good gimmick. It was the Great Depression after all, and you had to fill those seats somehow.
A woman playing alongside the guys was a guaranteed draw, especially if she pitched in an exhibition game against the New York Yankees.
When Engel offered Jackie a contract, she didn’t hesitate, even though she only had a few days to practice for the big game. Finally, on April 2, Mitchell stepped into a stadium packed with 4,000 people and was introduced to the dynamic duo, Ruth and Gehrig. After Jackie took a few publicity photos with the Great Bambino and the Iron Horse, the game got underway.

When Ruth stepped up to the plate, the Lookouts replaced their starting pitcher with Jackie. The 17-year-old made her way to the mound, ready to face baseball’s most legendary hitter . . . and she struck him out.

 Her first two pitches were curves that baffled the Sultan of Swat, and her third was a fastball straight down the middle. Babe was so upset that he tossed his bat in frustration.
Gehrig also went down in three. She’d destroyed the greatest batters on the planet in just six pitches.
Jackie walked the next batter, probably because her arm hurt (remember, she only had a few days to warm up) so the Lookouts replaced her.

When she stepped off the field, everybody in the stadium cheered in admiration. But while she struck out Ruth and Gehrig, her career with the Lookouts didn’t last. Some say baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis canceled her contract although there’s no proof of that. Whatever happened, Jackie eventually left baseball and ended up in her father’s optometry business.

Sure, there are doubters, people who think the whole thing was a hoax. But up until the day she died in 1987, Jackie Mitchell swore she’d really struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, back to back, a feat most male pitchers only dreamed of.

Show Me The Proof

 Featured photo via Wikipedia
Baseball Hall of Fame: Dazzy Vance
VICE: The Woman Who Struck Out Babe Ruth And Lou Gehrig
The Daily Beast: The Myth of Jackie Mitchell, the Girl Who Struck Out Ruth and Gehrig
Smithsonian: The Woman Who (Maybe) Struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig

The Difference Between Gelato And Ice Cream

“Life is like an ice cream cone: You have to learn to lick it.” —Charles M. Schulz

While equally delicious, the higher fat content and added air of ice cream is what separates it from its frozen friend, gelato.

Gelato and ice cream seem one and the same to the untrained eye. Both frozen, creamy treats enjoyed by many with a variety of flavors, it’s hard to know what truly separates them aside from the slight tweak in texture. But there’s obviously something going on here—it’s all in how they are created.
In the USA, ice cream is regulated by the FDA, which dictates that it must contain at least 10 percent milk fat with most containing anywhere from 14 percent to 17 percent. On the other scoop, gelato has a fat content of around 3 percent to 10 percent, as it has no such regulations.

There’s also a special surprise in your ice cream tub you might not have known you had—a nice big spoonful of air, in some cases up to half the carton, just like the delicious kind you find in bags of potato chips. You see, during the production of ice cream, air is pumped in while the cream is whipped, greatly increasing the volume of the treat and simultaneously making it easier to scoop and quicker to melt.

Gelato however contains minimal air, only the amount that would be necessary for structure and scoopability, which makes its texture so creamy (despite the fact it contains much less actual cream than ice cream).

Show Me The Proof

Ice Cream vs. Gelato
Ice Cream vs. Gelato: The Differences of Frozen Desserts
What Is Gelato And How Does It Differ From Ice Cream?

 

The Massacre At Frank Lloyd Wright’s Estate

“I wanted to fill the grave myself.” —Frank Lloyd Wright

In 1914, celebrated architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s grand estate, Taliesin, was burnt to the ground by a servant named Julian Carlton. As the building burned, Carlton attacked the occupants with an axe, murdering seven. To this day, no one knows why.

Frank Lloyd Wright was America’s foremost architect, perhaps best known for the Fallingwater estate. He also had what might be politely called a “wandering eye,” despite a long marriage and six children. In 1903, while designing a house, he began carrying on with the wife of his client, Mamah Cheney. Wright’s wife, Kitty, refused him a divorce, figuring that his infatuation with Cheney would dry up as it had with all the previous women he’d dallied around with. To escape the absolute scandal that the affair had lit, Wright and Cheney lived in Europe for some time. Eventually, they moved back to America, staying in Wright’s secluded Wisconsin estate, Taliesin (named after a medieval Welsh poet).

On August 14, 1914, Taliesin was struck by unimaginable carnage. While members of the household were having lunch, newly hired servant Julian Carlton bolted the doors, drenched the floors in gasoline, and set the building ablaze. In the chaos, Carlton materialized with an axe, killing seven, including Mamah and her two children, Martha (age nine) and John (age 12). When rescuers arrived, they found Carlton nearby, foaming at the mouth from swallowing hydrochloric acid in a failed suicide bid. He was nearly lynched at the scene, but was eventually brought to jail.

Wright, who’d been away on business in Chicago, returned home the next day to what he would describe as a “devastating scene of horror.” Carlton, an immigrant from Barbados, never revealed his motive. There were theories that perhaps the couple “living in sin” offended his strict Christian sensibilities. But murdering children and attempting suicide would seem like extreme solutions. Frank Lloyd Wright never would get any answers to the mystery behind Carlton’s rampage. The servant made a few court appearances, but declined to say what inspired his bloodlust. He starved to death a few weeks later.

Although Taliesin was largely destroyed by the fire, Wright vowed to rebuild it as a tribute to his beloved Mamah. He succeeded, but bizarrely enough, Taliesin II would also burn to the ground, apparently the result of an electrical surge. Taliesin III stands to this day. Frank Lloyd Wright died in 1959, aged 91.

Show Me The Proof

Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin
Mystery of the murders at Taliesin
The Taliesin massacre

 

When Russia Made Vodka Illegal

During the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian soldiers had a problem—vodka. Not about to let the same problems continue through World War I, Tsar Nicholas II made an incredibly ill-advised decision: He banned vodka. Even though the government tried to spin it as though life was so grand without the drink that even the animals were more happy, there was actually rioting in the streets, along with an increased demand for varnish and furniture polish. It also meant the loss of about one-third of the government’s revenue, and that’s never a good thing, especially during wartime.

If there’s anything that’s more Russian than vodka, we’re not sure what it is. While Russians might not actually drink as much as you’d expect, they do drink lots and lots of vodka, and they have for decades. But in 1914, Tsar Nicholas II banned vodka in a ruling that would force prohibition for the next 11 years.

The theory was at least somewhat sound, and incredibly similar to what the French were doing with absinthe. World War I was lingering just on the horizon, and the powers that be wanted their troops to be in their finest fighting shape. They couldn’t do that when they had unregulated access to vodka, and Russia had been through the problems before.

Only 10 years prior, they’d been at war with Japan. They’d found their soldiers to be less than capable, with their finest fighting men regularly inebriated and diagnosed with chronic, alcohol-related disorders. So the tsar decided it was about time to do something drastic about it, but as well-meaning as it might have been, it didn’t have a good effect.

The ban was made even more dramatic not just because of the impact it was going to have on the morale of the troops and of the civilians, but also because revenue from vodka accounted for a whopping one-third of the revenue of the country. The country’s 1915 budget had to be drastically cut to make up for the massive shortage.

Needless to say, the ban didn’t go over well. August 1914 saw rioting and the destruction of more than 200 drinking establishments, and the military was dispatched to put down the chaos that stormed the streets. Hundreds upon hundreds of people died, and those that had stashes of alcohol—like the wine cellars of the nobility—were forced to dump their booze to keep from becoming a target for thirsty soldiers.

And, because where there’s a will there’s a way, the vodka ban resulted in a massive upswing in another area of manufacturing: the large-scale production of varnishes and furniture polish. The Russian people couldn’t have their vodka, so they resorted to brewing and distilling whatever they could make at home out of anything that they could get their hands on.
Those that were turning to their own home brew were getting their fix elsewhere; cocaine and heroin replaced vodka, and even though those, too, were technically illegal, traffic from Greece meant that opium was pretty readily available.

That all didn’t keep the Russian government from trying to spin it so it sounded like banning vodka was the best thing that had happened to the country since sliced bread. According to the official reports and the verdict of what we’re going to say is some questionable statistical research, Russian life was amazing after vodka disappeared.

Not only were people happier, but so were all the domesticated animals in the country. Hospitals and asylums were virtually empty, doctors were left just sitting around twiddling their thumbs (we assume). Suddenly, everyone was saving all the money they had been spending on vodka before. The government admitted that there were, however, some problems.
Sadly, the suicide rate was so far down that medical schools were a little short on corpses for their lessons.
And things weren’t so rosy for the government, either. War is expensive, after all, and a world war isn’t the time to be cutting your available income by about 30 percent. The tsar was unable to keep the government afloat; more importantly, he wasn’t able to buy his supporters’ loyalties anymore, either.
And we all know what happened to the tsar.

Show Me The Proof

 

Russia Beyond the Headlines: Sobering effect: What happened when Russia banned booze
The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith
The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka & Politics in Late Imperial Russia, by Patricia Herlihy

The First Female Doctor In The US Was Allowed To Study Only As A Joke

“Physicians, of all men, are most happy: whatever good success soever they have, the world proclaimeth and what faults they commit, the earth covereth.” —Frances Quarles, “Hieroglyphics of the Life of Man”




As a young woman in the early 1800s, Elizabeth Blackwell was disgusted by the very thought of studying medicine. However, when a dying friend told her that a female doctor would have made her illness easier, Blackwell applied to medical school. As a joke, there was a unanimous vote to admit her. Although patients and other doctors initially shunned her after she became a doctor, Blackwell went on to establish the New York Infirmary for Women and Children, providing healthcare for the poor and medical training for other women. She also helped to found the London School of Medicine for Women.


As a young woman in the early 1800s, Elizabeth Blackwell was disgusted by the very thought of studying medicine. She chose to go into teaching instead. However, when a dying friend told her that a female doctor would have made her illness easier, Elizabeth applied to over a dozen medical schools. All but Geneva Medical College in New York rejected her. But Geneva didn’t really want a woman, either. The dean and faculty decided to let the all-male student body vote on Elizabeth’s admission. If anyone voted against it, they would reject her.

However, as a joke, the students voted unanimously to accept Elizabeth. No one thought she would actually show up for school. But she surprised everyone, eventually graduating with her class in 1847 as the first American woman to earn an MD.

In 1849, Elizabeth traveled to Paris for post-graduate work at the renowned maternity hospital, La Maternite. While there, she treated a baby with eye infections, possibly from gonorrhea passed on by the mother during birth. When Elizabeth accidentally spread the infection to her own left eye, she was blinded in that eye, ending her dream of becoming a surgeon. Next, she went to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, where she practiced everything except gynecology and pediatrics, which were to become her specialties.

Elizabeth returned to New York City in 1850. Hardly anyone wanted to go to a woman doctor, so she eventually set up medical help for people who wouldn’t be so concerned with her gender: the poor. In 1857, along with Dr. Emily Blackwell, her sister, and Dr. Marie Zakrzewska, Elizabeth Blackwell founded the New York Infirmary for Women and Children, providing healthcare for the poor and medical training for other women.

Emily Blackwell had become the third woman in America to earn an MD in 1854. Like her sister, Emily was rejected by almost every medical college to which she applied. Rush Medical College in Chicago accepted her but kicked her out of the program after the first year at the insistence of the Medical Society of Illinois. She eventually finished her training at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. After moving to America and meeting Emily, Marie applied to Case Western’s School of Medicine, too. She earned her MD in 1856.
Despite the tremendous contributions of all three women to the opening of the New York Infirmary, it was Emily who kept the institution going strong after Elizabeth and Marie left for other opportunities two years later.

In the following years, Elizabeth spent a lot of time traveling through Europe. She wrote frequently on topics of medicine and health. She also became involved in social reform, especially women’s rights, Christian socialism and various medical issues. In the mid-1870s, Elizabeth helped to found the London School of Medicine for Women. She ended her career there as a professor of gynecology in 1907, when a fall down some stairs left her with serious injuries. Elizabeth died in 1910 from a stroke.

Show Me The Proof

Changing the Face of Medicine: Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Dr. Emily Blackwell, Dr. Marie E. Zakrzewska
PBS Newshour: How Elizabeth Blackwell became the first female doctor in the U.S.

Death From Snake Or Spider Bite Is Extremely Rare

“Spiders were around long before humans, and it is likely they will be around in some number far into the future, even if humans are not.” —Leslie Brunetta & Catherine L. Craig, Spider Silk




Spiders and snakes creep us out and are probably near the top of many people’s lists of fears. However, their bites are among the least likely killers. In the United States you have about a one in 50 million chance of dying from snake bite. And since the dawn of modern anti-venom, death from spider is almost nonexistent. Even in Australia there have been no reported deaths by spider since 1979.


The things that creep and crawl along the ground—they are almost a primal fear in humans. They slither, they move on way too many legs, it seems unnatural. This has caused us to have great fear of creatures like spiders and snakes. Many people would say they are one of the things they fear the most, and the misconception that you can easily die because of a snake or spider is very widespread. However, you are much more likely to die in an automobile accident, or even get struck by lightning.

When it comes to snakes, many of them are not even venomous and not all of those who are present a significant threat to humans. And while countries like the United States may not have many poisonous spiders, even in Australia they’ve got a pretty good handle on the whole snake bit thing. The reason for this is anti-venom and current medical technology. Unless someone is out in the wilderness and too far away from a hospital, in all likelihood they will be perfectly fine. Venomous snakes are also capable of controlling whether they actually inject poison when they bite you. When they decline to actually poison you, it is known as a “dry bite.” Studies have shown that for some snakes the percentage of dry bites is as high as 50 percent.

As for spiders, many people are under the impression that spider bites are common, but they are not. In truth, that freaky apparatus with too many legs creeping across your floor is much more scared of you than you are of it. After all, humans are quite huge in comparison and spiders gain nothing from attacking us. Experts have found that in many cases people misinterpreted other things as spider bites, and suggested that doctors should spend more time learning what bites are caused by what insects. Of course, some spiders are capable of biting humans and will do so if provoked. However, even in the cases of the most dangerous spiders in the world, they won’t really have a realistic chance of killing you before you can get to a hospital. In Australia there have been no reported spider deaths in many, many years.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get medical attention if you believe you have been bitten by a venomous snake or spider. If that is the case you should call emergency services and get anti-venom for it. The anti-venom is the key though. Now that we have the technology, unless you are miles from any civilization or hospitals, we’ve just about got the poisonous snake and spider problem licked.

Show Me The Proof

University of Florida: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation: Venomous Snake FAQs
Burke Museum: Myths About “Dangerous Spiders”
Arthropod Ecology: Spiders do not bite

 

The Difference Between Bengal And Siberian Tigers

“Even after killing ninety nine tigers the Maharaja should beware of the hundredth.” —Kalki Krishnamurthy, in “The Tiger King”




Tigers are the largest members of the cat family, and the subject of numerous, worldwide conservation efforts. There are several different subspecies of tiger (three have already gone extinct in this century), with the Siberian (or “Amur”) and the Bengal being the most commonly seen and spoken about. While they might look very similar, differences include size, habitat, and even their color.


One of the most obvious differences is where they are found. The Bengal tiger is also known as the Indian tiger, as it found in scattered (now rather isolated) pockets throughout India. There are also Bengal tigers found in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, and along the eastern coast of China. The climate here is temperate to tropical and very wet, with the tigers thriving in mangrove forests, grasslands, and deciduous forests.

The Siberian tiger’s natural habitat is the much, much colder areas to the north. The handful that still exist in the wild can mostly be found in the chilly forests of Eastern Russia, with some in the northernmost parts of China and Korea. In stark contrast to the more temperate habitats of its cousins, the Siberian tiger thrives in coniferous and birch forests where the temperatures can reach as low as -45° Celsius (-50 F).

The differences in habitat mean that the Siberian tiger has developed a much thicker, heavier coat than the Bengal. They also tend to have thick fat stores along their sides and belly that help to keep them insulated against the below-freezing temperatures.

There are also differences in color that developed from their different habitats. The Siberian tiger is the lightest of all tiger subspecies, with their coats tending to be a much paler orange than their southern cousins. The stripes of a Siberian tiger are brown instead of black, but all tigers share the trait of having completely unique stripe patterns, much like our fingerprints. While tigers are very fast over short distances, they use camouflage to stalk their prey; the drastic difference in color is necessary to keep them hidden in their different environments.

Siberian tigers are the bigger of the two subspecies, with males weighing up to 300 kilograms (675 lbs) and standing up to 0.9 meters (3 ft) at the shoulder. Bengal tigers tend to reach their max size at around 240 kilograms (525 lbs), while being slightly shorter. The females of both species are considerably smaller than the males.

Habitat differences also lead to a different diet, though both tiger subspecies are easily capable of single-handedly taking down prey that is much, much bigger than they are. The Siberian tiger tends to hunt creatures like elk and deer, but has been known to kill and eat bears as well as smaller game.

The Bengal will hunt water buffalo, wild pigs, and other large, hoofed animals, even rhinos and elephants. Bengals that have been tagged and released show a wide hunting ground, covering up to 50 square kilometers (20 sq mi) in a single night’s hunt. The Siberian can cover twice that.

The Bengal is the least endangered of the tiger species, but that’s not necessarily something to be proud of. They could once be found throughout their South Asia habitat, but as of 2013 it’s estimated that there are only about 1,850 individuals left in the wild. The Siberian tiger, too, is being pushed out of their native habitat. While the harsh conditions they live in make it less likely that they’re going to encroach on someone’s territory, logging and deforestation—along with poaching—have left less than 500 individuals in the wild.

Show Me The Proof

NatGeo: Siberian Tiger
Natgeo: Bengal Tiger
ARKive: Tiger videos, photos and facts

The Only Relic Collection That Rivals The Vatican Is In Pittsburgh

Note: Pictured above are two bones of saints, a relic held in St. Anthony’s Chapel.
 
“In the relics of the saints the Lord Christ has provided us with saving fountains which in many ways pour out benefactions and gush with fragrant ointment. And let no one disbelieve.” —St. John of Damascus

Except for the Vatican, St. Anthony’s Chapel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has the largest collection of sacred relics of the Catholic Church. On the outside, it’s a small chapel that blends into the drab, working-class neighborhood surrounding it. But inside, there are over 5,000 relics, most of which are first or second class, meaning they were the body parts or possessions of saints. The collection was amassed by Father Suitbert Godfrey Mollinger, popularly known in the late 1800s as the “healing priest,” who practiced a combination of faith healing and medicine. Neither St. Anthony’s nor Father Mollinger is well known today.


Except for the Vatican, St. Anthony’s Chapel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has the largest collection of sacred relics of the Catholic Church. On the outside, it’s a small chapel that blends into the drab, working-class neighborhood of Troy Hill that surrounds it. But inside, there are over 5,000 relics, most of which are first or second class, meaning they were the body parts or possessions of saints.

To early Christians, relics were important because they were believed to possess the holiness of the persons to whom they once belonged. The faithful can receive supernatural graces by being near a relic. “So early Christians worshiped in the presence of relics,” explained Donna Spivey Ellington, an authority on relics. “That is the reason that relics are placed in altars. It’s why they worshiped in catacombs. It wasn’t to get away from persecution, but because that was where the saints were buried. We are to worship with the saints and martyrs in order to have the sense of heaven on earth.”
In St. Anthony’s, some of the popular relics include bone fragments from the apostles, threads from the veil of the Virgin Mary, and 22 splinters from the wooden cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified. Even so, very few people are aware of the collection or its significance.

The collection was amassed by Father Suitbert Godfrey Mollinger, popularly known in the late 1800s as the “healing priest,” who practiced a combination of faith healing and medicine. Born into a rich family in Belgium, Mollinger went to medical school in Italy before studying theology in Belgium. In 1868, he arrived in Troy Hill as a missionary and became the pastor of Troy Hill’s Most Holy Name of Jesus parish.

In the US in the late 1800s, Mollinger became known for medical miracles. He treated poor patients for free in Pittsburgh and sometimes gave them medicines he mixed himself. Other times, he would practice faith healing, which didn’t make him popular with other priests in the region. A trolley line to Troy Hill was so packed with the sick and handicapped that it was called “The Ambulance.” Troy Hill itself was once called the “Mecca of Invalids.” However, the Church won’t comment on whether Mollinger actually performed any miracle healings. “We can say that many healings did occur here, whether it was due to the medicine, the prayer, or the relics in the chapel,” said Carole Brueckner of the Most Holy Name of Jesus parish. “But, as Catholics we believe that all healing comes from God.”

At the same time as he practiced faith healing, Mollinger used his personal fortune to buy thousands of authenticated relics in Europe that were in danger of being destroyed by anti-Catholic forces in Italy and Germany. He later founded St. Anthony’s Chapel to hold the relics he had collected. Mollinger died in 1892.
Neither St. Anthony’s Chapel nor Father Mollinger is well known today.

Show Me The Proof

Roads & Kingdoms: The Holy Bones of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The healing priest & St. Anthony’s Chapel in Troy Hill holds heavenly artifacts
Saint Anthony’s Chapel: Relics

Why Technology Might Not Help Restore Sight To All Blind People

“Dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore; / Give me to see, and Ajax asks no more.” —Homer, “The Iliad”

In some cases, sight can be partially restored to people who have been blind for a long time. However, the brain rewires the senses to compensate for blindness, meaning that most long-term blind people may never fully regain their sight. In the blind, the visual cortex can route sound for echolocation and touch for reading Braille. But the blind can still mentally picture objects like tables, except for color. 

 Blind people can see. They mentally picture objects like tables, except for color. That’s why sighted people have such a hard time understanding the perceptions of the blind. Sighted people detect objects visually by sensing the differences in wavelengths of light, which we perceive as color, to determine where the borders are between different areas or objects. In other words, we’re just defining objects visually by differences in color.

If you don’t believe it, try imagining a table in your mind that has absolutely no color. If your mental image uses black or white, you’re cheating. When we say no color, we mean there can’t be any borders differentiated by color at all. If you can’t do it—which you probably can’t—it’s because in a strange twist, your ability to see has blinded you.

However, if you ask a blind person to mentally picture a table without color, he can do it easily. His mental image of objects aren’t visual, but they are spatial. “My image of the table is exactly the same as a table,” said Paul Gabias, who was blinded shortly after birth. “It has height, depth, width, texture; I can picture the whole thing all at once. It just has no color.” He constructs his images through touch and echolocation, a way of figuring out where objects are by listening to the reflected sounds when he taps his cane or clicks his tongue. Echolocation is the same technique bats use to navigate and track prey. Not all blind people are able to echolocate.

However, the ability of blind people to see in these ways has also rewired some parts of their brains that perceive senses. To understand the difference, let’s look at how sighted people use their brains to see. First, the visual information is routed to the back of the brain in an area called the visual cortex. Next, the information travels to the parietal lobe, which lets us sense where the object is. Then the information goes to the temporal lobe, which tells us what the object is.

Through brain-imaging experiments using fMRI machines, scientists discovered that blind people see by using the same parts of the brain to process touch and sound that sighted people use for vision. For example, the visual cortex processes the touch data that blind people receive from reading Braille. But their perception is spatial—they determine where the dots are located relative to one another in a type of map—rather than visual. The visual cortex also processes the sound information that some blind people use to echolocate. Again, it’s a spatial perception rather than a visual one. However, these maps may be detailed enough at times to allow the blind to hike, ride mountain bikes, and play basketball.

There’s even (at least) one blind man who uses echolocation to successfully go hunting.
But there can be a downside to this. In some cases, sight can be partially restored to people who have been blind for a long time. However, after the brain rewires the senses to compensate for blindness, most long-term blind people may never fully regain their sight. “This important brain reorganization represents a challenge for people encountering eye surgery to recover vision, because the deprived and reorganized occipital cortex [where the visual cortex is located] may not be capable of seeing anymore after having spent years in the dark,” said Giulia Dormal, who led a study on sight restoration for the long-term blind. Using fMRI images to compare how a patient processes sight and sound before and after vision surgery, the researchers found that the brain doesn’t totally recover its visual processing. Some overlap in visual and sound processing may remain in the brain even months after surgery, leaving some aspects of vision below normal.

Show Me The Proof

Health Canal: How does the brain adapt to the restoration of eyesight?
LiveScience: How Do Blind People Picture Reality?
LiveScience: Blind People ‘See’ Shapes, Navigate Using Echoes

The Throat Virus Linked To A Slowdown In Your Brain

“If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.” —Emerson M. Pugh

After your mid-twenties, your brain will begin to shrink. Some cognitive decline, such as forgetfulness, is inevitable if you live long enough. To help fight dementia, Public Health England is devising a test to determine your brain age. However, not all cognitive problems are related to dementia. ATCV-1, an algae virus found in the throats of some humans, has been linked to a slowdown in our brains, affecting the visual processing, spatial awareness, and attention spans of otherwise healthy individuals.


After your mid-twenties, your brain will begin to shrink. Some cognitive decline, such as forgetfulness and impaired problem solving, is inevitable if you live long enough. To help fight dementia, Public Health England is devising a test to determine your brain age. Until it’s ready, a comparable quiz is available online (see link below) and in the book, The Anti-Alzheimer’s Prescription, written by neurology professor Vincent Fortanasce.

The questions assess your lifestyle—what you eat, how much you sleep, and whether you exercise. They also evaluate your current state of health. Based on your answers to these 25 yes or no questions, the test will compare your brain age to your chronological age. Dr. Jack Lewis, coauthor of Sort Your Brain Out, believes you can slow the decline of your brain in several ways. A lot of it is standard advice these days. He suggests reducing free radicals by limiting your consumption of red meat while increasing the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables you eat to at least five portions per day. Of course, he recommends getting at least a moderate amount of exercise. Finally, he suggests taking up hobbies that challenge you mentally, such as playing a musical instrument, playing chess, dancing, or reading.
However, not all cognitive problems are related to dementia. ATCV-1, an algae virus found in the throats of some humans, has been linked to a slowdown in our brains, affecting the visual processing, spatial awareness, and attention spans of otherwise healthy individuals. This type of chlorovirus can often be found in green algae in rivers, lakes, and ponds. Several years ago when examining the brain tissue of dead people, researchers discovered that ATCV-1 had made the jump to humans. But it was unclear whether the virus had entered the brain tissue before the individuals died.

Then scientists encountered the virus again, this time in the throat cultures of individuals with psychiatric illnesses. That spurred a study of 92 healthy people, 43 percent of whom showed infection with the virus. More concerning was the apparent link between this virus and a 10 percent slowdown in the visual processing of those healthy individuals infected with it. They also had moderately shorter attention spans and difficulty with spatial awareness. But scientists could only conclude that there was a link between ATCV-1 and a slowdown in brain function; they couldn’t prove that the virus caused the slowdown. It was possible that another unknown factor was involved.

“This is a striking example showing that the ‘innocuous’ microorganisms we carry can affect behavior and cognition,” said lead investigator Robert Yolken of Johns Hopkins. “Many physiological differences between person A and person B are encoded in the set of genes each inherits from parents, yet some of these differences are fueled by the various microorganisms we harbor and the way they interact with our genes.”

To further study the issue of causality, researchers infected some mice with the algae virus, then tested their brain function against healthy mice injected with green algae that didn’t carry the virus. The infected mice had problems with memory and attention span. Scientists also discovered that almost 1,300 genes in the hippocampus regions of these infected mice had changed. The hippocampus is the part of the brain that affects memory and spatial awareness.

Even so, this study doesn’t tell us with absolute certainty how humans are affected by ATCV-1. For now, the cognitive effects on humans are small enough that we don’t need to worry about them. But scientists are concerned that people who work around water or with seafood may suffer negative health effects from contamination with this virus. More studies are needed to find out.

Show Me The Proof

i100: Quiz: What’s your brain age?
The Independent: Forgetful? Distracted? Foggy? How to keep your brain young
PNAS: Algal virus found in humans, slows brain activity
Phys.org: Researchers identify algae-virus DNA in humans

Cats Aren’t Really Domesticated

"We own a dog—he is with us as a slave and inferior because we wish him to be. But we entertain a cat—he adorns our hearth as a guest, fellow-lodger, and equal because he wishes to be there.”

Ask anyone who doesn’t like cats and you’ll hear them testify that they’re standoffish, only occasionally sociable, and would be absolutely fine with digging into us for a meal should we die in our sleep. While others swear that cuddly little Fluffy would never do that, it turns out that there are only a few genes that separate Fluffy from the king of the jungle. There are about 13, to be more precise, and it’s only the genes that govern things like fear and docility that have changed. The rest of the house cat is still a wild cat, and researchers are now saying that at best, they’re only semi-domesticated. 

When it comes to the age old question of cats vs. dogs, there are some very distinct and well-established views on who makes the better companion. Critics of cats often describe them as aloof, unpredictable creatures that merely tolerate our presence for their convenience. Well, it turns out that they may actually be more duplicitous than even their harshest critics have given them credit for. According to researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine, they’re not even actually domesticated.
They’re just letting us think they are.
Cats have been living with and alongside humans for 9,000 years. In those 9,000 years, though, they’ve retained most of their genetic makeup. Researchers mapped out the DNA of a domestic cat named Cinnamon and compared it with the DNA of humans, dogs, and wild cats. And there’s not that much difference at all between the genetic makeup of our house cats and their wild cousins.

In fact, they found that over 9,000 years of supposed domestication, there’s only a difference of 13 genes between the cats that lounge at the foot of the bed at night and the ones that we see at the zoo.
When it comes to most genes, cats remain the same as they were in the wild. They’ve kept all the same senses and abilities, they’ve kept the same meat-based diets, and the digestive systems to cope with being a carnivore. Because they’re still mainly carnivores and they’re still equipped to be able to hunt and find their own food, they don’t actually need us.
While dogs have been bred over generations and generations to accent certain traits and get rid of others, cats have only been bred into distinct breeds for the last 200 years or so. That means that dogs have had thousands and thousands of years to become more dependent on us for their survival, while cats . . .
Cats really do just tolerate us.

The difference in the genes between wild cats and our household companions are, obviously, cosmetic ones. They’re in the colors and patterns, they’re in the genes that determine the structure of their faces, and they’re in genes for docility. This goes hand in hand with how we think we domesticated the cat.
The theory says that humans generally realized cats were useful for keeping pests away from homes and food. Cats would kill rats and the like, and they’d be rewarded for it. But rather than actually domesticating the animals, we were just encouraging a natural behavior in the cats that were most inclined not to be afraid of us.
We succeeded in selecting the cats that were genetically more docile, friendlier, and more accepting of a human presence, but we absolutely didn’t domesticate them. We didn’t breed out the traits that might have made them as unmanageable as many people think that they can be today. We still wanted them to be able to hunt, to catch mice, and to patrol our fields, our crops, and our barns. What makes them useful is what makes them independent, and that goes for all of the estimated 600 million “domesticated” cats in the world.
They also continue to breed with wild cats, helping to keep their wild genes running through the population. The result is a constant companion that really just keeps us around because we have thumbs that can open and navigate the complications of the treat packages making them, at best, only semi-domesticated.

Show Me The Proof

The Independent: Why cats will probably never be as domesticated as dogs
The Atlantic: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Your Cat
LA Times: Semi-domesticated? House cats not far removed from wild, genome shows