Music As Art

For most people, the name Jennifer Batten doesn't ring any bells. That's unfortunate.

For most of the balance of us, the name Jennifer Batten is associated with the spiked hair and gawdy outfits of a "no-name" female guitarist seen on stage with Michael Jackson, a gig she maintained for about ten years, between 1987 and 1997. We may have seen her play the "Beat It" solo on various live Michael Jackson, but other than that, let's face it: Michael Jackson was never known for writing great guitar music.

Still, he was an artist with the kind of stature that can demand only the best in terms of side musicians, and Batten's on-stage persona was so captivating that curious guitarists growing up at the time, like me, couldn't help but look her up on a then-budding internet. The information we found was sparse, but with the help of some well-placed print ads in the back of guitar magazines, I was able to gather that Jennifer Batten had an interesting solo album out called Momentum, which was only available via mail order, and that she had appeared on a few of those "great guitar player" compilation CDs.

When I finally did hear the recording that made her reputation among guitar players - not the Momentum album, but rather a rock-guitar version of "Flight of the Bumblebee" - I was less than impressed. For one thing, did anyone really need to hear another rock guitar version of "Flight of the Bumblebee?" (I found out later that Batten's version was among the first.) For another thing, I was already knee-deep in the flat-picked stylings of Steve Vai and John Petrucci. Some chick playing gimmicky two-hand tapping stuff just didn't do it for a young musical idiot like myself. So, for years, I figured she was just some woman who managed to get the Michael Jackson gig because female rock guitar players were rare.

Looking back on all this today, I feel stupid, ignorant, and immature.

My favorite guitar player at that time was another 80s rock icon, one who had also recorded a "Bumblebee" song: Nuno Bettencourt. I was fairly obsessed with him, to the point that I dreamed of one day owning his signature guitar: a Washburn N4. Boy, did I ever want one of those.

One day, I went to the local music store and saw that they were selling a rare padauk N4 for a little more than $700. The salesman made a great pitch, and I almost bought it. (To this day, I kick myself for not having done so.) But I was extremely budget conscious and decided to go with something more in my price range. Looking around the showroom, my eyes honed in on another Washburn guitar, the BT-10 Maverick. It had a carved, flamed maple cap on an alder body with a maple neck and a rosewood fretboard. It had dot inlays, but they were off-centered on the fretboard, making them look extra cool. The guitar also featured a Floyd Rose whammy bar and cream binding. What a beauty! And at $400, it was exactly what I was looking for. I bought it in a cherry finish.

The BT-10 would serve as my next exposure to the world of Jennifer Batten. When I got home, I discovered that it was her signature axe. My chauvinistic pride took a hit (I bought a girl's guitar!), but after a while it didn't matter. The guitar was eye-catching and played really well. I took to it quickly, and it served me faithfully as my main guitar for the next five years. I still own it today, and it serves its purpose as my only tremolo-equipped instrument.

So, how could a mere girl, one whose only claims to fame were a gig with Michael Jackson and a two-hand-tapping version of "Flight of the Bumblebee", have her own signature guitar? Worse, how could she have one that I really liked? It didn't make sense to me. From time to time, I'd scan the internet for more information, only to once again discover little more than a link to her Momentum album.

One day, I came across a video of a live performance by guitar legend Jeff Beck playing a cover of "A Day in the Life." In the background was a woman with long blonde hair playing a guitar that looked familiar. Hey, I thought, she's playing a Washburn BT! That's my guitar! Then I realized that I was looking at Jennifer Batten. How did the Michael Jackson guitarist land a gig with one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century?

I quickly opened up a new browser window and searched for all the information I could find about Jennifer Batten: two-hand-tapping wizard, acclaimed guitarist for the Michael Jackson band, with a successful solo career, currently touring with Jeff Beck. It was right about then that I got over my stupid "girls can't play the guitar" mentality and started letting my ears be the final arbiter.

What I soon discovered was a musician with such a stunning level of expressiveness on the instrument, such remarkable virtuosity, but more. Her notes sang, laughed, cried, while each song undulated with a funky mix of jazz, rock, world beat, and clever experimentation. Jennifer Batten's musical world proved to be one marked with an artistry that, frankly, few of even the best players can match.

Suddenly it no longer seemed surprising that this was the artist who had been hand-picked by Jeff Beck for his touring band. Suddenly it was no longer surprising that this was the guitar player who supported the most successful recording artist of all time. Suddenly, it was all obvious. Not to mention the fact that my guitar was suddenly one hundred times cooler than it was mere moments ago.

Batten's music features the kind of maturity to which we all aspire. What I mean by that is that her note choice is impeccable: it's surprising, provocative, powerful, and emotional. Like Jeff Beck, Batten prefers injecting each and every note with an overdose of emotional power to flooding the eardrums with a flurry of shredding. Also like Beck, Batten can produce a flurry of shredding that will blow your head off. If you're looking for an artist who is equally at ease playing fast and slow, one for whom every note is meaningful and important, one who can make every bend and every arpeggio tell a story of its own, look no further than Jennifer Batten.

Stylistically, Batten brings a lot to the table. Casual listeners will immediately notice the heavy dose of modern rock/fusion that serves as the backbone to her material. Comparisons to Greg Howe or Brett Garsed could easily be made. But where those artists tend to draw neatly (and brilliantly) inside the lines, Batten likes to slip and slide along the fretboard, bending and yanking the whammy bar. Because of this, a more attentive listener may draw parallels to Steve Vai, and that influence is certainly palpable on her first record, Above & Beyond. But the truth is that there is more Jeff Beck there than Steve Vai, and this was obvious long before she landed the Beck touring gig. Her subsequent albums are replete with that crying, diving, whammy bar emotion that Beck first made popular. Batten takes it to a whole new level.

For most artists, this would be more than enough ingredients to build a strong body of musical art. Jennifer Batten pushes things further still. Here, the comparisons depart from the masters of instrumental music to the more cutting edge and avante garde guitarists that so seldom make the top of the "best guitarists" lists. Throughout her solo albums, Jennifer Batten peppers her material with sound samples from movies, world music, sample libraries, hip hop beats, and so on. The millennial generation will be inclined to compare that aspect of her music to Buckethead, but the influence actually works in the reverse. Batten's use of samples and guitar special effects draws closer comparisons to Reeves Gabrels, Vernon Reid, Adrian Belew, and Warren Cuccurullo.

As strong as that list of innovators is, the thing that sets Jennifer Batten apart from them is her emphasis on the pure beauty of music. She stops short of cramming too many samples or foreign sounds into her work, favoring masterful clean-toned rhythm guitar tracks that can at times sound like keyboards or organs. Where the others might hover too long on a foreign sound (I once saw Adrian Belew play a guitar synthesizer configured to produce piano sounds, improvising for a good 20 minutes), Batten hints at strangeness just long enough to make the listener fall in love with sound before it gently fades away, only to be replaced by her signature tone and a flurry of virtuosic lead guitar.

The electric guitar was invented in 1931. Since then, it has become the primary musical instrument of the modern world. For better or for worse, the instrument has been so thoroughly explored that it is nearly impossible for anyone in this day and age to sound unique. Despite the odds, a few players have managed to do it through the strength of their imagination, creativity, and virtuosity. There is absolutely no question that Jennifer Batten is one of those players.

Kindly do yourselves the favor of familiarizing yourself with her music. I have selected a YouTube video at random to get you started.

Laugh, And The World Laughs With You

Cry, and you cry alone.

An Interesting Concept Came Up In Conversation Last Night
We had family over at our place last night, and the conversation inevitably turned toward diet, exercise, fitness, and health in general. I say "inevitably" because any time you fill a room full of people who are either health nuts, diabetics, foodies, and fuddy-duddies, the conversation will turn to health. In my case, I happen to meet all four criteria, as do some of our family members, so there you have it.

During the discussion, one person noted that whenever she exercises regularly, she finds she also eats healthy food; whenever she eats healthy food, she finds she exercises regularly. The point was that she wasn't sure which way the causality went. Do we exercise when we eat well, or do we eat well when we exercise?

Some fitness gurus have suggested that whenever we engage in a lot of physical exercise, our bodies naturally crave the proper fuel we need to keep exercising. Under this theory, the harder you exercise, the less you crave pizza and hamburgers and the more you crave chicken Caesar salads and low-sodium sushi. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I can say that in my own personal experience, the exact opposite is true. The harder I exercise, the more I crave calories of any kind; anything will do, and the more of it, the better. Fast food is cheap and plentiful, and burgers are delicious. The more I work out, the more I crave greasy, carby, inflammatory junk food.

Another person suggested that it happens together because whenever one is engaged in eating well, one is "looking after oneself," and so the inclination to exercise regularly is a natural compliment. And vice-versa, of course: when one exercises, one also feels an inclination to look after one's diet. Her point was that neither exercise nor eating right was the causal factor so much as the internal desire to take care of oneself.

An Underlying Culture Of Activity
This plays into a concept I often discuss in conversation, but to my recollection have never blogged about. I call this concept "fostering a culture of activity" in your life. I use that term to describe a proclivity some of us have to move our bodies around a bit despite technological conveniences that might render it unnecessary.

In other words, some people walk to the grocery store. Some people bike downtown to run some errands. These folks aren't usually viewing such activities as a "workout." They walk or bike because walking and biking are time-tested, reliable, and convenient modes of transportation. Where other people will just drive because it's fast, comfortable, and air conditioned, other people honestly wouldn't think about it. They wouldn't because in their minds "cars" are associated with long(er)-distance travel, packing up, etc. Bikes and shoes are associated with short, nearby errands.

The difference between these two groups of people is neither "laziness" nor "healthiness." It truly is a matter of perspective, psychology, or "culture." I was raised in an area where the nearest grocery store was a little less than a mile away, along a very safe street. When we needed something from the grocery store and time wasn't an issue, we walked or rode a bicycle.

Until I was in my 20s, it had never occurred to me that riding a bike was a workout. Honestly! And I considered driving distances as short as a mile to be an extreme hassle, not a convenience. Again, this is not because I am some health obsessed whack job or fitness superman who considers sedentary life to be a negative thing. It is simply a result of my parents' having "fostered a culture of activity" in my family.

Ryan Does Everything Right... Right?
Eventually, the conversation wound its way to individual comparisons: This person eats too few vegetables, that person eats too many sweets, this one over here does not spend too much time thinking about what to eat, but tries to have everything in moderation, that one over there eats fine but exercises too little, while the other one exercises regularly but does not eat enough. And so on, and so forth. We covered the full spectrum of diet and exercise behavior, including all extremes. Of course, in that crowd, I played the role of the one who exercises regularly and eats flawlessly.

To be clear, I certainly don't feel this way about myself. I have a tendency to eat Tex-Mex food. I have a tendency to drink beer. I have lazy days on which I can't be bothered to work out. I eat a lot of cheese. I often feel as though I could stand to work out a little harder, and I certainly feel that I could walk to the grocery store more often than I drive.

But these concepts are relative. If a person cannot stand the taste of vegetables, than a person like myself - who loves them - will appear to be extremely healthy. In fact, I remember one time in school a classmate gave an oral report on the State of Hawaii, and passed out slices of pineapple as a visual aid. Many of my fellow students didn't want their pineapple, so I happily suggested they give me their slices, and they readily complied. One classmate (WT, who may in fact be a faithful Stationary Waves reader - Hello, WT!) remarked that I was "so healthy." I hadn't really considered that. I was just enjoying my pineapple slices.

Meanwhile, my sister bikes everywhere, is always engaged in some kind of gardening or home-improvement project, goes on a lengthy mountain bike excursion nearly every weekend, camps often, goes to the gym regularly, watches her diet well, is a bit of a Crossfit aficionado, and so on... In my mind, whatever level of health I enjoy pales in comparison to her herculean ability to squeeze physical activity into nearly every waking moment of her existence. It's truly impressive.

...And yet, I can recall more than one occasion during which she has recounted to me a description of someone she knows who is even fitter than she is.

Odd, For A Hunter-Gatherer Like Yourself
They sure do spend a lot of time warning us of the dangers of a so-called "Western diet," and making recommendations as to the proper amount of daily physical activity we should all be getting. It might all be true, too, but I have always felt that such messages completely miss the mark.

Why? Because they take us back to the start of last night's conversation: Do we "westerners" eat hamburgers because we're fat and lazy, or does the fact that we're fat and lazy make us want to eat hamburgers?

(Somewhere in the far reaches of cyberspace, a Mark-Sisson-wannabe is writing a treatise about how unhealthy foods are literally addictive, that science proves this, and that only by doing Crossfit and eating bacon-lettuce wraps can we return to the halcyon days of our paleolithic ubermensch predecessors.)

Stop, take a backwards step, and look at the whole picture. We're not "addicted" to food any more than we're addicted to oxygen and working for a living. Eating, breathing, and working are necessary parts of the human experience. You can't Crossfit your way back to the paleolithic era. We're no longer the tribal cave-dwellers that we once were. Sure, we biologically resemble those hirsute great-grandparents who hunted ox so that we can enjoy desk jobs, but modern human life is altogether different than it was back then.

You do not spend eighteen hours a day foraging for grubs and berries, and roasting the occasional rodent over an open fire. You might think you're "fostering a culture of activity" by getting a gym membership and drinking seven yolks a day, but remember what I said above: It's all relative.

Even working out twice a day is insufficient to deliver the kind of physical exertion that was typical among the cave men. Aboriginal Australians, for example, wandered the desert ceaselessly - literally continuously - in search of roots, grubs, and lizards to eat. They paused only to sleep through the night. I know it feels like serious exertion to do 45 minutes of calisthenics at the gym, but compare that to 18 hours of constant motion in the raw elements of nature and the truth rears its powerful head.

We have to foster a culture of activity. A few short generations ago, human beings just lived it, and that was all. There was no such thing as sedentary.

So when studies come out saying that we eat too much pizza and do too few HIIT repeats, the bigger picture is overlooked. I'm not convinced grubs and lizards are healthier for the human diet than pizza, nor am I convinced that HIIT will protect you from diabetes. (It certainly didn't protect me!)

What makes more sense is the fact that, over time, human beings have gained access to ever-more-impressive technologies that have provided us with an astounding level of modern convenience. We can get anywhere and do anything with hardly any effort at all; most of the "hard stuff" involves intellectual, not physical effort. Mark Sisson's "Grok" had to wander the plains for a full day to gain access to 1500 calories. All it takes me is a single trip to McDonald's.

Conclusion
No, it's not diet or insufficient exercise that's killing us. Life has changed for human beings. It's not a bad thing. But we must learn to deal with it if we want to be healthy.

Part of this is learning that, unless we want our bodies to atrophy and rot, we must engage in physical exercise to compensate for the fact that we do not spend all day wandering the Serengeti. Everyone flinches and shakes their head when they see new pictures of Jason Becker or Stephen Hawking, both of whose bodies have been ravaged by Lou Gherig's disease - but no one flinches at all when they see that very same process happening to their own bodies over the course of the decades that occur after age 21.

The human body is "use it or lose it." Those who find little to offer their health after enjoying the fast metabolisms that came with the youth and drug use and bare necessity of their younger years will suffer a long deterioration that will ultimately end in death.

I, too, will die, but will likely be active and mobile until the end. How do you want to spend your final years? In a wheelchair, with bedsores, or on your feet? To me, it is not even a question.

Do you eat junk food because you're not exercising, or are you not exercising because you're eating junk food? Neither. We all have access to the same crap, be it french fries or television programs. It is not an act of iron will to say "no" to free pizza. It is a choice, based on how you feel. The first question is, "Am I even hungry?" The subsequent questions involve what kind of culture you're choosing to foster in your own life.

If you exercise regularly and eat a sane diet, then who cares about even multiple slices of free pizza? The lifestyle you foster will more than compensate for a few measly slices of pizza. If you don't exercise ever, then each slice is taking you further down into a pit, and the further down you go, the further you have to climb to come back out again.

To a great extent, it comes down to culture.

Virtue Versus Policy

Somehow I overlooked this Tyler Cowen post, a comparison between "the culture" of guns to "the culture" of alcohol.

It is interesting to readers of Stationary Waves readers first because it further highlights what I have previously identified (here and here) as a growing temperance movement in America. Given all the favorable things Cowen has to say about Mormons (and, indeed, he does it again in this post), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to discover that he opposes alcohol consumption, but surprised I was, nonetheless.

Being a fairly harsh critic of recreational drug use (and all other aspects of Whore Culture) myself, one might expect me to agree with Cowen here. I do not. The original temperance movement in the United States was thoroughly discredited when its policies failed on all fronts. Not only did the ban fail to prevent alcohol consumption, it caused both violent crime and accidental death; the net effects of temperance were much worse than the effects of a nation of drinkers. Of course, the failures of temperance don't validate alcohol consumption, they merely demonstrate that temperance is self-refuting.

In truth, I suspect that any activity that is such a ubiquitous part of the human experience is something that we must all live with. It's true that alcohol causes a lot of misery. It's also true that red wine improves insulin sensitivity, lowers blood pressure, improves heart health, and can alleviate stress if consumed in moderation. Cowen acknowledges that there is such a thing as responsible alcohol consumption (and gun ownership):

Guns, like alcohol, have many legitimate uses, and they are enjoyed by many people in a responsible manner.  In both cases, there is an elite which has absolutely no problems handling the institution in question, but still there is the question of whether the nation really can have such bifurcated social norms, namely one set of standards for the elite and another set for everybody else.

I have to question his implied preference, however. The solution to our having "bifurcated social norms" is not to legally mandate a third set of norms that force everyone into sub-optimality. Similarly, that some children play well with others while other children do not is certainly no argument against socializing children.

More importantly, why does Cowen consider it more viable to promote temperance among 100% of the population than to promote more responsible drinking among 50% of the population?

***

On a more positive note, Cowen does acknowledge the fact that an outright ban was not a productive way of dealing with alcohol. He writes, "It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me."

This is the second aspect of the post that makes it of interest to readers of Stationary Waves. Cowen's proposed solution to such problems exists outside the scope of governmental policy. He would like to see society tackle certain problems, but he does not want society to do so with new laws.

So, while I might quibble with Cowen about his thoughts on the demerits of alcohol, I have no objection to his solution. This is how decent people can coexist despite their having strong disagreements with each other. When we resist the urge to bring the heavy arm of government down on our adversaries, we foster a live-and-let-live environment of persuasive dialogue. There is no doubt in my mind that Cowen and I could calmly and rationally discuss guns or alcohol face-to-face over a cup of something Cowen does drink. We would not walk away hating each other.

On a similar note, I have a friend and faithful reader, DA, who is happy and capable of discussing any political issue with me calmly and rationally. Together, we build a sense of mutual respect even when discussing the things about which we are most passionate. How is this possible? Well, thus far neither of us has called the cops on the other...

Ayn Rand wrote that "morality ends where a gun begins." I doubt that even the most passionate leftist would disagree with her there.

The point is simply this: In a world were people prefer to debate and persuade, human relationships are rich and mostly positive. By contrast, a world in which all philosophical disagreements are settled by Johnny Long-Arm, we are all deeply resentful of each other. Paul resents Peter because the Peters of the world made it impossible for Paul to get a drink. Peter resents Paul because the Pauls of the world made it impossible for Peter to own a gun. Jack resents Jimmy because Jimmy supported an increase in Jack's taxes. Jimmy resents Jack because Jack supported a decrease in Jimmy's welfare check. And so on...

As I have already noted, on average, we oppose everything. That has a greater impact on human relationships than it does on individual liberty. Or perhaps a better way to say that is that our obsession with passing ever-more laws to address social problems has the effect of undermining both personal freedom and the social order.

***

Thus, I believe government overreach is a problem for both individualists and collectivists. Incredibly, the optimal solution is precisely the one Tyler Cowen overlooked in his blog post. Confronted with a bifurcated society that has opposing standards, the optimum is not reached by promoting a solution that nullifies both standards. Rather, the solution is calmly relax, step back, and acknowledge the simple truths that permeate all moral issues:

Despite the awesome power of government, we cannot ultimately prevent unethical behavior or punish it in such away that everyone walks away satisfied.

Allowing people the autonomy to make their own decisions, even when we disagree, creates an environment of mutual respect.

Some disagreements - especially moral ones - can never be "solved" with a single, one-size-fits-all solution.

Above all, life is complex.

The Dumps

As much as we would all like to be happy all the time, from time to time, everyone gets down in the dumps. It is a natural part of life. Perhaps calling it "healthy" is a bit of a stretch, but if it's not healthy, it is at least normal.

There are a lot of things to feel bad about. Maybe the world's political tide isn't going your way. Maybe you haven't achieved everything you hoped you would achieve. Maybe you have made your many attempts at greatness, only to remain as average as the average Joe. Maybe you're under-appreciated for what you are. Maybe you've never had a chance to really prove yourself. Maybe you missed out on a good opportunity. Maybe an act of nature prevented you from ever having an opportunity. Maybe you're just unlucky.

The problem with having a good imagination is that the person who has one can conceive of a virtually infinite array of possibilities - things that could have happened in life, but did not happen; things that could yet happen in life, but do not appear to be getting any closer.

You Made The Whole Thing Up
When you're in the dumps, it's important to remember that the many alternate realities in which you are successful and happy in infinitely many ways exist solely because you invented them. You imagined a false scenario, you made the whole thing up. The point of comparison seems worse because you're really good at thinking up imaginary things that might make you happier than you are now.

So the next time you're feeling down about something, consider the possibility that the alternative and more pleasant scenario might actually be pure fiction. You may have made the whole thing up.

Labels

You may notice some changes in the way I label my blog posts. These changes will be semi-enforced retroactively. My growing list of post labels is getting a little out-of-hand, and so I want to consolidate some labels and change the way I talk about others. This will be an ongoing process, and I apologize for any inconvenience you might experience, especially if you really loved a particular label that may have been removed or consolidated. No offense to all you label-lubbers out there.

Hunting For Clues

Here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia article on human growth hormone. All emphases are mine; bold text is used for emphasis, while bold highlighted text is a major emphasis. I have also added comments to the excerpts.

On the function of HGH:

In addition to increasing height in children and adolescents, growth hormone has many other effects on the body:

• Increases calcium retention, [sound familiar? - ed.] and strengthens and increases the mineralization of bone

• Increases muscle mass through sarcomere hypertrophy

• Promotes lipolysis

• Increases protein synthesis

• Stimulates the growth of all internal organs excluding the brain

• Plays a role in homeostasis

• Reduces liver uptake of glucose

• Promotes gluconeogenesis in the liver^[32]

• Contributes to the maintenance and function of pancreatic islets

• Stimulates the immune system

On the secretion of HGH in general:

Secretion of growth hormone (GH) in the pituitary is regulated by the neurosecretory nuclei of the hypothalamus. These cells release the peptides Growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH orsomatocrinin) and Growth hormone-inhibiting hormone (GHIH or somatostatin) into the hypophyseal portal venous blood surrounding the pituitary. GH release in the pituitary is primarily determined by the balance of these two peptides, which in turn is affected by many physiological stimulators (e.g., exercise, nutrition, sleep) and inhibitors (e.g., free fatty acids) of GH secretion.

Stimulators and inhibitors of HGH:

A number of factors are known to affect GH secretion, such as age, gender, diet, exercise, stress, and other hormones.^[1] Young adolescents secrete GH at the rate of about 700 μg/day, while healthy adults secrete GH at the rate of about 400 μg/day.^[16] Sleep deprivation generally supresses GH release, particularly after early adulthood.^[17] 

Stimulators of growth hormone (GH) secretion include:

• peptide hormones

• GHRH (somatocrinin) through binding to the growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor (GHRHR)^[18]

• ghrelin through binding to growth hormone secretagogue receptors (GHSR)^[19]

• sex hormones^[20]

• increased androgen secretion during puberty (in males from testis and in females from adrenal cortex)

• estrogen

• clonidine and L-DOPA by stimulating GHRH release^[21]

• hypoglycemia, arginine^[22] and propranolol by inhibiting somatostatin release^[21]

• deep sleep^[23]

• niacin as nicotinic acid (Vitamin B3)^[24]

• fasting^[25]

• vigorous exercise ^[26] 

Inhibitors of GH secretion include:

• GHIH (somatostatin) from the periventricular nucleus ^[27]

• circulating concentrations of GH and IGF-1 [Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 - ed.] (negative feedback on the pituitary and hypothalamus)^[1]

• hyperglycemia^[21]

• glucocorticoids^[28]

• dihydrotestosterone

Sidenote, from the article on Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 as a therapeutic agent:

Several companies have evaluated IGF-1 in clinical trials for a variety of additional indications, including type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease"),^[26] severe burn injury and myotonic muscular dystrophy (MMD). Results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of IGF-1 in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes showed great promise in reducing hemoglobin A1C levels, as well as daily insulin consumption. However, the sponsor, Genentech, discontinued the program due to an exacerbation of diabetic retinopathy^[27] in patients coupled with a shift in corporate focus towards oncology.

Back to the HGH article, on clinically relevant excess levels of HGH:

Prolonged GH excess thickens the bones of the jaw, fingers and toes. Resulting heaviness of the jaw and increased size of digits is referred to as acromegaly. Accompanying problems can include sweating, pressure on nerves (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome), muscle weakness, excess sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), insulin resistance or even a rare form of type 2 diabetes, and reduced sexual function.

The article also notes side-effects of therapeutic HGH treatment: "More rarely, patients can experience joint swelling, joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and an increased risk of diabetes.^[36] In some cases, the patient can produce an immune response against GH."

Some Links

The Circle Bastiat continues its downward spiral by highlighting and subsequently attempting to substantiate Ludwig von Mises' outlandish claim that Milton Friedman wasn't an economist. This sort of attempt by some Austrian School scholars to attempt to live in a lexicographic world asunder from the rest of us is highly disappointing. Any such choice is a false dichotomy. It is possible to learn economics from studying Mises or Friedman, and very preferably from studying them both, along with many others.

The LvMIC, which seems to have become a superior repository for Austrian School economic analysis expresses skepticism of the tenure of Stephen Poloz. I sympathize with their cynicism, but think Poloz is a really great economist, so I'm hoping for the best.

Marginal Revolution highlights the prevalence and efficacy of private schools in developing countries. This is relevant here because it's important to remember that the United States is merely one set of conditions that can come to exist from a given set of policy outcomes. That is, if the USA's private education market expanded, we might also see many favorable results. Supporters of public education too often dwell on the negatives.

I found this report about as ground-breaking as the recent stories about how milk curdles when you leave it on the counter and that 2+2 still equals 4.

I humbly direct your attention to a man who is pushing himself to increasingly impressive levels of physical fitness, and who - thanks to his YouTube channel - has graciously agreed to bring the rest of us along for the ride. Looking for some new workout ideas? Start with this one:

Convocation

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to watch the convocation ceremonies at the College of Saint Benedict, a private, Catholic, girl's college in St. Joseph, Minnesota.

My initial reaction to the experience was overwhelmingly positive. It has been ten years since I graduated college, and, because I am the youngest in my family, I hadn't had the opportunity to attend another college graduation ceremony since then. Predictably, the festivities brought with them a lot of memories of my own experience, both in college and during the graduation ceremonies, and an undeniable wistfulness for the opportunities of youth. It was a great experience!

As a reader of Stationary Waves, though, you can imagine that I have some thoughts about what I saw and experienced. Farbeit from me to forego any opportunity to analyze our human behavior!

The Leaders Of Tomorrow
The first thing that struck me about all the speeches given during the convocation ceremony was their unwavering insistence on the fact that the graduates were going to become the leaders of tomorrow. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

The accomplished graduates of the College of Saint Benedict have many things to look forward to from now on. They will make the transition from a two-decades-and-then-some career as professional learners, heavily subsidized by parents, the government, and education-subsidization-foundations to being... productive members of society. They are about to begin lives as women who actually work for a living. For many, this will be the first such experience of their whole lives.

A great many of the graduates now hold degrees in nursing. Nursing is a technical, challenging, stressful, and yes, noble profession. Let me be clear on one point: the world needs more nurses and will be a better place now that some of these women are entering the workforce.

But... nurses aren't leaders. Sure, some of them are. Some of these women will go one to have strong careers in nursing management and clinic administration - perhaps even hospital administration. Some may become wealthy CEOs, etc. Others may end up becoming leaders outside the workforce, in their communities, volunteer organizations, churches, and so on. But the vast majority of nurses cannot possibly be called leaders.

That got me thinking: Every graduate speech that has ever invoked the phrase or the concept of "you/we are the leaders of tomorrow" has been dead wrong. Few of us are leaders. I'm certainly no leader. Not everyone is a leader. In fact - and here's the really important part - not everyone wants to be a leader.

For example, as an individualist, I have little desire to exert anything more than conversational influence over other human beings. I like talking with people, I like discussing things, and I like it when people find useful the things I have to say. Other than that, I have no desire to be a leader. Instead, I'd rather work on my own stuff, individually, by myself. I don't fault anyone for wanting to be a leader, I'm just saying... not all of us want to lead.

And that's okay! There is absolutely no problem with not wanting to be a leader. Some of the most brilliant academics are merely researchers and lecturers. Some of the greatest inventors, most brilliant scientists, most passionate servants of humanity, and artists are not leaders at all.

Leadership is an important characteristic of managers, politicians, and coaches. If you're not directly involved in those activities, however, leadership is nothing more than an admirable trait, no different than the ability to play a musical instrument or cook homemade pasta.

I guess what I'm driving at here is that society seems to fetishize leadership as the greatest possible endpoint of a person's professional development. Those who take pride in in their work without feeling the need to become leaders are demonstrating another kind of excellence, one that leaders quite often do not possess themselves. It's not as if mankind would have failed to discover fire, were it not for Thag the Leader, impeccably "inspiring" Grok to rub two sticks together. The world needs leaders like Thag, but the world also needs people whose skill set is to actually do stuff.

Of the many graduates of the College of Saint Benedict, some of them will certainly become leaders. The majority will choose to pursue other character traits. Not only is that okay, that is extremely important. Leaders get a lot of fame for what they do, but let's not forget that Thag didn't discover fire; Grok did.

The Glory Of The State
The keynote commencement speech was given by a CSB alumna who taught me a new word: alumna. I had no idea that there was a feminine form of the word alumnus. In my cynicism, I assumed that the word was borne out of the obsessive political correctness of the last few decades, but as it turns out (at least, according to TheFreeDictionary.com) its usage dates back to the late 19th Century.

I mention this because we optimists believe it is possible to take something positive from something, even if you consider that something to be overwhelmingly negative. Unfortunately, this is how I would describe the speech that was given.

Why? First, because it was an extremely dreary exposition on the woman's own life-changing experiences, emotionally jarring circumstances that shaped her desire to cure the world's poverty using the magic powers of socialism. For what must have been at least half an hour, this woman implored the new graduates to look around them and take stock of all the suffering in the world, and then do things about that suffering. By "do things," she apparently meant either joining a government organization that professes to alleviate the problem, or some other possibilities: (a) Start a beer company that donates some of its profits to charity, (b) Start a clothing company that donates some of its profits to charity, (c) start some other company that uses a share of its profits to engage in leftist policy, (d) become a victim of a highly publicized national tragedy, and then use that tragedy as a springboard for a leftist agenda, (e) convince a university to remove its drinking fountains and install "watering stations" from which students can fill up metal water bottles.

And so on. Changing the world, according to this woman, involves feeling terrible about all of the world's suffering, and then practicing leftism. I don't fault someone for actually believing this, but I do fault this woman for using someone else's happy day of celebration as an opportunity to promote it.

For one thing, if these graduates wanted to experience a college graduation ceremony, they were a captive audience to this woman's political ideology. That's not fair. If any woman chose to avoid this political speech, that woman would therefore miss out on her opportunity to experience a graduation ceremony marked by a celebration of her accomplishments, and some well-wishing for the future. This point was completely lost on the speaker. Instead, she elected to promote her chosen ideology.

Look, I promote my ideas, too... on my blog. One of the reasons I started this blog in the first place was because I wanted to let my friends and family off the hook. You can't go around promoting your political ideas at every opportunity. It's rude. There are appropriate and inappropriate times to do this. College graduation ceremonies should be apolitical, happy, optimistic, encouraging, and congratulatory. One should walk away from them feeling inspired, not shamed.

Will You Please Confirm My Priors?
Also over the weekend I had a few conversations in which I was asked a certain kind of question. I don't want to unfairly pick on those with whom I spoke, because the situation is hardly unique. You yourselves have likely experienced this sort of question many times in your own lives, and will do so again. Still, it made me think, so I am reporting it here.

The situation is this:

Upon learning that I had spent nearly a decade living in Canada, people often ask me questions about how life compares there versus life in the United States. This is a perfectly natural curiosity, and we all think about such things when we meet others who have lived abroad.

But on this occasion, someone asked me - as a first follow-up question upon learning that I lived in Canada - whether I found there was a smaller gap between rich and poor there than here. By the way the question was asked, I understood that my response was supposed to be "Yes, definitely."

I don't want to initiate a discussion of comparative income gaps in various countries. That is a matter of pure data analysis, and if what I have read about that data is true, the subtraction of [average income of highest quantile of citizens] - [average income of lowest quantile of citizens] works out to be a smaller number when it is computed using Canadian data than when using American data. Of course, this wasn't really the question. The question was whether it feels that way to ordinary people who have lived in both countries. My answer was a response to this second question, not the first.

My answer also doesn't matter much. The person asking the question expected to hear a certain answer, one that would confirm a prior assumption already well-entrenched in that person's line of thinking. My only role to play in this situation was to serve as conformation for an existing impression. (Perhaps this makes me a bad person, but I rather enjoyed answering in a way that contradicted that prior assumption.)

I had a similar experience shortly after moving to Canada, in August 2003. A leftist history professor asked me if I was "feeling the impact of the US war in Iraq." I think she had it in her head that the United States was reeling. It wasn't. I remember there being a few ultra-leftist protests staged on public grounds for a few weeks, and then most ordinary people went back to doing what normal people do every day.

This is is precisely what I reported to the curious history professor. She was very disappointed by my answer. Indeed, she was incredulous, saying, "Really? You're really not feeling the effects of the war?" I'm not sure what she expected me to say. Was she feeling the effects? She was equally as close to the war in Iraq as I was. The United States was not what she assumed it was.

Neither is Canada what most Americans - even highly leftist Americans who imagine that life in Canada is what life in America would be like if it weren't for those do-nothing Republicans - imagine it to be. The health Canadian care system has serious problems. There are still lots of greedy corporations. The government is equally as corrupt. Poor people still starve on the streets. The mentally ill are still homeless. All of the problems that exist in America also exist in Canada, and vice-versa. Just because one country is more socialist than the other does not mean every other, non-governmental, human institution is radically different and makes for a different quality of life.

Now, incomes and standards of living are certainly higher in the United States, and economics provides us with some good insights as to why that might be the case. But it certainly doesn't all come down to the fact that Canada is a leftist-majority country while the USA is more of a 50-50 left/right split. Get real.

Conclusion
Anyway, it is important to remember that everyone has a different experience, because we're all different people. What I saw in Canada might not be what you see if you live there. For that very reason, it is important to understand that we cannot simply come to conclusions and then expect everyone else's experience to adhere to whatever we imagine to be true.

Not every youth is a leader of tomorrow; not every adult is a leader of today; not every leader is useful or necessary; not every act of leadership is positive. Leading isn't a person's greatest accomplishment, love is.

An auditorium full of proud young women who are anxious to get started on their adult lives, like all human beings everywhere, are far more interested in making themselves happy than they are in hearing about the tragedies in an old person's life that committed that old person to a lifetime of socialism. As every sixth grader knows, socialism fails because people are fundamentally utility-motivated and tend to provide better for society when they are allowed to provide the largest share for themselves. Don't cloud a person's sunny horizon with the pessimism of age. Let youth be youth.

Even if you think you're right about something, do not expect every data point to adhere to your theory or support your conclusion. When you see competing data and consider competing theories, pay attention: you are about to learn something. Learn, absorb that knowledge, and take it back into the world with you. Let it provide you with a revised understanding of how you know your world to be.

Above all, never forget that every human being on Earth deserves to be happy. That includes you.

***

If I were asked to deliver a convocation speech to the CSB Class of 2013, it would look something like that.

Assorted Diabetes Miscellany

Here are a few type 1 diabetes observations, culled from recent personal experience:

First, travelling is almost always disruptive to blood sugar control, even when one proceeds with the best intentions and the highest regard to BG control. There is something about being pulled away from one's regular maintenance regime that seems to make the body react differently to the same set of stimuli if the underlying surroundings are slightly different. I can only really chalk this up to the complexity of the endocrine system itself. Perhaps different levels of cortisol, serotonin  etc. change the way insulin is absorbed. Who knows, though?

Next, exercise always helps, but sometimes it helps a lot and sometimes it only helps a little bit. I can engage in the same 45 minute-run, at a near-identical pace, along the same geographic course two days in a row, and my blood-glucose response will be radically different on both days. Some days, my BG increases in response; some days it decreases substantially; some days it hardly budges. Such a wide array of responses to the same stimuli can be confusing. They are also, frankly, discouraging. It is extremely disappointing to engage in an activity that both theoretically and historically reduces my BG only to watch my BG rise. How does one develop a theory about something that behaves differently every day?

Making drastic changes to one's exercise regimen appears to be more effective at reducing BG and increasing overall BG control than simply maintaining a regular exercise regimen. I have no theories about this. It merely seems true in my experience.

More broadly, there seems to be an issue with adaptation. The human body apparently can adapt to higher levels of exercise, to the point that previous levels no longer offer the same benefits in terms of BG control. In a sense, I almost feel as though a well-trained diabetic body can develop a resistence to the benefits of exercise. (What follows is a big, psychological "why bother?") But it isn't just exercise. The body also builds a resistence to insulin (e.g. type 2 diabetes).

Another example is the case of dietary changes. Dietary improvements that previously aided in BG control can no longer be counted as improvements two years after the fact. All the benefits associated with foregoing pizza, for example, are gone as soon as you stop eating pizza. Two years later, you are not eating pizza and you are also not benefitting from not-eating pizza. To experience further benefits, you will have to forego something else. I think this is how Dr. Bernstein's diet gradually developed. He must have slowly given up all the foods that caused any sort of rise in his BG, until he paused and found that he had given up food that caused any significant rise in BG at all. At this rate, I am on that path, but I must say that I have already long since reached the point of diminishing returns as far as dietary changes go.

In the end, I think my principle problem is stress. There is no question that stressful situations cause my blood sugar to rise. It is probably not too far a stretch to suggest that small stressors increase my blood sugar to lower degrees. Over the next few weeks, I am going to test this theory by cultivating a calmer, more meditative approach to stressful situations.

Worth a try, anyway. Nothing else seems to be working well anymore.

***

Note: Now may a good time to peruse my Lexicon to review some of the basic diabetes terminology employed here on the blog. While you're at it, take a gander at some of the other terms I often use around here. 

Album Review: Joe Satriani - Unstoppable Momentum

Few guitarists have popularized the instrument to the extent that Joe Satriani has. When I was growing up, everyone wanted to be Satch. He was a weird and fantastical (and virtuosic) combination of everything that we all loved about guitars.

There was the obvious, of course: he was an extremely fast, technical player who rose to fame in the era of 1980s rock guitar playing. Somehow, though, his music never seemed to fit well in such limiting terms. After all, the music of Joe Satriani is so heavily injected with the aural and visual imagery of science-fiction that even our parents couldn't dismiss it as "heavy metal." The ugliest thing I ever heard anyone say about him was that his music was "weird." And I can think of far more unpleasant things for music to be than weird.

Nor am I certain that Satriani himself wouldn't own up to being a "weird" artist. He's certainly a bit of a contrarian, insisting on a career playing instrumental music in a world dominated by vocal-oriented pop music... and succeeding. Even among instrumental composers, Joe Satriani is the odd one out, preferring concise, contained pop structures to the more elaborate and progressive world of his contemporaries. Where Steve Vai was building 7-string and heart-shaped guitars, using "Xavian" scales, and "walking the fine line between pagan and Christian," Joe Satriani was simply playing the blues. Yet, where Stevie Ray Vaughan was bending 13-gauge strings and playing the standards, Satriani was smiling cleverly while turning up his spacey digital delays and naming his songs after the haunting words of Robert Oppenheimer. And then he did an episode of MTV Unplugged.

At the same time, one cannot over-simply by declaring Joe Satriani as some sort of "middle step" between a more-complex Vai and a less-complex SRV. He has, in fact, injected more academics into popular music than anyone with his level of fame, teaching listeners about pitch-axes and how to use the enigmatic scale, for example. Yet when he composes music from these technical sources of inspiration, it is always with a strong focus on what his ear and his heart are telling him. This gives him that magic combination of complexity and simplicity to which so many music writers aspire.

In truth, the only way to make sense of Satch's body of work is to take note of how perfectly it stands as a testament to his love for the instrument, and that means his love for all aspects of the instrument. That's why, on any given Satriani album, you'll be inclined to hear some acoustic guitar, some 12-string guitar, the blues, some spacey special effects, squeals, fast runs, tapping, power chords, arpeggios, and so on... In short, Joe Satriani likes to pull from the full palette in order to paint pictures that only guitars can paint. The man, and his music, is his medium. This is why so many of us identify with that music.

Which brings us the the opening notes of the title track of this year's Unstoppable Momentum. Instantly, the listener understands that this album is to be a departure from the past nearly twenty years of Joe Satriani music. That understanding comes from the inclusion of fresh faces in the band. For the first time since 1995's Joe Satriani album, Satch is supported for a full album's worth of material by a drummer whose reputation for virtuosity might even rival Satriani's. In 1995, it was Manu Katche; today, it's the astounding Vinnie Colaiuta.

Rounding out the band are Mike Keneally - whose previous gigs include legends such as Frank Zappa and Steve Vai - and Chris Chaney - whose impressive body of work is a veritable who's-who of pop rock super-stardom, including Jane's Addiction, Celine Dion, Danny Elfman, Robben Ford, Hoobastank, Shinedown...

This band is capable of a bit more than some of the more expected Joe Satriani Band line-ups, certain obvious exceptions noted. The result is to create a compelling and polished backdrop for the guitar man to work his magic. This is the Joe Satriani I always liked best: the fusiony, virtuosic experimentalist. The album evokes memories of his work with Manu Katche, Jonathan Mover, Doug Wimbish, the Bissonette brothers, and so on.

This polish, this level of musicianship, this might be where some Satriani fans get lost. There is no question that the band feels different than the tried-and-true Satriani power trio involving Stuart Hamm and Jeff Campitelli. Both musicians are strong enough and personal enough in their own right that someone looking for that Satriani sound may feel disappointed that it isn't there, especially since that sound played such an important role in 2010's Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards. With an objective ear and an open mind, however, all the great Satriani idiosyncrasies are there.

And more. It seems that over the years, Satriani has developed such precision in his fingers that nearly every note is delivered with impeccable tone. Long-sustained string bends fade softly with delicate vibrato. Fast-picked passages explode, yes, but with a clarity of attack that will surprise even some long-time fans.

What it all amounts to is an album written and recorded by an industry veteran who has spent years honing his craft to mastery. With that mastery comes a level of polish that fans of the raw, bluesy Joe may find off-putting, but for those of us who love Satriani at his most sci-fi, his most fusiony, his baldest, most sun-bespectacled, and weirdest,  Unstoppable Momentum provides a stunning and fresh look into the world that was set into motion way back in 1986. The tone, the musicianship, the playful and lyrical use of exotic melodies in a pop-rock context, the constraint and brevity, the explosive pyrotechnics... everything that we love about Joe Satriani is on full display.

What else can I say? It's a great album.

A Discussion Of Private Police

Note: The following discussion is pretty theoretical and very libertarian-oriented. You may want to skip this one if you usually read the blog for music, fitness, or running-related information.

Robert Murphy remarks that the ineptitude of the Cleveland Police Department is a good argument in favor of (the anarcho-capitalist concept of) private police forces (and I comment). If you're new to this idea, I will briefly explain.

Introducing Private, Competing Police Forces
The idea is that anarcho-capitalists believe society is made safer more effectively by private police forces that compete with each other to serve citizens. A specific business model has never (that I know of) been specified, not because it's inconceivable, but rather because things could be handled a variety of ways. For example, you might live in a gated community that offered its own, internal police force, paid for by homeowners' association fees. In that case, your private police force would be tied to your location of residence. (Note: There are a lot of good examples of private security like this out there in the real world today. It is more common in developing nations, but not at all uncommon in places such as universities in the United States, that form their own police forces paid for by tuition, grants, donations, and other funding streams.) Alternatively, you might live in an area served by multiple police forces among which you choose the one that offers the best protection/service at the lowest price. Here, you might subscribe to police services that can be invoked whenever you feel you need them, or perhaps you simply wait until you need to contact a police officer, and then choose a specific force's number to call. Or maybe you call a central dispatching agency that puts out a notice that someone is in trouble, and the police forces all compete to arrive first and gain your business.

As you can see, there are many possible ways that private police forces "could work," many of which presently exist in the world today, and are fully functional. So the first point I want to make is that it is not fair to merely dismiss the idea as wholly outlandish. Not only is it not outlandish, it presently exists and you have almost certainly availed yourself of its benefits at some point during your lifetime. (If not, give it a few years, it'll happen.)

The second point I want to make is that, since it is true that private, competing police forces already exist in the world today, as do public police forces, we cannot say that the two arrangements are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that public and private police forces have learned to coexist peacefully with minimal occasional conflict. Therefore, the anarcho-capitalist position is not really "using private police forces," but more specifically, eliminating public police forces and letting the existing private police market expand in their absence.

Before I go on, let me summarize some of the rationale involved here. The problem anarcho-capitalists have with public police forces is many-fold. First of all, if the police fails you, you have no recourse. (More to the point, you only have legal recourse against the police "monopoly" if you survive whatever event we're talking about - which makes things worse.) Private, competing police forces theoretically address this problem by: (1) offering you more options, and therefore providing police with a profit motive to get the job done correctly; and (2) offering you a second police force to pit against the first.

Regarding your legal recourse, it is notoriously difficult to "win against the police" in court, because the criminal justice system is weighted in favor of itself. This brings us to the second objection to public police monopolies, which is the potential for (and reality of) the abuse of police power. We need not look very far to find examples of that. Anarcho-capitalist policing addresses this problem by (1) and (2) from the previous paragraph, as well as (3) the settling of legal disputes through mutually agreed-upon and mutually hired professional arbiters who do not hold bias toward one party or the other because they are paid to be objective.

Some Criticism Against Private, Competing Police Forces
This particular area of anarcho-capitalist theory is uniquely objectionable to me. This is not because I have a great love of public police forces, or that I find them far more objective than alternative scenarios. Most of my objections are steeped in realism and economics (let's take a leap and call it praxeology in this case).

The first objection is the simplest: Even if there is a good and valid market for private police forces, as I have already established above, that does not alone suffice to justify the elimination of the public police. For such a justification, we would need conclusive proof that, in all or most cases, and in particular the most important cases (think terrorist plots, violent crime investigations, the handling of present threats, etc.), private police forces yield the most superior outcomes. It is not sufficient to simply suggest that, theoretically, if we eliminated public police, then private police would have sufficient competition among themselves that it would result in superior service and lower costs. It must be shown. Absent any hard evidence in this regard (and note well that it is also insufficient to point out problems with public forces), there is simply no reason any normal person would be moved to abolish the public police.

The second objection is related to the first: How do we actually know that there is sufficient market demand for a sufficiently strong police force?

I will give you an example: the pharmaceutical industry has something called "orphan drugs." Orphan drugs are good products that offer excellent treatment for real health conditions. The patients definitely benefit from these drugs, and want to continue taking them. Unfortunately, orphan drugs are so costly to produce that they cannot be produced and sold for a profit. Because no one wants to lose money selling a drug that always earns the company a loss, the product is "orphaned," i.e. discontinued. It's not that it doesn't work or that it isn't needed, it is simply the case that there are not enough people who want to buy the drugs to make them economically feasible.

Now, I am not claiming with any level of certainty that police services have insufficient market demand to sustain them. What I am claiming is that it is a possibility, and because it is a possibility, the burden rests on advocates of anarcho-capitalists to demonstrate that demand for police services can and would be met (with certainty) in absence of the public forces. Until an-caps do this, the question remains open, since - as orphan drugs aptly demonstrate - just because there is a real demand doesn't mean there is a sufficient demand.

The third objection pertains to what constitutes "the successful provision of police services." Obviously a low incidence of easy-to-identify crimes, such as theft, murder, trespassing, etc. is a good starting point. But what about crimes that are more difficult to see? Think about drunk-driving or domestic abuse. One an-cap might respond that "drunk-driving shouldn't be a crime; only damage to another person or their property," but someone else might feel completely differently. If Police Force A enforces a zero-tolerance drunk-driving rule, while Police Force B does not, then how is this conflict to be resolved, other than a fight between the two police forces? (I guess we could always decide the issue democratically, but - oops - that would require government.) As for domestic abuse, there really is no solution here. All child protection laws are part-and-parcel to the state. If you suspect that your neighbor is abusing his child, you can call the public police and Child Protective Services to investigate the matter, on the authority of the State. Private police forces have no such authority, and calling them to investigate the matter amounts to hiring a posse to threaten your neighbor before an actual investigation has occurred. That's a pretty egregious human rights violation (due process), and also a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (since merely suspecting someone of aggression against a 3rd party is not even remotely a sufficient justification for retaliation).

But even if we were able to suss all that out, we would still have the question of "success, at what cost?" There are places in the world in which private chieftains or government goons are contacted by the public to solve a problem, and they do so with jack-boots in the dead of night. People fear for their lives when these thugs are around, and therefore the citizens are well-behaved. But at what cost? Constant fear of falling victim to an armed posse is nobody's idea of liberty.

The Last Bastion of An-Cap Police Defense
In reply to all of these objections, the typical an-cap response is something along the lines of: "But this still happens today! Public police forces are guilty of all this stuff. At least under anarcho-capitalism, there would be competition!"

First of all, reconsider what I've said about the possibility of insufficient market demand (and do so seriously).

Second of all, reconsider what I've said about it's being incumbent on anarcho-capitalists to conclusively demonstrate that conditions would improve if public police forces were eliminated. I am open to the discussion. I am open to being convinced. But make no mistake, I must be convinced. We cannot simply conjecture that things would be better. The transaction costs of eliminating a necessary public service in hopes that the free market would fill the gap are extremely high. If we are seriously expected to take on those transaction costs, then the evidence must be solid. Preferably, it would be incontrovertible. I am all ears.