Dear Kid,

Not everything on the internet is true.

(Shocking, I know. Take a minute to compose yourself if you need to.)

Sometimes there is even conflicting information on the internet. (I’ll wait while you get a cool cloth and lie down for a few moments.)

Let’s take a random example that I just learned about: Bulletproof coffee.

Last week I met a woman who drinks Bulletproof coffee. Well, technically, I’d met her before last week, but it was last week that I found out she drinks Bulletproof coffee. Well, technically, I learned that she drinks coffee with Irish butter made with milk from grass-fed cows. Which I now know is called Bulletproof coffee.

So last week I heard about this for the first time. And a few nights ago I learned that it’s called Bulletproof coffee. And a chiropractor told me that adding butter or coconut oil to coffee is excellent for feeding one’s brain.

I like the idea of brain food. I like the idea of black coffee. I like the idea of investigating things by consulting My Friend the Internet.

It turns out the idea of Bulletproof coffee was invented introduced named by a dude who has done an exceptional job of marketing a recipe. Whether Bulletproof coffee provides incredible brain boosts, stems hunger, and creates unicorns that poop rainbows is still up for debate.

But since I live for science (stop laughing) I decided to do some experimentation to see what I could learn. (Seriously, stop laughing. When “experimentation” = “drink coffee” I’m all in.)

I did not purchase the ridiculous expensive upgraded coffee that the Bulletproof coffee website promotes because A) expensive and B) I didn’t have time to wait for it to ship. So I used my happy K-Cup in my happy coffee maker. Which I’m sure completely invalidates the science of it, but there you go. I’m a mom, not a scientist, so what do I care? I also did not purchase the medium-chain oil (please don’t ask me what that is exactly because I didn’t research that far), nor did I whip the whole thing together in the blender, because First Thing In The Morning. Perhaps I made faux bulletproof coffee. Bullet-resistant coffee?

Day 1 I made coffee and put coconut oil into it. It tasted like coffee. With a very vague hint of coconut but not really.

A few hours later it occurred to me that I should probably not be conducting experiments that involve analyzing the first cup of coffee of the day because I’m barely awake at that point.

Day 2 I made coffee and put Irish butter into it. Tasty, not at all unpleasant, but the butter took my lipstick off. Not the end of the world, but not a beauty booster.

The butter coffee was my second cup of coffee of the day, so I was awake enough to actually taste it.

My conclusion (because experiments, if I recall correctly) are supposed to have conclusions): Bulletproof coffee tastes fine, possibly even better than fine. I did not experience the euphoria the website promised, nor was I free from all hunger and cravings for the next many hours. (Minutes, yes. Hours, no.)

Would I again try bulletproof coffee? Sure. If I can figure out how to do it without calories. And figure out the whole unicorn thing.

Love, Mom

Dear Kid,

Once upon a time (and by “once upon a time,” I mean August 25, 1835), there was an article in the New York Sun (a newspaper) announcing that life had been discovered on the moon. It was the first in a series of six articles the paper ran.

The articles claimed to be reprints from articles written by Dr. Andrew Grant that were published in the Edinburgh Journal of Science (this was credible because Edinburgh is closer to the moon than New York).

In the articles, Dr. Grant described animals on the moon including unicorns, two-legged beavers, and furry, winged humanoids (that looked something like bats). He also described rushing rivers and lush vegetation (obviously the unicorns and beavers liked baths followed by a great veggie dinner).

People loved the stories and bought about a gazillion copies of the Sun. That was fantastic for everyone except Truth who felt ignored since the stories were completely made up. (There had been an Edinbugh Journal of Science, but it had been discontinued about a year earlier. Grant was complete fiction as were the furry, winged critters. The unicorns were fact, but generally overlooked since they blended so nicely with the ground.) Truth kicked a few people around for fun and then went off to cause problems elsewhere.

The Sun ran the articles partly because it seemed like fun (it was), partly in an effort to increase circulation (it did), and partly to make fun of earlier, serious speculations about extraterrestrial life (mission accomplished).

NOTE: While I adore fiction (especially fiction with furry creatures and two-legged beavers), “making things up” is not widely recognized as an accepted research methodology.

A committee of scientists from Yale (which makes them a Committee), went to New York to see the Edinburgh Journal articles. The Sun employees sent the Committee Members hither and yon, from office to office, from editor to printing area and basically bamboozled them. The Scientists never realized they’d been fooled. The Sun employees had an absolutely marvelous time.

NOTE: Misleading and bamboozling professors is not widely recognized as an accepted methodology for successfully defending research.

A few weeks later the Sun admitted they’d made the whole things up. No one seemed to mind very much except the unicorns, who (once they realized they’d been made up) vanished immediately.

Which is why, O Best Beloved, astronauts never found a trace of unicorns on the moon.

Love, Mom

Dear Kid,

Just because I don’t have enough to occupy the two cells I call a brain, NPR decided to run an article (I assume they did a piece on the radio but I haven’t heard it yet) about how much college graduates will earn. Turns out, according to the researcher at Georgetown University who conducted the study, one’s major is a much more important factor than where one obtained that major in determining how much one will get paid.

This is terrible news for Ivy Leaguers but great news for Petroleum Engineers at the University of Do-We-Really-Have-To-Go-To-Class?

Petroleum Engineers are at the top of the dude’s pay scale.

You should know that the article says absolutely nothing about the misery level of the Petroleum Engineers, whether they get free gasoline (which would have a HUGE impact on their Total Income Package), or what a Petroleum Engineer actually does.

He also doesn’t address the question of what happens to the Petroleum Engineer when the Volt and Prius take over the roads, solar power takes over everything else, and we no longer need petroleum or anyone to engineer it.

Counseling Psychology is at the bottom of the earning scale, but I’m pretty sure there is good job security there as we are going to have crazy people for a while. Especially if they have to remember to plug in their cars.

By my calculations, factoring in the part of the graph that’s missing and the names of the people they interviewed, accounting for the fact that the research is from Our Nation’s Capital, adjusting for the contingency of a Martian Invasion, including the probability that you will be a Professional Broomball Player, and correcting for the Mom Factor, I can safely say you are likely to get paid when you land a job.

I cannot understand why NASA isn’t begging me to help them solve their problems. Or why it takes some researchers so long to Reach Conclusions and Draw an Accompanying Graph.

NOTE: You are not allowed to apply this type of Research Methodology (i.e., Making It Up) until you have graduated and landed the aforementioned paying job.

e.g. means for example (from the Latin exempli gratia)
i.e. means in other words or that is (from the Latin id est)
n.o. means no (from the Latin not on your life)

The one thing the researcher and I definitely agree on is that graduation is a key requirement (him for including the data in the research, me because I’m your mom and I said so).

Love, Mom