In a little less than four hours, the president is scheduled to address the nation. The subject of the address is immigration, and it has been widely reported that Mr. Bush will announce that he is sending the National Guard to help secure the border with Mexico. The president will undoubtedly give a number of reasons for this in the address (I predict that we will hear about 9-11 once or twice tonight) but the real reasons are purely political.
Bush is in desparate need of some sort of "win" right now. His poll numbers are heading toward Nixon-land. He's under 70% support from Republicans, and under 60 with Conservatives right now. His popularity with Democrats, Liberals, and Independents is getting so low that it risks becoming statistically indistinguishable from zero. He really doesn't care too much about the people who are against him, but the drop with the base is starting to really concern the administration.
They need a win. They need to show that they can get together with congress and solve a problem, and the solution needs to be bipartisan - involving both moderate and conservative Republicans. Right now, immigration is probably their only hope - social security, taxes, and health care definitely won't work anymore, and the war is off limits.
Unfortunately, immigration isn't working out too well. The House of Representatives wants to round up and bring to justice all of the illegals, and ship home all 12 million of them. The president and the senate want an immigration bill that is at least slightly responsive to reality, and recognizes that we might not actually be able to afford 12 million one-way airfares just now. Instead, they want to allow illegal aliens who have been here for long periods of time without getting into trouble to move into a legal status.
Right now, neither group is willing to budge, so the president is stepping up. In a bold move, he's sending thousands of National Guard troops (who, we all know, have nothing better to do with their time) down to the border. He's hoping that this will show the House Republicans that he's serious about enforcement, so that they'll back down enough to let some sort of guest worker program pass.
To put it another way, our troops are being entrusted with a mission of critical importance. They are being sent to guard our border from the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Their mission there is to allow the Republicans to make a deal with the Republicans, saving the President from political disaster.
15 May 2006
13 May 2006
A killer is a killer is a killer
Over at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot is once again angry with Kevin Padian. This time, it is because Padian dared to suggest that the only thing separating suicide bombers from the murders of abortion doctors is that one commits suicide and the other doesn't. DaveScot apparently thinks that murdering someone because of your religious views is somehow more acceptable, or at least less heinous, if you have a specific target in mind than it is if you are indiscriminate in your attack:
Ultimately, though, those points are really not all that relevant to the basic point that Padian was making (and that DaveScot was objecting to. His point was simply that suicide bombers are motivated by something different than the depression that is more typically implicated in suicide. Rather than being victims of an illness, the bombers are motivated, as are the murders of abortion providers by a belief that their action is righteous, and will be seen by God as such. In that, the suicide bombers are equivalent to homicidal anti-abortionists. (Please note that I am not describing all opponents of abortion as homicidal. Most are not.)
If DaveScot wishes to draw some type of distinction between homicidal Christian abortion opponents and homicidal Islamic suicide bombers, I suppose that he can. It is certainly true that there have been fewer killers of abortion providers than there are suicide bombers, and that the suicide bombers kill more people per incident. In my mind, though, those are distinctions that lack any substantive difference - Dante's Hell might have had many levels, but nobody consigned to hell was suffering anything less than eternal torment. Similarly, it might be possible to fit the different killers with different descriptions, but ultimately a killer is a killer.
Suicide bombers kill/wound as many as possible, they don’t know who the victims are, they don’t care whether the victims have done anything wrong (perceived or real), and in their indiscrete targeting even kill people of their own creed.I could point out that DaveScot neglects some facts while attempting to excuse homicidal lunatics. He fails to mention that several other doctors were saved only by poor aim. He also conveniently forgets the whole Eric Rudolph episode - Rudolph, you will recall, killed an off-duty cop and severely wounded a nurse in a clinic bombing in Alabama. DaveScot is so eager to distinguish between the homicidal fanatics who share his faith and those that do not that he failed to mention any of that.
Conversely, in the United States there have been only two abortion doctors murdered (AFAIK) and in both cases the murderer knew exactly who he was killing, perceived the target as a serial murderer of innocent children, and didn’t kill anyone else.
Ultimately, though, those points are really not all that relevant to the basic point that Padian was making (and that DaveScot was objecting to. His point was simply that suicide bombers are motivated by something different than the depression that is more typically implicated in suicide. Rather than being victims of an illness, the bombers are motivated, as are the murders of abortion providers by a belief that their action is righteous, and will be seen by God as such. In that, the suicide bombers are equivalent to homicidal anti-abortionists. (Please note that I am not describing all opponents of abortion as homicidal. Most are not.)
If DaveScot wishes to draw some type of distinction between homicidal Christian abortion opponents and homicidal Islamic suicide bombers, I suppose that he can. It is certainly true that there have been fewer killers of abortion providers than there are suicide bombers, and that the suicide bombers kill more people per incident. In my mind, though, those are distinctions that lack any substantive difference - Dante's Hell might have had many levels, but nobody consigned to hell was suffering anything less than eternal torment. Similarly, it might be possible to fit the different killers with different descriptions, but ultimately a killer is a killer.
12 May 2006
Googling terms.
Via Stochastic (Seed Magazine's in-house blog), we find that those dedicated purveyors of all things Intelligent Design over at Telic Thoughts have decided to compare the volume for the Google searches of "Intelligent Design" and "Darwinism". They're all happy about the results and the trend, but they forgot one thing: most (sane) people don't usually refer to evolution as "Darwinism." For a more reality-based view of the trends, take a look at this one. And by all means, look at the regional popularity of the terms.
11 May 2006
Wiretaps, investigations, and Yiddish
Back when I was in high school, I was an intern in the branch of the New York City Mayor's Office that handles telephone complaints. It was an interesting job, and I learned a lot. A great deal of this education was provided by a Hasidic Jew named Isaac, who worked at the desk right in front of me. He was a master at the fine art of subtly penetrating the obtuse workings of the city bureaucracy. He didn't use those skills too much - he found the frontal assault to be much more fun - but he knew them and taught them well. Besides the practical politics, he also taught me a little Yiddish - just enough to let me swear proficiently.
One of the very first words that I picked up from him was 'chutzpah.' He used the word to describe the qualities that I would need to exhibit if I was to have any hope of accomplishing anything in New York City Government. When I asked him what the word meant, he had to stop and think for a minute or two. Chutzpah, he said, is a one-word description of a fairly complex personality trait, and that there was no word in English that adequately captured the concept. I asked him if he could describe the trait, and he paused again for a second or two of thought. "OK, I tell you what chutzpah is. Chutzpah... you take a dump on your neighbor's doorstep, then ask to borrow his toilet paper, you got chutzpah."
That was a while ago - back during the Dinkins administration. If I asked him the same question today, he'd have a much easier time describing the concept. All he'd have to do is show me this Washington Post Article.
It seems that, in what has to be the most absolutely amazing exhibition of pure brazenness ever demonstrated, the "Justice" Department has managed to shut down an internal investigation into whether or not some of their lawyers might have committed ethical violations while involved in the President's Warrentless Wiretapping program. The reason that the investigation ground to a halt? The investigators were refused the security clearances that they needed to look into the matter because the actual details of the program are extremely sensitive national security information, and restricted to the smallest possible group, so the investigators didn't have - wait for it - "need to know." Without the details of the program, they were unable to determine if their lawyers committed any ethics violations, and the investigation has now been closed.
Gotta love it.
If the Democrats were smart - meaning that the rest of this post is a wishful fantasy - they'd make oversight an issue in this year's elections. This congress has been completely derelict in their responsibility to watch the actions of the executive branch, so the president has been allowed to do pretty much whatever he damn well pleases. That should end. Congress doesn't just have the right to do oversight, they've got a responsibility to do it, and they've been absolutely remiss when it comes to meeting that responsibility. Democrats should be campaigning on that issue, and they should be doing it heavily. It might be a national issue, not a local one, but Congresscritters have obligations to more than just their district. They also have responsibilities to the nation. If they don't want to carry them out, they should be encouraged by their employers to find other work.
One of the very first words that I picked up from him was 'chutzpah.' He used the word to describe the qualities that I would need to exhibit if I was to have any hope of accomplishing anything in New York City Government. When I asked him what the word meant, he had to stop and think for a minute or two. Chutzpah, he said, is a one-word description of a fairly complex personality trait, and that there was no word in English that adequately captured the concept. I asked him if he could describe the trait, and he paused again for a second or two of thought. "OK, I tell you what chutzpah is. Chutzpah... you take a dump on your neighbor's doorstep, then ask to borrow his toilet paper, you got chutzpah."
That was a while ago - back during the Dinkins administration. If I asked him the same question today, he'd have a much easier time describing the concept. All he'd have to do is show me this Washington Post Article.
It seems that, in what has to be the most absolutely amazing exhibition of pure brazenness ever demonstrated, the "Justice" Department has managed to shut down an internal investigation into whether or not some of their lawyers might have committed ethical violations while involved in the President's Warrentless Wiretapping program. The reason that the investigation ground to a halt? The investigators were refused the security clearances that they needed to look into the matter because the actual details of the program are extremely sensitive national security information, and restricted to the smallest possible group, so the investigators didn't have - wait for it - "need to know." Without the details of the program, they were unable to determine if their lawyers committed any ethics violations, and the investigation has now been closed.
Gotta love it.
If the Democrats were smart - meaning that the rest of this post is a wishful fantasy - they'd make oversight an issue in this year's elections. This congress has been completely derelict in their responsibility to watch the actions of the executive branch, so the president has been allowed to do pretty much whatever he damn well pleases. That should end. Congress doesn't just have the right to do oversight, they've got a responsibility to do it, and they've been absolutely remiss when it comes to meeting that responsibility. Democrats should be campaigning on that issue, and they should be doing it heavily. It might be a national issue, not a local one, but Congresscritters have obligations to more than just their district. They also have responsibilities to the nation. If they don't want to carry them out, they should be encouraged by their employers to find other work.
10 May 2006
The Land of the Endangered.
The State of Hawaii is one of the smaller states in the Union. According to Wikipedia, we're 43rd out of 50 in size, 42nd in population, and, at 3000km from the nearest continent, we're as isloated as you can get. We may be small and out of the way, but there's a lot that we have. We've got a great climate - we're the only state that's entirely in the tropics. Being in the middle of the ocean helps there, too, since all that water helps to moderate the climate even more. It also gives us some really great beaches, world-class surf spots, and truly excellent snorkling and diving.
There's something else that being isolated does for us. It's the reason that we're the endangered species capital of the United States. We're so far out in the middle of the ocean that it is very difficult for new species to get here. The few that have made it have become the founders for evolutionary radiations, resulting in the origin of thousands of species unique to Hawaii. These species have been hit hard as a result of human actions. One in four species (329/1312) on the United States endangered species list is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands.
Yesterday, the list of endangered species in Hawaii got longer. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service added eleven species of Drosphila to the endangered species list, with one more species being listed as threatened. Each of the twelve species is found on only on a single island.
For those of you not familiar with the Hawaiian Drosophila, let me provide a quick intro. The genus Drosophila is best known because of Drosophila melanogaster, the legendary "fruit fly" that geneticists and students of biology have worked with for decades. ("Fruit fly" is in quotes because Drosophila are not actually fruit flies, but I'll refrain [for now] from descending to the depths of dorkdom necessary to go into detail on the difference. For now, suffice it to say that the distinction is at least semi-important to people who work with the group in the field.)
As I was saying, D. melanogaster is the best known member of the group, but it is far from the only one. There are literally thousands of species in the genus. Almost a quarter of them are found only in the Hawaiian Islands. The twelve flies being listed are members of a group of the Hawaiian Drosophila known as the picture-wings. (Pictures of two picture wings, one of which [D. heteroneura] is one of the newly-listed species, can be found in an earlier post here.) Each of the listed species has a range restricted to a single island. Most of them will only breed on a small number of plant species (1-3). They are extremely rare - surveys in their habitat areas don't turn up more than a couple of flies. Listing these species as endangered, under the circumstances, is such a complete no brainer that it's a wonder that it only took five years of work and a lawsuit to get it done.
But here's the kicker - the only thing that really distinguishes these twelve picture wings from the other hundred or so in the group is that they are a bit more rare. The vast majority of the group are limited to one island, and the vast majority are limited to a small number of plants. It's possible to catch a few more during surveys, but the difference isn't really all that much - none of these insects are what anyone would consider to be common.
It gets even better. The picture wings, ironically enough, haven't been the focus of this attention because they are the rarest of the Hawaiian Drosophilids. They've gotten the attention because they're the best studied group. The truth is, we don't actually even know how many species there are for sure. Entirely new species have been described within the last few years, and it is quite probable that there are more to be found.
Described species or not, formally listed or not, there are a lot of species in Hawaii that are very rare and at risk of extinction. Listing these twelve species is good, especially since the lawsuit settlement also mandates that critical habitat be designated for these species. It's good, but it's hardly enough. Unless we want to lose biodiversity faster than we can discover and describe it, we need to do far more to protect the native Hawaiian species. And, of course, we need to put more time, effort, and money into studying our ecosystems while we still have them.
There's something else that being isolated does for us. It's the reason that we're the endangered species capital of the United States. We're so far out in the middle of the ocean that it is very difficult for new species to get here. The few that have made it have become the founders for evolutionary radiations, resulting in the origin of thousands of species unique to Hawaii. These species have been hit hard as a result of human actions. One in four species (329/1312) on the United States endangered species list is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands.
Yesterday, the list of endangered species in Hawaii got longer. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service added eleven species of Drosphila to the endangered species list, with one more species being listed as threatened. Each of the twelve species is found on only on a single island.
For those of you not familiar with the Hawaiian Drosophila, let me provide a quick intro. The genus Drosophila is best known because of Drosophila melanogaster, the legendary "fruit fly" that geneticists and students of biology have worked with for decades. ("Fruit fly" is in quotes because Drosophila are not actually fruit flies, but I'll refrain [for now] from descending to the depths of dorkdom necessary to go into detail on the difference. For now, suffice it to say that the distinction is at least semi-important to people who work with the group in the field.)
As I was saying, D. melanogaster is the best known member of the group, but it is far from the only one. There are literally thousands of species in the genus. Almost a quarter of them are found only in the Hawaiian Islands. The twelve flies being listed are members of a group of the Hawaiian Drosophila known as the picture-wings. (Pictures of two picture wings, one of which [D. heteroneura] is one of the newly-listed species, can be found in an earlier post here.) Each of the listed species has a range restricted to a single island. Most of them will only breed on a small number of plant species (1-3). They are extremely rare - surveys in their habitat areas don't turn up more than a couple of flies. Listing these species as endangered, under the circumstances, is such a complete no brainer that it's a wonder that it only took five years of work and a lawsuit to get it done.
But here's the kicker - the only thing that really distinguishes these twelve picture wings from the other hundred or so in the group is that they are a bit more rare. The vast majority of the group are limited to one island, and the vast majority are limited to a small number of plants. It's possible to catch a few more during surveys, but the difference isn't really all that much - none of these insects are what anyone would consider to be common.
It gets even better. The picture wings, ironically enough, haven't been the focus of this attention because they are the rarest of the Hawaiian Drosophilids. They've gotten the attention because they're the best studied group. The truth is, we don't actually even know how many species there are for sure. Entirely new species have been described within the last few years, and it is quite probable that there are more to be found.
Described species or not, formally listed or not, there are a lot of species in Hawaii that are very rare and at risk of extinction. Listing these twelve species is good, especially since the lawsuit settlement also mandates that critical habitat be designated for these species. It's good, but it's hardly enough. Unless we want to lose biodiversity faster than we can discover and describe it, we need to do far more to protect the native Hawaiian species. And, of course, we need to put more time, effort, and money into studying our ecosystems while we still have them.
09 May 2006
Lack of updates apology
Sorry for the recent lack of updates here. I was sick as a dog for a good chunk of last week, and have family in town. It's also the end of the semester, so grades are coming due and I still have a load of grading to do. Updates will probably remain a bit sporadic for the next day or two, but should get back to normal after that.
Oh, and there may be some changes to the blog in the next week or two.
Oh, and there may be some changes to the blog in the next week or two.
02 May 2006
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
There's an interesting letter in this week's Nature (subscription required). The author of the letter, Michal Jasienski, compared the frequency of use for the words "surprising" and "unexpected" in the scientific literature to their use in other academic literature and in standard English. He found that the two words both appear in scientific writing much, much more commonly than they do elsewhere:
Personally, I think that being surprising is pretty much an inevitable consequence of our current level of understanding of nature. We've learned enough to know that there is a hell of a lot that we don't know, and we're continuing to develop tools that let us poke a little farther into our ignorance. If we weren't being surprised on a regular basis, it would imply that we actually have a pretty good handle on the nature of nature - and that really would surprise me. That's one of the reasons for the frequent use of the term.
Another reason that we scientists use those words so often is that "surprising" and "unexpected" is where we live. It's where we do business. It's what we are looking for. We are trying to answer questions that we don't already know the answers to. If you're not being surprised on a regular basis, you're probably not doing real science.
The word 'surprising' appears 12 times more frequently in the natural sciences than in standard English and 1.3 times more frequently than in social sciences, arts and humanities. The word 'unexpected' appears 39 times and 2.2 times more frequently in the natural sciences than, respectively, in standard English and in non-science academicHe attributes this phenomenon to a desire for publicity:
writing.
Although natural phenomena can indeed sometimes be surprising if they are against our expectations, being 'surprising' is not an inherent quality of nature. Does scientists' use of this term in their publications truly represent genuine surprise at their results? One might think that academic machismo or realism would cause scientists to downplay their surprise, but, on the other hand, overstating the level of astonishment may occur when striving for media attention.Ewan, over at Complex Medium, agrees that publicity is probably the reason for the frequent use of "surprising" and "unexpected." Tara, at Aetiology, does not - although she does wonder if the words in question might be overused.
Personally, I think that being surprising is pretty much an inevitable consequence of our current level of understanding of nature. We've learned enough to know that there is a hell of a lot that we don't know, and we're continuing to develop tools that let us poke a little farther into our ignorance. If we weren't being surprised on a regular basis, it would imply that we actually have a pretty good handle on the nature of nature - and that really would surprise me. That's one of the reasons for the frequent use of the term.
Another reason that we scientists use those words so often is that "surprising" and "unexpected" is where we live. It's where we do business. It's what we are looking for. We are trying to answer questions that we don't already know the answers to. If you're not being surprised on a regular basis, you're probably not doing real science.
28 April 2006
Friday Random Ten: The "Who the Hell am I" version
I was seriously considering writing a serious post today. Howard Kurtz has an interesting post about blogs over at the WaPo site, which fed into some thinking I've been doing about the subject. That's going to have to wait a day or two, though.
My fellow graduate students have honored me by making me one of the four department grad representatives for the next year (put another way, there was a popularity contest and I lost), so I now have to suffer through the same meetings that the faculty go to. After 2 hours working on the question sets for the diagnostic exams that are given to entering graduate students, I am totally unable to put together much in the way of coherent thought.
So, instead of an incisive and insightful post on the broader implications of blogging, here's a Friday Random Ten. (Which you'll probably enjoy more anyway, so this is kind of a win-win thing.)
1: Silver Spring
Fleetwood Mac
2: Me and Bobby McGee
Arlo Guthrie (Live in Sydney)
3: Livin' in America
Black 47
4: Turn the World Around
Harry Belafonte
5: Appalachian Spring - "The gift to be simple"
Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic
6: Snoopy and the Red Baron
The Royal Guardsmen
7: A Little Respect
Erasure
8: Hawaii 78
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
9: Downtown Baghdad Blues
Black 47
10: Jack and Diane
John Mellencamp
My fellow graduate students have honored me by making me one of the four department grad representatives for the next year (put another way, there was a popularity contest and I lost), so I now have to suffer through the same meetings that the faculty go to. After 2 hours working on the question sets for the diagnostic exams that are given to entering graduate students, I am totally unable to put together much in the way of coherent thought.
So, instead of an incisive and insightful post on the broader implications of blogging, here's a Friday Random Ten. (Which you'll probably enjoy more anyway, so this is kind of a win-win thing.)
1: Silver Spring
Fleetwood Mac
2: Me and Bobby McGee
Arlo Guthrie (Live in Sydney)
3: Livin' in America
Black 47
4: Turn the World Around
Harry Belafonte
5: Appalachian Spring - "The gift to be simple"
Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic
6: Snoopy and the Red Baron
The Royal Guardsmen
7: A Little Respect
Erasure
8: Hawaii 78
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
9: Downtown Baghdad Blues
Black 47
10: Jack and Diane
John Mellencamp
Yesterday's song lyrics, and today's problems
Waist Deep in The Big Muddy
Pete Seeger, 1967
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.
Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Pete Seeger, 1967
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.
Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
27 April 2006
Some slightly belated carnie barking
The latest editions of my three favorite blog carnivals are now available. If you've got the time, take a look at them (and if you don't, what are you doing reading this, anyway).
The 11th Edition of the Carnival of the Liberals is now available at And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is... While you're there, be sure to take a look at today's post.
The 64th Carnival of Education is available over at The Education Works. If you're interested in learning more about education, that's the place to go.
Finally, the 52nd issue of Tangled Bank is now available over at The Inoculated Mind. Give that a look if you want to see some of the best science posts from the last couple of weeks.
The 11th Edition of the Carnival of the Liberals is now available at And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is... While you're there, be sure to take a look at today's post.
The 64th Carnival of Education is available over at The Education Works. If you're interested in learning more about education, that's the place to go.
Finally, the 52nd issue of Tangled Bank is now available over at The Inoculated Mind. Give that a look if you want to see some of the best science posts from the last couple of weeks.
My daughter's revenge
My daughter has been having some homework and study habit issues lately that have lead to some stress for her. She hasn't been doing her spelling homework, and she has been doing poorly on spelling tests. This issue came to a head a couple of days ago, when I received a note from her teacher alerting me to the problem.
The daughter and I had a bit of a long talk about this yesterday (punishment in and of itself), and she's been handed a substantial "no computer, no TV, no nothing" sentence as a result. She thinks that this is massively unfair, because it's not like spelling is really important, and said so. I told her she was wrong, and the conversation ended there.
Today, I did a talk to her class for career week. Instead of just doing a talk, I decided it would be fun to spend most of the time answering questions. In retrospect, that might have been a bit of a mistake.
The Daughter (hand in the air): "What does DNA stand for?"
Me: "Deoxyribonucleic acid."
The Daughter (attempting to radiate wide-eyed innocence): "How do you spell that?"
The daughter and I had a bit of a long talk about this yesterday (punishment in and of itself), and she's been handed a substantial "no computer, no TV, no nothing" sentence as a result. She thinks that this is massively unfair, because it's not like spelling is really important, and said so. I told her she was wrong, and the conversation ended there.
Today, I did a talk to her class for career week. Instead of just doing a talk, I decided it would be fun to spend most of the time answering questions. In retrospect, that might have been a bit of a mistake.
The Daughter (hand in the air): "What does DNA stand for?"
Me: "Deoxyribonucleic acid."
The Daughter (attempting to radiate wide-eyed innocence): "How do you spell that?"
26 April 2006
Somewhere, John Henry is smiling.
I've got to admit it - when someone told me that Bruce Springsteen was going to be releasing a whole album of Pete Seeger covers, my first response was to yawn. I like the stuff he's done with the East Street Band, but I've never been much of a fan of his solo efforts. I really didn't know what to expect from this one, but it definitely wasn't much. I suppose I figured it would probably be another Bruce + guitar album - probably quiet, almost certainly acoustic.
When the album popped up in my Tuesday morning email from iTunes, I decided to take a couple of minutes to sample a track or two. I did that. Then I sampled a couple of more. Then one or two more. Then I bought the album.
I don't exactly know how to describe it, except to say that it's good. It's Shakespeare, the way it's meant to be done. Springsteen got together with a large group of musicians - fiddles, horns, drums, banjo, washboard, jug (I think), and recorded something that sounds like a really good jam session. It's not a choreographed studio album. It's a bunch of people making music and enjoying themselves along the way.
The song choices are pretty damn good, too. The title track (We Shall Overcome) was a little weak (it sounds like Bruce is trying to channel early Dylan), the rest of the tracks are a well-chosen mixture of civil rights related pieces (Jacob's Ladder, Eyes on the Prize), working man's songs (John Henry), and just plain fun music (Ol' Dan Tucker, Froggie Went A Courtin'). I really can't remember the last time I've found an album that I've enjoyed so much.
When the album popped up in my Tuesday morning email from iTunes, I decided to take a couple of minutes to sample a track or two. I did that. Then I sampled a couple of more. Then one or two more. Then I bought the album.
I don't exactly know how to describe it, except to say that it's good. It's Shakespeare, the way it's meant to be done. Springsteen got together with a large group of musicians - fiddles, horns, drums, banjo, washboard, jug (I think), and recorded something that sounds like a really good jam session. It's not a choreographed studio album. It's a bunch of people making music and enjoying themselves along the way.
The song choices are pretty damn good, too. The title track (We Shall Overcome) was a little weak (it sounds like Bruce is trying to channel early Dylan), the rest of the tracks are a well-chosen mixture of civil rights related pieces (Jacob's Ladder, Eyes on the Prize), working man's songs (John Henry), and just plain fun music (Ol' Dan Tucker, Froggie Went A Courtin'). I really can't remember the last time I've found an album that I've enjoyed so much.
25 April 2006
But does Barbara still like him?
President Bush's has been having problems in the polls for a while now, and his numbers just keep dropping. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll just released puts his approval numbers at under a third (32% +/-3). That's probably not the number that has him feeling the most pain right now, though. That honor most likely goes to the pitiful 33% approval number from last week's FOX News poll. If things get much worse, he's only going to have his immediate family left on the plus side of the equation.
21 April 2006
Earth Day Concerns
Today, there was an Earth Day fair on campus. I had a little time during lunch, and wandered on through. Strangely, I found myself becoming more and more annoyed as I moved through the displays. It took me a while to figure out exactly why. It was the lack of topicality of some of the displays.
Before I go on, I want to make it clear that most of the displays were both relevant and interesting. A couple looked at things like sustainable agriculture and aquaculture. There was a display, including a portable processing unit, from the local biodiesel group. Another highlighted low cost and relatively high efficiency solar cells, suitable and affordable for home use. For me, those are exactly the kinds of display that are exactly what Earth Day should be used to highlight.
But then there were the other displays. There were a couple wandering around in what I thought was a display of a sadomasochistic relationship, before I figured out that it was just a recreation of Abu Ghraib. He was wearing the black suit and hood, and she was passing out fliers demanding the trial of Bush et al for crimes against humanity. Our local communist was there, with lots of copies of Revolutionary Worker. Another few people, somewhat more moderate than the first pair, were circulating with a petition demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. Another group was working the immigration issue. Those were the types of display that annoyed me.
It's not that I don't think that those are views that are entitled to be displayed. Hell, I agree with some of them. It's just that they aren't Earth Day issues.
The planet is too important to politicize in any way, and it is certainly too important to make it a partisan issue. Addressing the problems that are facing the planet is going to need to involve everyone. We need to involve more people, with a wider range of views, in the solution to the problem. Linking Earth Day, the environment, and environmental issues to a wide array of unrelated (not to mention controversial) positions is not going to accomplish it. Instead, it risks painting the environment as another purely liberal issue, alienating those we most desperately need to convince.
Before I go on, I want to make it clear that most of the displays were both relevant and interesting. A couple looked at things like sustainable agriculture and aquaculture. There was a display, including a portable processing unit, from the local biodiesel group. Another highlighted low cost and relatively high efficiency solar cells, suitable and affordable for home use. For me, those are exactly the kinds of display that are exactly what Earth Day should be used to highlight.
But then there were the other displays. There were a couple wandering around in what I thought was a display of a sadomasochistic relationship, before I figured out that it was just a recreation of Abu Ghraib. He was wearing the black suit and hood, and she was passing out fliers demanding the trial of Bush et al for crimes against humanity. Our local communist was there, with lots of copies of Revolutionary Worker. Another few people, somewhat more moderate than the first pair, were circulating with a petition demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. Another group was working the immigration issue. Those were the types of display that annoyed me.
It's not that I don't think that those are views that are entitled to be displayed. Hell, I agree with some of them. It's just that they aren't Earth Day issues.
The planet is too important to politicize in any way, and it is certainly too important to make it a partisan issue. Addressing the problems that are facing the planet is going to need to involve everyone. We need to involve more people, with a wider range of views, in the solution to the problem. Linking Earth Day, the environment, and environmental issues to a wide array of unrelated (not to mention controversial) positions is not going to accomplish it. Instead, it risks painting the environment as another purely liberal issue, alienating those we most desperately need to convince.
Friday Random Ten, the Pau Hana edition
My own department here at the University of Hawaii might not make the top ten graduate school lists, but there are still plenty of good reasons to go here. One of them is our Friday afternoon Pau Hana. Getting together out on our building's lanai for beers, pupus, and conversation gives us something to look forward to at the end of the week.
This week, my iPod seems to be looking forward to Beers as much as I am.
1: On A White Sandy Beach Of Hawai'i
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
2: Sitting On the Dock of the Bay
Otis Reading
3: Real Good Looking Boy
The Who
4: Can You Picture That?
Dr. Teeth And The Electric Mayhem Band
5: Bubble Toes
Jack Johnson
6: Blues Traveler
The Hook
7: Man On The Moon
REM
8: It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere
Jimmy Buffett
9: I Can See Clearly Now
Jimmy Cliff
10: Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
Beatles
This week, my iPod seems to be looking forward to Beers as much as I am.
1: On A White Sandy Beach Of Hawai'i
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
2: Sitting On the Dock of the Bay
Otis Reading
3: Real Good Looking Boy
The Who
4: Can You Picture That?
Dr. Teeth And The Electric Mayhem Band
5: Bubble Toes
Jack Johnson
6: Blues Traveler
The Hook
7: Man On The Moon
REM
8: It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere
Jimmy Buffett
9: I Can See Clearly Now
Jimmy Cliff
10: Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
Beatles
20 April 2006
National Priorities
It's that time of the year again - the military needs more money if they are going to keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, the pricetag is in the vicinity of 100 billion dollars.
$100,000,000,000 is a lot higher than any of the previous emergency bills, in large part because the administration had been doing its best to hide the true costs of the war by putting off equipment repairs. The war has gone on for long enough now that further delay has become impossible, according to the Washington Post article linked above:
Pushing back the costs was dishonest, but that's nothing we haven't come to expect from this administration, and that's not actually my biggest complaint about the size of my bill. What pisses me off is the pork.
That's right, the congress has decided to use the military emergency spending bill to fund projects in their district that are completely unrelated to the war. In what is probably the most glaring example, Mississippi's two Republican senators added a $700 million earmark to the bill. The earmark will fund relocating a rail line that was just rebuilt after Katrina (for $250 million) away from the coast, making the casino developers happy:
$100,000,000,000 is a lot higher than any of the previous emergency bills, in large part because the administration had been doing its best to hide the true costs of the war by putting off equipment repairs. The war has gone on for long enough now that further delay has become impossible, according to the Washington Post article linked above:
[Army Chief of Staff GEN] Schoomaker said as much at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in February, when he remarked that a "bow wave" of costs "pushed forward from previous years" is now cresting.
Pushing back the costs was dishonest, but that's nothing we haven't come to expect from this administration, and that's not actually my biggest complaint about the size of my bill. What pisses me off is the pork.
That's right, the congress has decided to use the military emergency spending bill to fund projects in their district that are completely unrelated to the war. In what is probably the most glaring example, Mississippi's two Republican senators added a $700 million earmark to the bill. The earmark will fund relocating a rail line that was just rebuilt after Katrina (for $250 million) away from the coast, making the casino developers happy:
The real impetus appears to be economic. For more than half a dozen years, Mississippi officials, development planners and tourism authorities have dreamed of the complex restructuring of Mississippi's coastal transportation system that Lott and Cochran now want to set in motion. Under the plan, the CSX line -- which runs a few blocks off the coast line -- would be scrapped. CSX would move its freight traffic to existing tracks to the north owned by rival Norfolk Southern.What a sense of priority. Getting an unsightly rail line away from the tourists is very important. Actually giving the people in the military enough of a pay raise to match the inflation rate this year: not so important.
Then U.S. 90, a wide federal highway that hugs Mississippi's beaches, would be rebuilt along the CSX rail bed. The route of the federal thoroughfare would be turned into a smaller, manicured "beach boulevard" through cities such as Biloxi, where visitors could "spend more time strolling among the casinos and taking in the views," as the Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal put it.
19 April 2006
Full Sleeze Ahead!
According to the Washington Post, a very interesting television add is being run in the Ohio 6th. The commercial is an attack add, calling candidate Bob Carr, "too far left to work with Republicans in Washington," and characterizing him as a, "liberal Democrat." The add is paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
OK, so far there's nothing surprising about this, right? After all, you'd hardly expect the Republicans to run an add supporting a Democrat in a congressional election. That's true enough, but here's the kicker: Carr isn't the Democratic candidate for the district. At least not yet. He has to win the primary first.
A Republican attack add against the Democratic candidate in the general election is an attempt to hurt that candidate. A Republican attack add against a Democrat running in a primary is an endorsement. (Unless, of course, you think that Democratic voters are looking for a candidate who isn't a liberal, and who wants to work with Republicans.)
The NRCC is running the attack adds in an attempt to get themselves a nice, weak candidate to run against in the fall:
OK, so far there's nothing surprising about this, right? After all, you'd hardly expect the Republicans to run an add supporting a Democrat in a congressional election. That's true enough, but here's the kicker: Carr isn't the Democratic candidate for the district. At least not yet. He has to win the primary first.
A Republican attack add against the Democratic candidate in the general election is an attempt to hurt that candidate. A Republican attack add against a Democrat running in a primary is an endorsement. (Unless, of course, you think that Democratic voters are looking for a candidate who isn't a liberal, and who wants to work with Republicans.)
The NRCC is running the attack adds in an attempt to get themselves a nice, weak candidate to run against in the fall:
If Carr wins, there is no reason to suppose that he will be a formidable candidate in this open district, being vacated as incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland runs for governor. Carr once ran a hapless campaign, as a Republican, in Michigan. He lost that race in 1996 to Rep. Bart Stupak (D) by 71 percent to 27 percent.Gotta love it. It's not even may yet, and the Republicans are already doing their best to run a nice, dirty, dishonest campaign.
18 April 2006
Show Up.
How involved in politics should scientists be? What factors are important when it comes to making that decision?
For some of us, the answer to that comes fairly easily. One or two of us managed to evade the stereotype of the scientist-of-the-future, and caught the involvement bug because we were popular enough to win a role in student government early in our lives. A few of us were caught in a different stereotype - the children of the flower children - and have never known what it is like to not be involved in political causes. A bunch of scientists are just plain incapable of keeping their noses out of anything they bump into, whether it directly involves science or not.
The decision is harder for others. There are a few scientists who really do have an ivory tower mindset, and actively try to avoid anything that smacks of politics. Many put so many hours into their science that they don't have any to spare for politics. More are apathetic to politics, or disillusioned, or simply unaware of the issues.
Both the involved and uninvolved should read a new article in PLoS Biology. The article, "Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology," provides both reasons to get more involved in the political process and some hints as to where the efforts of scientists might most effectively be focused.
The article, written by Liza Gross, focuses on the work of Dr. Jon Miller, who has spent decades studying the public perception of science. Some of what he has to say is depressing (if not terrifying). Some of his message raises the possibility that there is still hope. All of it is worth reading.
The key point made in the article is this:
That's a fairly bold statement, but it is true.
As the article points out:
Not everyone has money to donate to a political campaign. Time, on the other hand, is something else. We might not have as much of it as we want (or need), but we always have some. Running for the school board takes a lot of time. Speaking during the public comment period of a school board meeting takes a lot less. Writing your congresscritter takes even less - in fact, you could have written one in less than the time it's taken you to read this. You might not be able to do much, but there's no excuse for doing nothing. It's time to show up.
For some of us, the answer to that comes fairly easily. One or two of us managed to evade the stereotype of the scientist-of-the-future, and caught the involvement bug because we were popular enough to win a role in student government early in our lives. A few of us were caught in a different stereotype - the children of the flower children - and have never known what it is like to not be involved in political causes. A bunch of scientists are just plain incapable of keeping their noses out of anything they bump into, whether it directly involves science or not.
The decision is harder for others. There are a few scientists who really do have an ivory tower mindset, and actively try to avoid anything that smacks of politics. Many put so many hours into their science that they don't have any to spare for politics. More are apathetic to politics, or disillusioned, or simply unaware of the issues.
Both the involved and uninvolved should read a new article in PLoS Biology. The article, "Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology," provides both reasons to get more involved in the political process and some hints as to where the efforts of scientists might most effectively be focused.
The article, written by Liza Gross, focuses on the work of Dr. Jon Miller, who has spent decades studying the public perception of science. Some of what he has to say is depressing (if not terrifying). Some of his message raises the possibility that there is still hope. All of it is worth reading.
The key point made in the article is this:
"The era of nonpartisan science is gone."
That's a fairly bold statement, but it is true.
As the article points out:
It's not that Americans are rejecting science per se, Miller maintains, but longstanding conflicts between personal religious beliefs and selected life-science issues has been exploited to an unprecedented degree by the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party. In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science. Such platforms wouldn't pass muster in the election, Miller says, but in the activist-dominated primaries, they drive out moderate Republicans, making evolution a political litmus test. Come November, the Republican candidate represents a fundamentalist agenda without making it an explicit part of the campaign. Last year, Miller points out, former Senator John Danforth, a moderate Missouri Republican, wrote in a New York Times opinion piece that for the first time in American history a political party has become an arm of a religious organization. The United States is the only country in the world where a political party has taken a position on evolution.So what is a scientist do do? Miller has a suggestion that might come as a shock to some. If you don't like the way that the fundamentalists treat science, then get involved:
The era of nonpartisan science is gone, says Miller, who urges scientists and science educators to learn the rules of this new game and get behind moderate Republicans as well as Democrats to protect the practice and teaching of sound science. Given the partisan attack on evolution and stem-cell research, he thinks scientists need to learn more about how the political process works. They need to be willing to run for the school board, write $500 or even $5,000 checks to support moderate candidates, and defeat Christian right-wing candidates. “Scientists need to become involved in partisan politics and to oppose candidates who reject evolution or attack scientific research,” he says. “It takes time, money, and paying attention to the issues.”For most scientists, both time and money are limiting resources, but that is a hurdle that must be overcome. In politics, the decisions are made by those who show up. If we want things to change, we need to get involved.
Not everyone has money to donate to a political campaign. Time, on the other hand, is something else. We might not have as much of it as we want (or need), but we always have some. Running for the school board takes a lot of time. Speaking during the public comment period of a school board meeting takes a lot less. Writing your congresscritter takes even less - in fact, you could have written one in less than the time it's taken you to read this. You might not be able to do much, but there's no excuse for doing nothing. It's time to show up.
A Brief Pop Gen Primal Scream
Right about now, at the tail end of a long and painful homework assignment, I have a strong urge to take my population genetics textbook and give the next person who tries to tell me that there's no math in evolution a good whack upside the head.
And any time that a single individual represents more than half of an organism's great-great-grandmothers, you should be allowed to just list "too high" as the inbreeding coefficient, and to hell with figuring all the possible routes through the pedigree.
And any time that a single individual represents more than half of an organism's great-great-grandmothers, you should be allowed to just list "too high" as the inbreeding coefficient, and to hell with figuring all the possible routes through the pedigree.
17 April 2006
Sally Jacobsen, the Northern Kentucky University professor who decided that her emotions should dictate what speech is allowable on campus, has been removed from her teaching duties and will retire at the end of the semester.
Interestingly, however, she is apparently still refusing to confirm or deny whether or not she was personally involved in destroying the display. The entire incident was an absolute disgrace, but that's the part that pisses me off the most. This self-righteous fool has the strength of her convictions right up to the point when it looks like serious consequences are pending - and not an inch further.
Interestingly, however, she is apparently still refusing to confirm or deny whether or not she was personally involved in destroying the display. The entire incident was an absolute disgrace, but that's the part that pisses me off the most. This self-righteous fool has the strength of her convictions right up to the point when it looks like serious consequences are pending - and not an inch further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)