Author Archive for Stupac2

Civil Rights Webcomic

So the ACLU has started a new Civil Rights webcomic, and wouldn't you know what the first one is about:



In case you're unaware, that's my high school, and my principal. I was utterly unsurprised when this happened, as it's exactly the reaction I would have expected from him. It's also utterly absurd, given that seniors do an archery unit in Gym. I can't really tell why arrows shot from bows are ok in our gym, but a picture of a sword isn't. I guess it's just school administrator logic.

So that's my town's little bit of fame.

Atheist Apocalypse

This comic, called "The Atheist Apocalypse is incredibly good. In case you couldn't tell, the horsemen are:

Science: Richard Dawkins
Reason: Daniel Dennet
Progress: Sam Harris
Equality: Christopher Hitchens.

I'm pretty confident about the first two, and fairly sure about the second, but they're less obviously portrayed. In fact, Hitchens looks significantly better in the comic than in real life, or at least many years younger.

At any rate, go read it. Poke around too, the rest of the comics are quite funny, and worth the annoyance of navigating the site (which isn't exactly like most webcomics).

Bias in Science

This month The American has a great article about gender bias in science. It's pretty much exactly what I thought: there might be some bias, but if there is it's small. The lack of women in science, math, and engineering isn't due to biased behavior but the same kind of things that result in a lack of men in social sciences and education (etc). For some reason people have a hard time accepting that men and women prefer different things (according to distributions, of course), and that would seem to be the utterly logical and predictable cause of this oft-decried disparity. The article also discusses attempts to "title-nine" the sciences, which would be disastrous. I know for a fact that title nine results in odd (and arguably discriminatory) situations like women's teams in obscure sports (like crew) getting much more money than men's teams to offset things like football programs, at least at Stanford (unless my friend who used to be on Stanford women's crew was lying/wrong).

The article is quite long and goes into great depth. Here's the punchline in case you're pressed for time:

The power and glory of science and engineer­ing is that they are, adamantly, evidence-based. But the evidence of gender bias in math and science is flimsy at best, and the evidence that women are relatively disinclined to pursue these fields at the highest levels is serious. When the bastions of science pay obsequious attention to the flimsy and turn a blind eye to the serious, it is hard to maintain the view that the science enterprise is somehow immune to the enthu­siasms that have corrupted other, supposedly “softer” academic fields.

Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business commu­nity and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically con­sequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers.

American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.

8 Presidential Losers Speak Their Piece

The NYTimes today has an interesting collection of what drop-out candidates would be talking about if they were still in the race. The contributors are Biden, Brownback, Dodd, Thompson, Richardson, Hunter, Kucinich, and Tancredo.

The interesting thing is the disparity between what the Democrats talk about and what the Republicans talk about. According to the Democrats our priorities should be: securing Afghanistan and its border with Pakistan, fixing crumbling infrastructure, enacting comprehensive mortgage reform, and helping to stave off the foreclosure crisis. According to the Republicans our priorities should be: fixing eroding "family values", FDA and health care reform and increased medical research grants, bringing back manufacturing jobs, and border security.

With the exception of Thompson's piece, the Republican positions are either idiotic or delusional: you can't legislate "family values", no matter how hard you try; our economy has to transition into something besides manufacturing, the days of high-school grads powering our economy though their strength are way gone; and border security is little more than xenophobic frenzy, immigrants (legal or illegal) aren't nearly as dangerous as most think, from what I've read they're more likely beneficial.

The Democrats at least have worthwhile proposals that would benefit people, even though I have doubts about Kucinich's foreclosure plans, I'm not sure a government bail-out is possible or wise, but at least he wants to help people.

I think the most useful one to add to the discussion is the infrastructure piece, we really do need to re-think our commitment to our infrastructure. If we keep on the path we're on we might have some serious trouble down the road.

But all of these pieces are valuable, if only as a snapshot of what people are thinking right now.

Intolerance at Stanford and Free Speech

It's no secret that I'm very pro-free speech, so I feel I have to comment on this Stanford Daily article, about a project highlighting intolerance. The project has an admirable goal: to get people to think about intolerance at Stanford and in general. I think it can something that we don't think about too much, and there were some nasty incidents near me this year.

But I really disagreed with this part:

“Our goal is to make the process of reporting acts of intolerance more transparent and more effective,” Diana Huynh [one of the coordinators] said. “We also hope to raise awareness and encourage people to speak out against acts of intolerance.”


That seems innocuous enough, but that part about reporting acts of intolerance rubs me the wrong way. It seems to me that most of these acts are harmless, in that there's no actual threat, and people are just exercising their free speech rights, albeit in incredibly unfortunate ways. It seems to me that unless the act is intended as a threat, there's nothing to report.

Granted, it's unfortunate that there are closed-minded people in the world, but even they have a right to their opinions, no matter how repugnant they are. Unless they cross the line and actually violate a law, I feel really strongly that there should be no action taken against them.

Maybe that's what the group meant. But for some reason I doubt it. The people running colleges seem to have this idea that free speech doesn't apply to things that make people uncomfortable, or even to things that are downright hateful. But it does. We take away the right to say those things, and we can kiss goodbye all of our rights. It won't be immediate, and you might not even notice it, but once the right to free speech starts to erode, it will be eventually evaporate, and it will take democracy with it. You might think that's hyperbole, but I am utterly convinced that we cannot budge an inch in our defense of free speech, and I never shall.

Prison Nation

Well look at this: America has reached an awesome new milestone:

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report.

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.


It's even worse for minorities, I've heard that there are more blacks in prison than in college, though don't have a good source for it.

The really sad thing is how many of those people are minor drug offenders, totally nonviolent people who did nothing to anyone but themselves, and now they're in prison for years and years. And then when you take into account how much crime happens because drug markets are black, I bet we could easily halve our prison population by ending prohibition, and I wouldn't be surprised if we could get it under 1/10 what it currently is through sensible policies.

Too bad all of that is political suicide. And now it's getting even worse, with prison becoming an industry of its own.

So do you like where this is heading? I know I do!

Economic Pandering

I'm just curious, but has any politician really been able to "create jobs"? They pretty much all promise to do it, but it seems to me that it's entirely beyond their control. Granted, I don't understand economics very much (I take a dismal view of the "dismal science"), but from what I've heard the economy is largely beyond the control of leaders. A metaphor that occurs to me (but may or may not be apt) is that politicians meddling with the economy are like doctors experimenting with new drugs, but not controlling for anything. So what they've done might have had some kind of effect, but it's damn near impossible to say for certain.

Sure, politicians can do things like offer corporations tax breaks and other incentives to move to the town, state, or country, but even in that their power seems quite limited. And hearing someone promise to bring back manufacturing jobs is just laughable. We're a service economy now, and we're going to need to get used to that fact. Unless there's a compelling business reason to manufacture in the US, it's not going to happen, and since China and India do have workers (at the very least) as smart and capable and hard-working as ours, those jobs are not coming back.

And it's really annoying to see the Democrats pandering to the Ohio view that NAFTA has killed their economy, when every economic article I've read has said that, at the worst, it has been neutral for the country. It's too bad, but I guess educating people against their long- and deeply-help beliefs is just not going to happen in the middle of a tight primary.

At any rate, I'd really like to know if the politicians' claims about creating jobs can be taken as anything other than insincere pandering, anyone know?

Doping in Academia?

Jonah Lehrer has an interesting post about using drugs to improve performance in college. Here's the important bit, from here:

It is probably surprising that the drug backfired only once, when I stayed up on Adderall for 72 hours before a philosophy final. My appearance in the testing hall the next day was so tangled and shaky that the professor removed me from the room. I was sent away with permission to return later and finish the exam in his office. Instead, I slept. In the end it didn't matter that I failed the exam, because a semester of A+ Adderall papers had left me with a decent grade in the class. If the proof is in the transcript, then Adderall is hardly a self-punishing habit. Sometimes I think about how Marion Jones has to return all the prize money she earned while taking steroids, and I wonder whether I should be stripped of all the A's I received for papers written on Adderall. This is a haunting or a comical thought, depending on my mood.

Of course, I could have studied in college without Adderall, just like I did in high school--I just couldn't have studied with such ecstasy. Theoretical texts, in particular, were transformed into exercises as conquerable as a Tuesday crossword. I could work out in the gym with a Xeroxed packet of Gayatri Spivak perched on the elliptical machine in front of me, reading and burning calories at the same time. The efficacy of the multitasking was exhilarating. On Adderall, the densest writing became penetrable. I had an illusion of mastery, at least, that lasted long enough to write the necessary papers and presentations. I could never remember what I had written the next day, but I justified this forgetfulness as an accelerated version of what would happen anyway after I graduated.


Jonah says, "I'd always get annoyed before taking an exam that was going to be graded on a steep curve. I'd look around at my competition and see all these sunken eyes and twitchy hands and I'd feel like a pitcher that didn't dabble in HGH." Personally, I've never noticed anything like that, but I wouldn't be too surprised if kids in some of my classes were on some kind of drugs while taking tests or writing papers, especially in those big, freshman classes.

What I'm actually curious about is how many people in physics do this. It's a small enough group of people that I could actually ask, but I doubt anyone would be so candid as to admit it.

At any rate, it's certainly an interesting problem. Should we have random drug testing for people at college? Most would find the idea abhorrent. But how is it different than testing professional athletes? I'm not so sure it would be. There's this idea that our work should be pure, untainted. I don't really see the line between this being true in Baseball but not Philosophy exams. Is there one?

Personally I think it's stupid to outlaw this stuff no matter where it's done. If baseball players want to take HGH or steroids, why stop them? If the philosophy student wants to take Adderall, why stop them? I guess you can argue that, if it enhances their performance, it practically mandates that everyone else competing with them do it too. But that assumes that these things help (and it seems like they hurt about as often as they help), and it assumes that the area is actually competitive. In baseball it's obviously true, but in Philosophy? Yes, I recognize that college is competitive, but I think it shouldn't be (I have a laid-back attitude about grades, preferring to, you know, learn rather than obsess about getting the A).

These questions are interesting, I'd like to see ethicist's take on it.

Increase in the religiously unaffiliated

A reader asked me to comment on the story about the decline in religious affiliation, and so I shall. I didn't really think too much of it, the most dramatic thing seems to be how often people switch denominations, which isn't entirely that surprising given how ridiculously similar they are, and how moving or marrying could easily cause people to switch.

And even the stats about the increasing numbers of "unaffiliated" aren't too impressive:

The majority of the unaffiliated -- 12 percent of the overall population -- describe their religion as "nothing in particular," and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.


Four percent isn't that much, and honestly I doubt that's the true number. This was done by Pew, but I doubt they'd cook the numbers much. Maybe they underrepresented people who tend to be atheists, but I doubt that too. At any rate, four percent isn't a huge number, even if we are at 16% unaffiliated. (Note, the CNN article seems to be quite bad at giving numbers. The chart PZ shows here puts unaffiliated at 16%, while CNN breaks it up into "nothing in particular" and "atheist/agnostic". It's quite misleading as I thought the former were part of the latter.)

The one true great bit of news was this doozy:

One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.


I don't think I've ever been prouder of my peers than this. One out of every four has no affiliation! That's a fantastic number, and I have to imagine that it's much higher than it would have been 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. After the NYTimes piece about Evangelicals fleeing, it certainly seems like we're seeing a good trend. Young people are realizing that truth, and succumbing to rationality. It's inspiring and leaves me a bit optimistic about our future. Hopefully we can keep getting atheism press, and even more hopefully good press, and people will start to wake up, shatter their delusions, and breathe the fresh air that is a world unencumbered by the old mythologies.

An atheist can dream, right?

The singularity is near!!!

This comic pretty much sums up how I feel about the singularity. Ray Kurzweil is, as far as I know, the progenitor of this "theory", which is essentially glorified futurism. Every time there's a technological advance, especially biomedical ones, people start shouting "the singularity is near!"

But if you actually look at it, the singularity concept is entirely obvious, banal, and superfluous. It's essentially saying, "Things will be different fifty years from now!" Well, yeah, of course they will. But that's been true at any point up to about a hundred and fifty years ago. It's not exactly brilliant to take Moore's Law and extend it to the rest of the world.

What bugs me though are claims about humans becoming immortal. First off, no biological system will ever be immortal, there will always be some way to kill it. And all the medical advances in the world couldn't save us from nuclear Armageddon, which is always possible. But the claims about nanotechnology curing all of our ills are just absurd. The main problem I have with it is the simple fact that our biological understanding of our bodies isn't increasing exponentially. Granted, we know much more medically now than 100 years ago, but compare medicine then to now, and then compare computer science then to know. Technology advances much faster than science, it's just in science's nature to move slowly. So even if we get nanotechnology perfected in the next 20 years (which, by the way, we won't), we probably couldn't put it to any use, or at least truly effective use. And even if we do manage to build robots to take care of us, what do you think federal regulatory committees would do with it (and let's face it, if anything is certain about the future it's that there will be bureaucracy)? I don't think it will get anywhere fast, and that's with gracious assumptions.

Granted, some of this stuff probably will happen. Machines will get smaller and smaller, and humans will become more and more dependent, biologically, on machines. At some point in the future we will probably have machines inside of us. It's not a grand insight given that hundreds of thousands of people already do in the form of pacemakers and other devices. Essentially all you're doing when you say that is take something that has already happened and project into the future.

What really bugs me about the concept of a technological singularity is that it trends toward the hyperbolic. Everyone loves looking back at people in the 70's (or earlier) making predictions about what the future would be like. Most of them are wildly off the mark, and those are the ones that make grand claims and weird assumptions. The ones that are scarily accurate are the ones that look at what has recently happened, how people have reacted to it, and projected that into the future with the assumption that technology will continue to get better. The singularity goes beyond that common-sense approach, and says that life will become unrecognizable. It very well may, after all, no one can predict the future. But the smart money is on gradual, incremental, non-revolutionary change. After all, even the internet revolution took decades to truly develop.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and I think that's the key thing singularity proponents forget with their timelines. Their predictions may come true, but within 20 years? Doubtful.

More unbelievable anti-gay bigotry

Try reading this without having your blood pressure raised:

Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.

But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami with Langbehn and the children following close behind.

But once Langbehn and the children arrived at the hospital the hospital refused to accept information from her about Ponds's medical history.

Langbehn says she was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family.

A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery.

Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.

Soon after Pond''s death, Langbehn tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.


If that had happened to a straight, unmarried couple, could you imagine the reaction? The backlash would be harsh and immediate. The staff would probably all be fired, or at least suspended. But just because they're the same sex, they have these impossible burdens to put up with. It's a crying shame.

I've posted this before, and I'll probably post it again, but it summarizes how I feel so perfectly:

In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.

When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.

When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?


Granted, it's not entirely religious people who are anti-gay, but there is some correlation. We need to stand up to bigotry, and when its source is religion, call it out. And we should ally ourselves with the sensible, moderate religious figures who realize that gay people are people too.

We simply won't have justice in this country until all people truly are equal. I know we face many difficult problems, but rampant, institutionalized intolerance must be high up on the list.

Doritos now offensive to Muslims

This story made me laugh:

Furious Muslims have heavily criticised Walkers crisps after it emerged that certain varieties of the manufacturer's products contain trace elements of alcohol.

Some crisp types use minute amounts of alcohol as a chemical agent to extract certain flavours.

[...]

Shuja Shafi, who chairs the food standards committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that he intended to investigate. "Certainly we would find it very offensive to have eaten food with alcohol."


Isn't it funny that the letter of religious law is so important? The best part is that it's actually "offensive". The amounts of alcohol are far too dilute to ever get you drunk, or to taste, but it's still bad. It's still against the rules. The inane, useless, 7th-century rules.

There are times when religion is too funny not to love. Of course most of the time it's just infuriating, like when people are bombing buildings because of a cartoon.

Does the Magic Matter?

I generally like the NYTimes Op-Ed page. While I don't always agree with the editorials they print, they're generally high-quality, well-written, thought-provoking pieces. However, there's one today that is little but unadulterated garbage. I'm speaking about When the Magic Fades by David Brooks.

Let me start with the easiest point, and that is his attempt to show Obama as partisan:

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?


First of all, calling the FISA bill bipartisan is a laughing stock. That was nothing but the Democrats in the Senate capitulating to Bush, and passing a god-awful piece of legislation. The House's actions the next day in allowing the bill to die were almost universally hailed as the right thing to do, and every sane person agrees. Voting against that insidious bill is a point for Obama, not against. If Brooks' point here is that Obama should back every measure that has bipartisan support just because he supports transcending party lines to get stuff done then Brooks is completely and utterly wrong. That line of thinking says that the Iraq War authorization was a good idea, and it's clearly bullshit. What Obama means by bringing people together is bringing them together to do good, not just bringing them together for its own sake. The fact is that sometimes playing the partisan game is correct, at least when one side is right and the other isn't.

And I'm honestly confused about the disdain some people are showing for Obama's supporters. Is it really a bad thing that people are inspired by him? Is it a bad thing that young people are voting in droves? Is it a bad thing that he attracts moderates and Republicans? Because to me these seem like great, even necessary attributes for the Democratic candidate. That is, unless you want to see a John McCain presidency.

I'm also tired of these low-blows about him being "messianic". For starters, don't we kind of need someone to take charge and save our sorry asses from the fuck-up of historical proportions that is the Bush administration? I'm not going to say we need a messiah, but I also think that knocking Obama for using grand rhetorical is just foolish. The best leaders of all time are almost universally great speakers, and it's because inspiring people with language indicates a great mind, which a good leader needs. The same people who mock Bush relentlessly for his "Bush-isms" don't see that it works the other way too: someone who knows how to use words to inspire is exactly the kind of intelligent, clear-thinking person we need.

And this is just insane:

Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?


Yes, and MLK's "I have a dream" speech was about an actual dream. Is Brooks serious? Does he really think that Obama means "we" as in the collection of individuals? It clearly means the movement, the people coalescing behind one person and demanding an end the insanity, demanding something better. Misinterpreting that means you're either an idiot or being disingenuous.

Then there this:

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?


Nice job not noting that Hillary gave a bunch of money to those people too, that information is totally not pertinent. Regardless, I liked the Obama camp's response to this idiotic accusation, "They've discovered that we support the Democratic party," (paraphrased). I'll admit, this could look like he's trying to buy their vote, but I very much doubt it. First because no superdelegate is stupid enough to be bought, and second because who would be bought for $10,000? It seems to me far more likely that they're just supporting other Democratic candidates, and even if they're not, knocking Obama for doing this seems odd because the Clinton camp has done it too.

In the end, I'm as bemused by the Obama-knockers as the Hillary-haters. Personally, I'll vote for whichever candidate the Democrats put up, even though I prefer Obama. But it's starting to look pretty clear that the people prefer Obama, and he has a better chance of winning against McCain is every recent poll I've seen, I'm thinking it's time for others to support him too. But some don't, and I can respect that without needing to call them delusional or idiotically bash Clinton.

In any event, I hope this stupid "Obama's supporters are a cult!!!!111" thing ends soon, because it's moronic beyond words. Of course, that's the very reason it'll likely keep up until the fat lady sings.

Dawkins is coming to Stanford!

Wow, this is incredible news. First Christopher Hitchens comes to Stanford, and now Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are coming!

The rise of religiously motivated threats to scientific practice and instruction in American schools has motivated Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss to engage in a public dialogue on strategies for science education in the twenty-first century. Their open conversation concerning science education and related issues began in the July 2007 Scientific American and continues at this Aurora Forum event moderated by Mark Kay of the Stanford School of Medicine.


I'll have to get my tickets tomorrow, if you're in the area, stop by the Stanford Ticket Office and pick them up, this should be one great show.

Super Tuesday

I just got back from voting. It was the first time I ever had. It's actually a bit exciting, and I'm incredibly nervous for tonight's results. If the Patriots lose the Super Bowl and Obama loses Super Tuesday, all in the course of two days, I don't think I'll be able to take it!

More misunderstanding of evolution

This is pretty funny:
DEAR ABBY: It's the personal isolation of people today. Business people will not answer their telephones and speak directly with customers. Individuals won't answer their phones at home, but do respond to e-mail and text messages. A generation has been schooled to keep a cell phone glued to their ears at all times instead of communicating face-to-face.

If Darwin was right, future generations will no longer require a tongue because we will no longer converse. Instead, we'll grow extra fingers with which to type and text. - RON C., SOULSBYVILLE, CALIF.


That's not how evolution works! It's amazing, you could learn this by reading just one popular-level book, or a few articles, hell I bet even reading the Wikipedia article would dispel that idiotic notion. Ron C is a moron who doesn't understand evolution at all, and apparently so is Dear Abby (which, by the way, is not in the least surprising). And that's not even dealing with the idiocy of the rest of his statement. People need other people, we always have and we always will. Social animals don't just stop being social, not on the timescales we have.

Abortion

Read this article on abortion. No, you don't have a choice, you must read it.

It's a doctor explaining why he performs abortions, and he describes the two attempts on his life because of what he does. It's a fantastic article, read it.

The Great Debate

I just got back from the Hitchens debate. I have to say, Hitchens is a wonderful speaker, incredibly articulate and a masterful wordsmith, and still clever and funny. His ability to speak on the fly is something to behold. However, he did nothing to endear himself to his opponents, calling them names (albeit only deserved ones) and using colorful language (at one point saying that if someone told him to sacrifice his daughter he could only reply, "Fuck you", which must have gone over great with the people in the churches the debate was broadcast into).

And, as anticipated, the moderators were incredibly biased. Ben Stein was openly antagonistic toward Hitchens, and Hitchens didn't mind at all (one presumes he gets it all the time). They also could have controlled the debate much better, it reminded me of the most recent Democratic debate, where there was more talking between the debaters than question-answering. The few questions that were asked of the debaters were tremendously inane creationist claptrap, almost verbatim out of the Index of Creationist Claims. It would have been really nice to have a question that was antagonistic toward Mr Richards (the Theist).

All that said, I think Hitchens could have done a better job. One of Richards's key points was that the universe had a beginning, that it came from nothing, and must therefore have a cause. Besides being readily refutable philosophically, we don't even know it's true. I think if Hitchens had pointed all that out, then repeatedly stress (although he did stress it once early) that God is a shitty explanation for this anyway, "I don't know" is a far better answer, that Richards would have been blown out of the water.

In fact, I would have stressed the atheist's uncertainty, and the beauty in that uncertainty. I know it's not terribly persuasive to someone who has committed to Theism, but neither is anything else, and I think that the openness of our minds, and our ability to say, "I don't know", are two things that should be stated at every opportunity.

I have only one last criticism of Hitchens, the debate was only 105 minutes (90 "televised", the rest Q&A with the audience), and expecting extensive coverage of all the issues is absurd. However, dismantling Intelligent Design can be done in that time (especially since Hitchens definitely got more than his fair share). Sticking to the topic (which Richards correctly criticized Hitchens for not doing) would have been more effective than tangents that, while true critiques of religious, were a bit misplaced. But perhaps that is an unavoidable consequence of the way his mind works.

That said, he was great, and I would have paid to listen to him. Plus he gave autographs afterward, and personalized them too (something Richard Dawkins did not do, but Dawkins had a considerable line to deal with, while Hitchens had only a handful of fans). If you have the chance to listen to him, whether in a speech or in a debate, even one totally stacked against him, you should absolutely do it. It was well-worth the hardship I now have doing the work I need to get done for tomorrow.

Physics Dorkiness + Politics = Awesome

I just have to share this fun bit of Physics dorkiness my friend overheard:

Holy shit, I just overheard someone here at SLAC say, "The democrats are separated by hyperfine structure."


Hyperfine structure is a splitting of the Hydrogen atom's energy level degeneracies by the interaction of the electron's dipole moment with the proton's. It's an incredibly weak effect, a jump between energy levels split this way gives off a photon with energy on the order of 10^-6 eV, which is quite small. The joke being that the Democratic candidates are damn near identical.

I love Physics...

Politics

In the two weeks since I last tallied my preferences, I've decided to support Barack Obama. I'm going to be honest, because there is so little separating the Democratic candidates in terms of their positions (at least that they admit), this is more of a "gut feel" choice, he just feels better.

But, being only 20, this is the first time I've really felt attached to a politician, the first time I've followed votes coming in and followed the polls week-to-week. And the lead-up to February 5th (when I, along with much of the country, will vote), I am filled with a sense of dread. After Iowa there was an optimism, that he could pull this off, that Hillary wouldn't win and give us four more years (while she wouldn't be as catastrophic as Bush, she wouldn't be great, and I'll stand by the prediction), but following New Hampshire and Nevada, his huge deficit in national and local polls, her huge leads among older whites, the news that Edwards voters tend to prefer Hillary, it all wears on a supporter's soul.

I suppose it's better for me than my roommate, who is visibly disturbed by each loss, each poll. This primary season is like watching a 2-month-long football game, and my team has been trailing since the first minute. It's not over until the end, but I'm starting to really dread that end.

Hitchens and other thoughts

I found out two things today, one good, one bad.

The good thing is that Christopher Hitchens is coming to Stanford. He's debating some IDiot, I frankly don't care who it is, and the thing is being moderated by Ben Stein (truly an impartial moderator). I have no idea why he agreed to be moderated by someone on the record as being pro-ID, I guess he's just cocky.

The bad thing is who's hosting the debate. It's the Stanford Review, a conservative paper, a group called, "Vox Clara: A Journal of Christian Thought at Stanford", that I've never heard of before, and the IDEA Club at Stanford. The bad thing is that last bit, "IDEA Club" means Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness, and is pretty clearly a pro-ID group (given that webpage, I can't find anything specific about Stanford's chapter). I'm incredibly disheartened by this news, I would have hoped my beloved university would be a bastion of intelligence and clear-thinking, yet we have people who actually believe this utter garbage here. It's intellectual diarrhea, and I would have hoped that our student body would be better than this.

Perhaps I should start an anti-ID group, bring down Dawkins or Miller to give a talk or two...

[Which reminds me, Francis Collins is giving a talk at some point too, but it costs money and I'm not paying to hear his inconsistencies and utter lack of clear thinking.]

On another semi-related note, on the way to pick up the Hitchens tickets, I noticed that some group had turned a grassy area in the middle of campus into a mock graveyard, decrying those "Who have been killed by Roe v Wade." In case you didn't know, this is the 35th anniversary of that historic decision. This also saddened me a bit, but since abortion is something that legitimate people can disagree about, it's not as bad as having an ID club. But I still have to wonder what these people want our country to be like, Saudi Arabia? I'm still fond of the question, "Well, if we outlaw abortion, what would we do to people who break the law?" I think it's important to ask, "What would we do to doctors who perform them, and women who seek them?" And these spawn more questions, "What about if a woman gets one in a country where it isn't illegal? What about forcing a miscarriage, something like riding a horse (prescribed by Roman doctors for unwanted children)?" I think that, even if you don't like the idea of abortion, you have to admit that these are sticky questions.

But then again, there are lots of things that seem clear to me that aren't so apparent to others. Those idiots!

Free Speech Day

Apparently today is freedom of speech day. Enjoy the freedom you have, and thank those who fight for it.

Toilets, the next Al-Qaeda?

The NY Times has a great article on the fear of terrorism. I particularly like this statistic:

Although it’s impossible to calculate the pain that terrorist attacks inflict on victims and society, when statisticians look at cold numbers, they have variously estimated the chances of the average person dying in America at the hands of international terrorists to be comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet.


I knew that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack were infinitesimal, but I didn't know they were drowning-in-a-toilet low. I didn't even realize that people died from drowning in toilets. What a terrible way to go.

Read the article, especially if you're in any way afraid of terrorism.

Hooray hyperbole!

Want to know how to be a bad journalist? Write a sentence like this:

After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited by the possibilities of new technology and the innovations being made in the private sector, that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund...


So let me get this straight, after 9/11, the CIA went back in time two years to set up a venture capital fund? Now that's news!

This comes from this article on Facebook, which is essentially one long rant about how Facebook's neocon libertarian Stanford-grad overlords are stealing all your "ID information" and personal preferences, and how evil ads are. For the second complaint, I have only three words: Firefox, and Adblock Plus. Seriously, you'll never see an ad online again (it's awesome!). As for the first complaint, I'm seriously mystified as to what "ID information" they're taking, since you only need to supply (at most) an e-mail address, a name, and birthday, and neither of those need to be real. They're not taking Social Security Number, Credit Card Numbers, or Driver's License Numbers, or anything else even remotely useful. So Facebook has my name, oh no! I'm sure that information isn't already in the hands of hundreds of companies.

The sad thing is that the article starts with legitimate complaints; that rather than bringing people together, "social networking" sites like Facebook drive us apart. Personally, I believe in using Facebook as a way to contact people who don't like to use other methods (some people don't like being available via phone or Instant Messaging, sometimes I understand the feeling), and Facebook provides a nice way to contact someone that feels more personal than e-mail. It's also good for uploading photos, since it's close to impossible to find a good free photo host any more.

I think there are people who take the thing too seriously, who spend lots of time on it or obsess over it, but I have yet to meet one of them. Everyone I know uses it the same way I do, the way it was originally intended to be used: as a tool that makes certain aspects of your social life easier. Are some companies/evil-neocon-libertarian-VCs benefiting from this? Maybe, but just in case I'll tell them my favorite flavor of gum is garlic.

Funny/scary religion quotes

Here's a funny list of quotes from Christian chat rooms. Some of them are hysterical (either for stupidity or unintentional irony), some are incredibly depressing, some are infuriating; so it's pretty representative of religion in general.

Here's one particularly terrible quote:

Seriously, does anybody ever cry at an Atheist's funeral?

I mean, since Atheists have no value whatsoever as human
beings (they're not even human, but only inhuman animals),
since Atheists are nothing but miserable Liars, Cowards
and Murderers, after all, why would anybody in their
right mind weep over the dead rotting corpse, or bone
chips and ashes (that get mixed together with those of
others from the crematory) of a worthless dead Atheist?

And what epitaph do you engrave on an Atheist's grave
marker? "Here lies the only good Atheist, which is a
dead Atheist". What else is there say? Nothing at all.
No last words, no last rites, no flowers, no anything.

Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as
a result of that dead Atheist being dead, & its damned
God-forsaken soul burning in the fiery pits of Hades. :)

Which begs another related question, do Atheists cry at
funerals? If so, why? Since Atheists hate God, and they
hate Family, and they hate Country, who are they crying
for? It is true: The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist.


I won't even bother answering the questions, since their answers are obvious to anyone with a brain. I just wanted to point out that I have never in my life heard that kind of sentiment expressed by an atheist about anyone. I guess Freud was right about projection, because there is no shortage of it in these messages (and in my experience with the religious in general). Hatred, ignorance, fear, and intolerance are all projected onto atheists (as well as other groups). It's a very sad state of affairs, I can only hope that one day people will be educated enough to spot these projections.

Help restore science funding

Via ZapperZ comes this fantastic form for contacting your congress-critters about the tragedy that is this year's science funding. It's done through the APS, so you might need to modify the text of the letters a bit (I changed "scientist" to "student of science", for example), but I highly recommend that you do this. Without funding, science will simply cease to happen, and that's something we cannot afford.

In case you're not familiar with the situation, in the recently-passed Omnibus Spending bill, there were severe cuts to science funding, especially at large facilities (such as Fermilab and SLAC). These large projects are crucial, and without them we lose competitive advantage to other countries as well as put good scientists (and post-docs, and grad students) out of work, and we also miss out on the opportunity to make new discoveries. Large projects are the future of physics, as we probe more deeply into the structure and composition of the universe, more expensive machines are simply a necessity.

Here's the text of the letter:

As a scientist, I write to draw your attention to the devastating blows basic research received in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The funding levels for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE) in the bill will cause irreparable harm.

I urge you to rectify the damage by providing emergency supplemental appropriations for FY08 and sustaining the American Competitiveness Initiative in your FY09 request.

The cuts to our nation's scientific facilities and to university research force industry to look abroad for scientific talent and facilities; they tell students to avoid science and engineering fields or to pursue those fields abroad; and they lay off scientific staff whose expertise will be permanently lost.

For America's long-term economic prospects and our children's future, the 2008 budget ignores the urgent calls found in such reports as "Rising above the Gathering Storm" to address our competitiveness and innovation challenges. Instead of increasing the investments so critical to our innovation economy, the bill you signed into law has slashed vital fields of science.

Furthermore, as we as a nation strive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, mitigate global warming and put a lid on escalating energy costs, the 2008 budget abandons the long-term transformational research that is necessary to achieve all these essential goals. The bill is bad for our energy future and economic future.

The White House and Congress both recognized the importance of basic research, particularly in the physical sciences, and incorporated increases for research funding at key agencies into their budgetary actions this past summer. The broadly supported increases acknowledge the strong connection between basic research and economic growth, a connection that other countries have also accepted and are acting upon vigorously.

The bipartisan support for such research, expressed in the America COMPETES Act, represents a strong federal commitment to the principle that science and technology are central to the future of our nation. However, such support is not represented in the final 2008 Budget.

Distressing News from my Hometown

Via Ed Brayton comes this stunning piece of news, School district plans chip to track students:

A tech company with ties to a school district plans to test a tracking system by putting computer chips on grade-schoolers' backpacks, an experiment the ACLU ripped Monday as invasive and unnecessary.

The pilot program set to start next week in the Middletown school district would have about 80 children put tags containing radio frequency identification chips, or RFID chips, on their schoolbags. It would also equip two buses with global positioning systems, or GPS devices.

The school and parents will be able to track students on the bus, and the district hopes the program will improve busing efficiency, Superintendent Rosemarie Kraeger said. The devices are intended to record only when students enter and exit the bus, and the GPS would show where the bus was on it's route.


On the plus side, parents can opt out (but I think these things should usually be opt-in).

I have a feeling that this kind of thing will become more and more common (sort of like that South Park Episode where the parents all freak out over child abduction and place trackers on everyone). It's a beautiful combination of technology, insane and inane parental and administrator fear, and a hyperbolic media.

But what really struck me is that this is happening in Middletown RI. I went to one of the schools where this is likely taking place (the article didn't mention specific schools, but I went to elementary school there for a year, before moving one town over to Portsmouth). One reason I can safely call this insane is that Aquidneck Island is incredibly safe, I haven't heard of a single case of a missing child the entire time I've been there. In fact, car accidents are the cause of nearly every childhood death I've ever heard of in the area. Granted, I could be missing something, but the point remains that this is very, very far from a high-crime or high-danger area.

Beyond all that, one must ask, "Is this a necessary use, or even a good use, of taxpayer money?" I think there's no rational argument for answering "Yes". We've survived just fine for a long time without needing to Lo-Jack our children, and exercising a modicum of parental responsibility would likely be far more effective anyway.

But we're not rational creatures (not fully, anyway), and fear of disasters, no matter how unlikely, will usually trump sound judgment in the long run. It's hard to take a good look at the current state of our country, with all of its hyper-inflated fears, and come to a different conclusion. Maybe GPS-tracked children is our future, but I certainly hope not.

My thoughts on the candidates

I've been following this election fairly closely, mostly because it feels quite important (though I'm not entirely sure if it is). And because we're quite in the thick of things with the New Hampshire primary being later today and Iowa already done, I thought I'd give my opinions of the candidates.

First, the Republicans, and first of them, Ron Paul. Since I've self-identified as libertarian and can still be fairly accurately identified as one, one would assume that I like him. There are things I admire about him, but he has huge problems. For one he can't possibly win, but that's beside the point. He also denies evolution, has a sketchy stance on abortion, and I'm not fond of his immigration beliefs. And he takes libertarianism to impractical places; most of the stuff he says he'd want to do just wouldn't be possible, and I'm not entirely convinced some of it is wise. That's why I don't like Ron Paul.

As for the rest, Huckabee is an idiot, and just about the worst possible candidate. Giuliani is also terrible, his ideas about executive power are just absurd. Romney is the definition of a person who'll do/say anything to get power. The only one that's even respectable is McCain, and he's switched stances to pander as well as made extremely hypocritical statements. Besides that, his policy stances aren't anything to be happy about: at this point supporting the Iraq war is just lunacy.

As for the Democrats, the closest one to my actual beliefs is Kucinich, but since he has no shot I'll stick to the main three. Honestly, I know very little about each of them, somehow that information just doesn't get into my news sources. Nonetheless, I'll jot down some thoughts. Hillary seems like she just wants power, she's been a bit too supportive of Bush insanity in the past, and frankly I don't trust her. Obama seems genuine, as does his talk about change, even if it is vague. He has made statements supportive of science, and as far as I've heard he has few terrible policies (although the NY Times editorial page has complained about his health care proposal several times, I'd imagine anything that would get passed would be about the same regardless of the President). Finally, Edwards also seems to genuinely want some kind of change, and he certainly talks the talk about being above corporate influence, but who really knows if he is? At the very least, he's more savvy than four years ago, and would probably fair better than Kerry in the games leading up to the general election.

So who do I support? I'll vote for whoever the Democrats put forward, but right now I'm hoping that'll be Obama or Edwards. In fact, and Obama/Edwards ticket would be fairly attractive to me, with either of them in either role. But it's so hard to predict, based on platitudes and inanities and very, very little substantive discussion, who is actually right for the job and what will happen under their leadership. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Bible reader kicked off bus

Bobby Henderson of FSM fame has this delightful comment about a woman who was kicked off of a bus for reading the Bible loudly:

A note to the Bus Lady: That’s not persecution. Persecution would have been if the rest of the bus was full of Muslim and Hindu passengers, all reading their religious texts loudly, and you - and only you - were kicked off the bus for reading aloud from your Christian Bible. What happened is that you were being rude and insensitive to the other passengers, wanted special treatment, and were rejected.


I've always thought that it absurd when religious people are denied special treatment then claim discrimination. I wonder if they really are convinced that they deserve the special treatment, that it's really their right, or if they're simply making a calculation that our sensitivity about religion means that religious claims for special treatment are frequently honored. In simpler terms, I wonder if these people are arrogant, obtuse, and idiotic, or arrogant, intelligent, and calculating. In all honesty, I suspect the former in the vast majority of cases, and the latter in the cases of powerful and political people. At any rate, it's far from the traits that their religion supposedly honors, but those are quite obviously a charade that even church officials don't take seriously.

Vacation

I'm going to Italy for ten days, we're leaving this afternoon. So there will be no updates or comment moderation for a week and a half. Not that anyone's even using the internet between Christmas and New Year's, but I thought I should make a note of it.