Please make it so!

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=astronomers-may-have-spotted-spocks-2008-10-28

I hope

I hope Obama wins. Even a significant foreign policy disaster between now and election day will probably not alter the results after Powell's endorsement, though I may of course be wrong. The latest polls have Obama at just over 50% and McCain around 43%. I predict that slightly more undecided voters will go for McCain in the voting both, but that the final result will be 53:46. As far as toss up states are concerned, I think McCain will carry Florida and North Carolina, and Obama Colorado, Ohio, and Missouri. Unless McCain says "welfare" 500 or more times between now and election day, I think the Bradley effect will be less than 1% and it will show up only in a slight skew towards McCain in the as-of-now undecided voters.

Wifi etiquette

After taking a bit of time to think through the issue that arose this afternoon, I am ready to delineate my philosophy on using a neighbor's wireless network in an area of high residential density. Due to the fact that it is so easy to secure, merely using a neighbor's network does not constitute theft or any ethical breach given the following standards are met: First, the access cannot use more bandwidth than the owner is likely to notice. Checking emails and most webpages are fine, downloading one mp3 at a time is also OK. Downloading movies or sharing on a peer-to-peer network is not.

Even if the subscriber is so naive to not know that someone else may be using their network does not permit the borrower from using more than a sliver of bandwidth.

We've all been in the situation where we really need to check an email and nothing but locked networks appear nearby. So an open network serves a social need and we should not punish these (naive or kind, take your pick) subscribers for their service.

Given the relatively fair prices for bandwidth these days, sharing should only be done by those who either can't afford it or who follow the above criteria, IMHO.

I survived!

From Skydiving

Human decision making.

The propensity for humans to deceive themselves and selectively regard information that only fortifies their preconceived notions is strong. Robert Trivers has done fascinating research in the area, but it turns out that that has been known for quite some time. According to Slate.com:

Francis Bacon wrote in Novum Organum (1620) that the "human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it."

Study after study has shown that people ignore information that contradicts their opinions, or at best they interpret it in ways favorable to their opinions. The problem is that the opinion-making process is vital to a strong democracy, despite our nature. In that light, I wish it were possible to hold back decisions until later in the game. In the run up to the second Iraq war, Bush probably made up his mind to invade very early on, and thus ignored contradictory evidence as it came in.

Disastrous consequences aside, I hope that I can foster the ability to hold off judgment as long as possible on important decisions so that I can let reason guide me, not some archaic home-team impulse. More on those instincts in some future post.

Serenity.

From Random images

I both attract and abhor clutter. So it is with great relief that my office and my lab are both now up to snuff. At first glance, you may not regard them as particularly clutter-free, but they are miles ahead of where they were yesterday and, therefore, I am content.

Obama the elitist?

An elitist is one who wishes that society be ruled by an elite class, or a class of people considered to be the best either due to talent, wealth or power. I certainly want my leaders to be of superior talent, though they should not hold more power than is granted to them and should not be given any more privilege due to wealth than is possible.

As to who is more elitist, liberals have been out of power so long that they desire the most to be changed in government, so they have reason to want the leadership to reflect their values. Conservatives, on the other hand, have the economic wishes of the rich on their side and, in this election at least, are richer. So maybe liberals are more elitist and conservatives are the elite?

I learned something new today.

Wearing stripes with plaid is a fashion faux-pas. To that, all I have to say is:

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." -Albert Einstein.

I'm obviously concerned with more important things.

If you like biographies...

...then please rent or buy the HBO miniseries John Adams. I cannot overstate how well the series represents the recent McCullough biography, though I am less certain how well the series represents what his life was actually like, as I have only read that one biogrpahy. Since a major theme of the book and the series was Adams' perception of his historical legacy, I think McCullough went to great length the accurately portray this flawed founding father who I greatly respect and with whom can identify.

Finally, in the last episode, when Abigail dies eight years before John does, Cami and I cried harder than we had ever cried in a movie. The friendship that McCullough and the director portrayed between the two made her death and his loss truly heartbreaking.

A rebuttal to a chain email.

John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this.. It should make us all think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn countryof Iraq.

Five years after we invaded Iraq, it is now safer than it was during the height of the fighting. The point of the surge was to decrease violence in order to allow a political agreement to form. The first succeeded, time will tell whether or not it will be a long term success. As for the number of deaths, I don't know if you're saying that US military deaths are low or if Detroit is a horrible place to live, but I think we should compare total Iraqi deaths due to violence now versus before we invaded. The figures are hard to come by, but here are some sources. Reuters. Wikipedia.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war,tell them the following:

FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .. an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. & yet From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Obviously Vietnam was an unjust war, but I don't see how that is relevant to Iraq. I think the point in debate is whether or not invading Iraq was justified. By virtue of the fact that there were still arms inspectors in the country at the time of the invasion and that there is and was a sizable population of doubters, all the conditions for a justified war were not met. That's it.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

Yes, there are more dead terrorists now than there were on September 10, 2001. The question is, are we safer? If more people are turning to radical extremism now than before 9/11, than I fear for our long-term safety. Due to the fact that popularity for America is lower now than in September, 2001, I think Bush could have done better. He squandered worldwide goodwill in a hasty, irresponsible war.

But Wait, There's more.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound That was a 51-day operation...

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

These points are true, but irrelevant. You're trying to suggest that the war has not been going on too long. Just say that. Expecting a certain outcome in a certain amount of time is fine, but be clear. I think the complaint with the length of the war is that it is taking longer than Bush said it would, due to his selective acceptance of intelligence reports before the war.

But Wait ....... There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man 's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies ... in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum?'

For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Now he's a Senator!

What is the point? I am grateful that there are people willing to join the military. I hope that their leaders become wiser.

To top it off have you ever noticed that Obama is so rude and disrespectful that he can't call President Bush, President Bush? He always calls him George Bush, he is his boss and he should respect him even if he doesn't like him, he is teaching the people and youth of this nation to be rude and disrespectful and people want someone like this in office?? What do you think he's going to do if he does get into office?? People you need to wake up!! And i find it a horrible fact that mrs. obama said that for the first time in her life she is proud to be an american ! our possible next first lady of our blessed united states said this.,If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

W is not my boss. He is not Obama's boss. He is not my commander in chief. He is the head of the Executive branch of the government of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S. He was elected by the electoral college and only a vote by two-thirds of the Senate can remove him before his term. Therefore it is more correct to say that Obama is his boss. He has admitted to committing felonies. He has been accused of gross incompetence in domestic and foreign affairs. He does not deserve my respect. He should beg forgiveness for sullying the office of the President more than Clinton did.


It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating. I AM!!!

Please... don't.

"A complex world needs a good explanation"

Milenio newspaper.

Campaign finances.

Here's a detailed breakdown of fundraising and spending between the two campaigns. Some interesting highlights:
By far the biggest lead between the two campaigns is the use of small donors by Obama, which gave him $150 million more than small donors gave to McCain. Also, lawyers and teachers gave far more money to Obama than to McCain, the only profession that gave McCain more were real estate agents.

Obama needs to bring in more than $85 million in the next two months to make his decision to forgo public financing worth the extra time he has to spend at fundraisers, but it looks like he'll beat that sum by quite a bit. Money obviously doesn't buy votes, and I hope that, as the campaign turns more negative, Obama's ads will be truthful and focus on legitimate policy and character issues, instead of the recent stuff that McCain has been posting.

Though Obama did stretch the truth by claiming that McCain wanted to cut school spending (he actually voted to limit its growth), I hope that that is as bad as he gets... i.e. his character is a strong point and weakening it through those types of distortions makes me cringe. However, it is necessary for Obama to go more negative and tell all of Palin's story: her ideology, politics, and methods are so far out of the mainstream that she should be a burden for McCain as time goes on.

Will McCain win?

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

If McCain wins this election, it will be a real head scratcher. Many of his politics, notably environmental credentials, are much more moderate than Bush's. Furthermore, he seems to be more self aware than the current executive, but his economic and foreign affairs positions are nearly identical to Bush's, which are the two least popular aspects of Bush's unpopular tenure in the Whitehouse, not to mention scandal after scandal showing gross ethical lapses.

Are people actually not that mad at Bush? Do they not trust Obama? Has McCain won over his skeptical base and moderates at the same time? We'll only know some of the answers after election day. I think people are most concerned about Obama's short tenure in Washington, which is probably the reason he is the Democratic nominee.

Speaking of scandals, I think Palin's politcal style of personal attacks and vengence are just the type of warning signs that indicate future trouble in a McCain/Palin administration. It's hard to predict what her role would be: has Cheney strengthened the vice president's office permanently, or was his influence a one-time event? Either way, people are probably viewing her more carefully due to McCain's age, as she would be more likely to step in than most other past VPs.

More of the same.

You could pretty much replace Palin with W and Alaska for Washington and this article would remain just as true. Do we really want this for four more years? One of the root causes of many of Bush's quasi criminal misconduct is appointment of loyal friends instead of qualified individuals.

Creationist, book banning, naive...

... and McCain's biggest mistake? Though I strongly disagree with Palin's politics, McCain's recent surge in the polls seemed to suggest that this was a smart move by McCain. This article from the Economist, however, makes a pretty strong case that Palin could be a big problem. Not only does it show horrible judgment on his part, picking quick political points above qualifications, but she's polarizing and scares off independents, the author says.

The Economist is no liberal bastion, in fact it's so unbiased due to its foreign viewpoint that I can trust this to be a fairly rational argument. It's worth a read, especially to fellow liberals anxious about the next four years. The only problem is that people tend to be swayed more by glamor than by rational argument. Only time will tell what her ultimate effect will be.

Early mornings... argh

I've had a couple of early mornings so far this week as I try to get the oil changed and Cami's blood drawn before crowds form at the shop and Lab Corp. It's made me a bit more productive, except for the inadvertent nap I took yesterday in the comfy old chair in my office. Evil chair!

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

I have four main tasks I want to bite into today before my first seminar in college teaching this afternoon (a zero credit course that will help me make a better teaching portfolio, I hope, for any eventual job I will apply for in the future). I've done the first, getting ready for gen bio in the coming week.



The other three take more mental effort and are thus harder to initiate: part III of my prelim proposal, refine my animal behavior presentation for a presentation next week to the ecology grad students, and rescore and reanalyze some data that I collected this summer. I don't expect to finish any of those, but if I can get most of the presentation and a sizable bit of the other two done, I will be very happy. Make it so!

My pics are up.

Take a look at the pictures we took on our roadtrip from Salt Lake City to Portland, OR.

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

Most of the pics are tagged with their location, so you can see where we were. Cami and I had a real fun time.

Highly recommended

Watch online.

Back from the West

Until I get more pictures online, check out what Cami's put up of our trip westward. Fun times were had by all and I really miss it! Teatimelibrarian

How many circles of hell are there?

...because I feel like I am descending down through the levels rapidly. I've been wisely advised not to repeat the story on the interwebs; even with pseudonyms it could come back to haunt me. Let me just say I was unjustly embarrassed and witness to unprofessional behavior that is still making me cringe. Refer to my private journal for details.

In other news, I've driven 250 miles each day since Saturday due to a schedule change in my summer job, I went through automated operator nightmares trying to fix my grandma's phone account which ended up being just fine, I'm nervous about a bug program at the library tomorrow for the kids and I have a presentation I'm doing for real live scientists that is giving me heartburn. Life is awesome!

In sadder news, my grandfather appears to be pretty sick and I am worried for him and his kids.

Decisions

Two questions:

1. Do you think I should choose the Star Trek theme or Lyle Lovett's Up in Indiana as my new ringtone?

2. Am I a total asshole for asking the interwebs for their opinion in this matter?

Anger incarnate

“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee”

One mroe politcal point from my debate

My counterpart in the debate yesterday brought up the following philosophy: he would rather our friends hate us and our enemies fear us than our friends love us and our enemies not fear us. He cited the Clinton years as evidence that international goodwill cannot prevent the ire of extremists. Though there may or may not be truth in his logic, I think that stronger international partnerships and goodwill between peoples will make it easier for the leaders of our allies to convince their people to go along with American policies. Even before 9/11, Bush was famous for shaking up foreign feelings. I hope that our next president will be able to restore balance to our foreign policy.

Do I empathize with Bush?

At the end of a fruitful debate on the merits of purchasing energy produced without emitting carbon dioxide, my friend and lab mate, the only openly Republican graduate student in ecology and evolution that I know of, asked me if I had any empathy for Bush. I can understand the sentiment, as he is a man doing what he believes is right and making decisions that result in lives saved or lost. For those reasons, I don't think that he deserves to be vilified. However, the magnitude of the mistakes he has made, which are the result of his own poor decision-making process, and the the effects that his policies have had on the lives of people around the world are negative enough for him to have lost the potential for me to empathize with his position. I do suppose that he is a man that has found himself in responsibilities that are over his head, but such a scenario deserves sympathy for a character in a poorly acted comedy, not in the White House. His lack of introspection and obliviousness to the effects that self-deception have on the process of rationalization have squandered any amount of empathy that he would otherwise deserve.

Weekend fun and clean energy.

From Random images

I had a great weekend. We finally finished setting up our apartment with the hanging of about a thousand pictures and one Indian stitched wall hanging from Ten Thousand Villages. On Saturday night I stepped outside my zone of comfort to meet new friends by playing Diplomacy at the Fallout Shelter, the local comic book store with whom Cami partnered for a program at the library. Playing France, I was victorious thanks to a treacherous sneak attack against my then-ally England as I moved into London when he expected me to help him attack Germany, which I did in an ironic move since London would not have been vacant if I had not helped his attack in the same turn I double crossed him. After a long night, I got some rest and spent my Sunday cleaning and meeting friends at the gardens on campus for a bit of grilling after the storms moved through.

In other news, I am considering signing up for a clean energy package in which my utility company would purchase however much energy we use each month from a company that produces electricity from wind, solar, and hydro facilities. It would cost us about $5-$9 a month, more in the summer when we use the AC. What do you think, will our support make a difference, or are the actions of one household too insignificant to matter if our government and industries are not following suit?

Common good versus individual rights

I recommend everyone read this article. The basic premise is working with known psychological persuasions but still allowing for individual freedoms in order to extract desired behavior. You allow people to buy inefficient appliances if they really want them, but you make it more difficult or expensive up front. The market works, but the needs to the society are rarely priced in these days (aka the "tragedy or the commons"). Libertarians sometimes balk at these plans, but I really think it should assuage their concerns since it allows for individual rights and I think they sometimes underestimate the costs that individual actions have on others.

From Random images

Finally, I like how they score the presidential candidates' plans based on this scale. The only thing I'm still debating is the two carbon credit plans. McCain would give out a certain number, Obama would sell them. Obama's plan will cost us more (not just "big companies" but everyone), but it will have a greater impact. I guess it just depends on how serious a threat climate change is and how costly inaction will be... a notoriously difficult estimate to make.

Dark Knight

So I went to see Dark Knight last night and, although it was a very good movie, I think that the hype oversold it slightly. I was expecting more twists and conspiracies than there ended up being. As others have said, however, Ledger's role as the Joker was the highlight of the movie. He was by far the most fully developed character with whom the audience resonated with the most. I think Cami put it best, saying that he was so magnetic because he had a realistic, accurate philosophy which was so interesting because it was coming out of the archetype of insanity. Batman, as you may have guessed, was more one dimensional with his rigid codes of ethics that had less of a moral foundation than did the Joker; but that's a legacy of Batman's character that is unavoidable. The Superman syndrome is just less interesting than the Joker's clear window into humanity. I think there was an attempt to make Batman seem more conflicted as he wrestled with whether or not to kill his enemies, torture for information, and warantlessly wiretap in the name of security, but those elements all seemed forced or cliche.

In uncertain times...

...turn to more uncertainty.

Mmmmm, moka.

I made a cappuccino this morning with my moka maker and a saucepan and whisk for the milk. It was simple and took the same amount of time as most machines, though not as convenient as the $4000, one touch maker I saw yesterday at Williams-Sonoma. A pleasant way to start the day, imho.

Really?

Accoring to CNN, the "Vatican 'regrets' female bishops decision." as proposed by the Anglican church. From the article:

"The General Synod passed a resolution Monday night that allows women to become bishops, acting over the objections of traditionalists who argued that Jesus only wanted men in leadership positions."

I don't have much I can really say to that except: Really? Does that second X chromosome really get in the way of interpreting imaginary rules and passing judgment? Or maybe it's just that sperm are really that important to the process. I don't know what to say.

Sad, sad day

It looks like Cami and I won't be able to renew our vows on our fifth anniversary on the bridge of the Enterprise. It seems that Star Trek: The Experience will be closing this fall. It's only 6 hours from Salt Lake City, so maybe I'll have to take a leave of absence from my upcoming Animal Behavior meeting.

Woodlands creatures

From Random images

I saw a great many things over the past few days while looking for invasive plant species in the wilds of New Jersey and New York. The first sighting was of an old, wrinkly, sun-worshiping man on a rock in Harriman State Park, followed shortly thereafter by a rattlesnake. I got a good picture of it, and, as you can see, it is about to molt. The only other exciting wildlife I saw, besides a few frogs and some great shelf fungus, was a black bear with two cubs. I didn't get a photo of them, so I could be lying, but they were beautiful. The photos I did get in on picasa album.

I hate wizards

I was having trouble with my wireless connection in windows and went through about three or four of those damned help and support wizard programs to try to solve the problem and I realized that I had never successfully treated a problem in windows through one of those wizards. It's always the first thing you find when you want to add a new printer or repair some network connection or anything like that, but it never works. Whenever I do solve the problem, it's by googling an error message or symptom and reading what other people did on some discussion somewhere in the nether regions of the interweb. It's just frustrating that windows itself doesn't ever seem to be able to correctly identify the problem it is having. OSX has it's fair share of snags, but at least I never have to have my hopes smashed each and every time I initially attempt to solve a problem.

You maniacs! You blew it all to hell! God damn you all!

Oh man, the season finale of Battlestar Galactica was so emotionally tramautizing that I may have to take a day or two to recover. After a whole season where each episode took an hour just to reveal one more plot twist, this final episode put in a whole series worth of emotion and action. If anyone wants to talk about it, please email me, I don't know what to say right now.

The right to bear arms

In another example of Anthony Kennedy's omnipotence, the Supreme Court ruled today that individuals have the right to own firearms outside the realm of an organized militia. Though I still don't really see how this interpretation arises from the text of the second amendment, the troubling issue arises from Scalia: From the NYTimes:

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

But where does this assurance arise? If carrying a weapon is a constitutionally protected right and there are no explicit measures for removing that right, I don't see where Scalia can argue that longstanding restrictions to gun possession are safe. Maybe he expands on his reasoning later on in his opinion, but I don't know where he could get it from.

Obama and McCain

I've had my first email debate this election cycle with a republican friend about the relative strengths and weaknesses of McCain and Obama and I would like to examine some of the issues that came up. The debate started with an encouragement for me and some of my hippie comrades to read an article I had coincidentally just finished reading. There were some legitimate complaints, such as Obama's NAFTA tirades during the primaries in an attempt to woo more union support. However, most of the points were either wrong in my opinion based on policy differences or unfair. For example, I think Obama's foreign policy positions are needed after 8 years of warfare in place of diplomacy. I think it will make us safer and will make it harder for al Qaeda to recruit members if the US is seen as less agressive.

Furthermore, I think the article's focus on the Rev. Wright affair is wrong. Obama was criticized for first claiming that Rev. Wright was an undeniable part of his history and then disavowing him after his comments became too inflammatory. In Obama's defense, there was nothing he could do. His initial speech on race was inspiring and truthful, but Wright's subsequent tirades were too just too much. I'm sure it put Obama in a horrible position because he knew the anger that many black Americans possess but couldn't let that define his image.

As far as McCain is concerned, I do like him more than any other potential republican I can think of. I think the world would be a better place if he had won the primaries in 2000. However, there are many positions of his that are unacceptable or just not as good as Obama's. First, though I respect the position he is in to court a conservative base, he has gone back and forth on tax issues, guantanamo detainees' rights, and social issues. I don't know where he will stand during his presidency. True, changing economic situations warrant changing economic policies, but I don't see how the US will be able to afford anything if Bush's tax cuts aren't reversed. Our level of debt is just too much and I don't think he will be able or willing to cut government expenditures enough to compensate. As far as our captured enemy combatants, McCain was their biggest GOP defender until he came out so vehemently against the recent supreme court ruling granting them haebeus corpus, a right they deserve if they are not given rights as POWs. Finally, his foreign policy position is downright frightening. How would you feel as an Iranian if the US president was shown as having joked about bombing your country? I know how you would feel, the same way we feel when the Iranian or Venezuelan presidents call us the Great Satan. Such rhetoric is unacceptable.

Homosexuality and sexual antagonism

More evidence to support my favorite ultimate explanation of homosexuality came out recently. Published online, Ciani's article lays out the evidence that sexually antagonistic alleles are responsible for male homosexuality. Such an allele will, when existing in a female, increase her fecundity by some mechanism, such as androphillia, an increased attraction to men. This allele, when found in men, will have the same effect. Furthermore, if this allele is found on an X chromosome, it will spend about two-thirds of its evolutionary history in women and about one third of its time in males, so even if it has a relatively weak positive effect in women it will still be selected for despite it's high cost to male reproductive success. Furthermore, since this allele is passed on through females, several key testable predictions arise. Most notably, the fitness of gay men's maternal female relatives should be higher than the fitness of straight men's maternal female relatives and the fitness of both groups' paternal female relatives should be equal. Both of these predictions were found to be true. An article in slate does a great job explaining it further.

The only bad part about the slate article were the implications at the end:
"But the word consequence suggests a sixth, less happy implication: How would gay men see themselves and be regarded in a society that understood their condition as a side effect of female evolution? Would male androphilia be treated like sickle-cell anemia—the unfortunate cost of a genetic mutation that's beneficial in other people? We medicate sickle-cell anemia. Would we medicate homosexuality?"

The answer is flatly no. We medicate sickle-cell anemia because it causes pain and discomfort to those who have it and, more importantly, we only treat it if the patient wishes it to be treated. If a treatment could be found that would reverse the effect of this allele in males it should be made available to those men who want it, but no doctor or parent would be ethically allowed to give it to a person who does not want it. Hmm, on second thought, I could see an argument for allowing parents to reverse this effect in their children, since parents are given so much leeway in the treatment of their children. Though it strikes me as terribly unethical to do so, I can't yet formulate why that treatment should not be allowed. I can understand a parent wishing to alleviate their child from a more difficult upbringing that comes with being gay in a world that treats gays unfairly, but that psychological stress comes from external sources. The teasing and discrimination should be treated, not the homosexuality.

Indiana

So it looks like it's going to be within 1% in Indiana. Gary is still only reporting 50% of its precincts, and if Obama ends up winning it at the same rate he is winning it now, he will win with about 3,000 votes. Since NC was so decisive for Obama and Indiana was such a squeaker, maybe there will be more superdelegates declaring their support for him in the next few days than I thought before. This could be done very soon.

Lost in the woods

From Random images

In our quest to find the elusive burning bush, Euonymus alatus*, we became turned around a few times. I knew it was rough when we ran into Route 18, a major highway on the opposite side of the forest. To be fair, I think Rebecca and I had an equal share of wrong decisions. I was exhausted when we finally came out, and disappointed that we didn't see the elusive falls, but happy that I only found one tick and that we got our samples.

*corrected from an earlier version, thank you Ralph

One more thought

What does it mean that, despite her tremendous hurdles ahead, Pennsylvanians still voted for Clinton? It reminds me of the fact that over 200,000 Republicans, about a quarter of the voters, voted against McCain, even though he is guaranteed to win. That spells trouble for him in getting Republicans to come out and vote in November, but is the same true for the Democrats and Obama? It would be a true surprise if Clint were the nominee, yet still she wins the big state votes.

Primaries

Do you think the Democratic nomination will be secured tomorrow? If Obama wins Indiana tomorrow by 5 or more points, I think Hillary will bow out within a week. More likely, he will lose Indiana by 5 and win NC by 10, in which case there are two possibilities. Either the superdelegates will all migrate to Obama within a week and Clinton will bow out, or they will be roughly split and the battle will go the convention. My bet: 80% of the remaining superdelegates will go to Obama and there will be serious pressure on Clinton until she gives up in the last week of May.

Update! I just looked up the primary schedule and realized they go on until Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd. New prediction: Obama will be the nominee on June 6th.

Stupid as sin

"A Roman Catholic bishop said Sunday that the church has officially recognized that the Virgin Mary appeared to a 17th-century shepherd girl in the French Alps." Now that it's official, I know that God really was there. When bureaucracy and religion get mixed up, hilarity inevitably ensues. As for the last sentence in the article concerning the healing powers of Lourdre's waters, why does religion get a free pass when it comes to making outrageous, falsifiable claims?

Our Inner Fish

I just finished Shubin's "Your inner fish: A journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body." I thought the book was a great introduction into many of the traits that we share with our relatives and obtained from our ancestors and I loved the story of our evolution. Furthermore, Shubin did a great job of explaining the historical context in which we made many of these discoveries, as well as relating his own personal academic upbringing. The biggest weakness of the book was that at the end of each section, I was left wanting for more. Each short chapter ended right when I felt he had given the reader just enough information to really dive into the material. It made the book exceptionally readable, and if he had given much more I think he would have lost or frustrated most of his audience. I guess it's up to me to use my newfound outline to learn more about the topics that I found most interesting. I think I would make this a recommended reading for a high school AP biology class or an undergraduate evolutionary biology class for non-majors.

The Millionaire Next Door

From Hawk Mountain

Stanley and Danko's book makes for a great, quick read as one browses through B&N on a Wednesday night. The theme of their work is that millionaires become wealthy not by earning so much more than the median income, but by spending less and saving more. It's possible I'm being duped by the statistics they show, but they make a convincing case that people who are worth around $10 million never earn too much more than people who are worth less than $.5 million, but that they are just that much better at saving over 3 to 4 decades. According to the patterns they report, Cami and I seem to be on the right track, though we may need to purchase some more disability insurance in case one of use can't work for a few months in the coming years.

Breaking news!

I still find it hard to believe that about one in four Americans still approve of the job that Bush is doing in the White House. What would it take to change their minds? Please comment on 1) what W could do to lose that last bit of approval and 2) what the Democrats will do to blow it in November.

On it goes...

Two months ago I agonized on who I would vote for and only decided on Obama in the hours before I voted. Now that Clinton has won PA, I feel the same sinking feeling I felt when Kerry lost in 04. What happened? Trivers talks a lot about the effect of self deception once a decision has been made, is that happening to me now? Am I blocking out all that Clinton has going for her simply because I have made my decision and don't want to expend the mental energy to give her a second look? In her defense, I still cringe when I hear people, more often Democrats now than Republicans, criticize her ambition and life choices.

Another heartening point is how Clinton has survived despite so much talk about Obama's momentum and the vast number of endorsements and editorials in his favor. Every one of PA's newspapers endorsed him over Clinton and every celebrity and political endorsement in the past several days and weeks have been for followed the same path, but the voters still went for Clinton. I'm glad that people do not appear to be the sheep that I sometimes feel they are.

Resolutions.

Next time you see me, ask me: what have you read today? what have you written today? and what science have you done today? Also, ask me the last time I ran.

Oh the references!

So I have been very annoyed over the past few weeks ever since I installed the newest version of Office on my Mac machine. I had spent about $50 on the newest version of Endnote to manage my citations last year and had collected a nice list of references that I use on a semi-regular basis. The best part was how well integrated it was with Office. Once I opened up Word, all I had to do was open up Endnote and a nice icon would pop up so I could cite a source while I wrote. The newest version of Word, however, did not support this integration and I was saddened because I did not want to go back to the older Word that did not work as well with the newest Mac hardware.

Fast forward to last week, and I finally found a new feature in Word, their own version of a citation manager. So far, it seems to work just as well, though I rue the deeper attachment this will form between me to Microsoft. With every reference I add in this new library, it will make changing to a future, better word processor all the more difficult. Apple's word processor, Pages, has a pitiful solution to the citations issue, as it mearly will add a pre-formated "works cited" section and not embed the reference into the article.

Finally, for any PA voters out there, please go out and vote! I am too anxious to wait for the results!

Easter happenings

Since Cami had a conference in New York this weekend, we had a quiet Easter at home. I worked a bit on my Spitfire model and took a trip to a new Starbucks in town. The guy behind the counter brought out a second grande americano on the house as I read the paper, maybe he was under orders from corporate to reign in more loyalty from the customers, or maybe he was just sad that I was reading the paper by myself on Easter. Either way, the second americano with three shots of espresso on an empty stomach made me a little bit crazy, and within a few hours I was dizzy and scared. I think I used up my reserves. Thankfully, Cami made a tasty dinner that brought me back from the brink. After some Cops and King of the Hill, I'm going to try to get some grading done before I get to bed. Argh, another week I'm not ready to face! Send help!

The D word

There is considerable debate about the use of "design" when discussing adaptations. See this blog for discussion. The debate has been intensified in recent years in part because of the so called intelligent design movement. But is intelligent design a redundant phrase, since design implies intent and predetermined conception? In the first five definitions offered by the OED, intelligence or preconception are implied in the meaning of design. By this standard, it seems that design is not appropriate to describe an adaptation that was formed in reaction to, and not anticipation of current selection pressures.

Dawkins advocates the use of "design" in the Blind Watchmaker and provides detailed accounts of natural selection designing fabulously intricate mechanisms. Both he and Daniel Dennet are careful to explain how a mindless algorithm such as natural selection can produce a well-designed trait. However, in light of widespread misconceptions about the nature of scientific theories in general and evolution by natural selection in particular, I advocate that the use of the term design be either limited or used only when qualified with the idea that the illusion of intent is just that, an illusion.

Thanks to Chris for sending a picture of of the most well-designed canine in Europe, Gabby!

I find it hard to comprehend...

So the Vatican has revised it's criteria for beatification. What completely baffles my mind is that, even if you are a faithful and religious person, how could you possibly imagine that the rules a bunch of old white men pull out of their rear ends affect the will of an omnipotent and omniscient being? I seriously sounds like a bunch of five year olds playing make believe. Do they believe what they are saying? I don't think that they are actually stupid, but what kind of bs goes through their minds when they make this up?


I am riled up. Please, explain this to me.

Hostility to knowledge?

A funny and scary article in today's Times highlights the decline in value of intellectual pursuits. The gist of the article's message is: "Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters."

In the artcile Susan Jocoby blames the educational system, religious fundamentalism that emphasizes feelings, faith, and a few basic moral precepts over learning and introspection (See Religious Literacy for more on that topic), the decline of universities' prestige in the 1960s and some popular culture issues as well. Maybe I should read her book, but from the article, she doesn't seem to offer many ideas for change. It's relatively easy to measure this decline, it's harder to figure out why it's occurring and how to reverse the trend.

What confirms your beliefs?

I can think of no other areas of science where millions of people spend considerable mental energy trying to argue with experts than with global warming or evolution. The scientific method of objectively evaluating evidence has changed our lives in so many ways that go unquestioned every day, but when the same process presents us with evidence that we should release fewer greenhouse gases or that we are just one of millions of species with common ancestry dating back billions of years, suddenly it makes more sense to look for holes.

I am glad that something in this world isn't taken with absolute faith in experts, but why not be more skeptical about quantum theory, internal combustion, television broadcasts, or the ways an ideal gas works? What is it about these two topics that some conservatives think is so dangerous? It seems like a stupid question at first, but really, what in your life would change if you accepted, without reservation, that you belong to one of 13 species of apes? If you accepted, without reservation, that global warming were a real threat, you would support a gradual change to a more carbon-neutral lifestyle that would not change your quality of life at all. In fact, you would probably be healthier.

In order to hold these feelings against evolution and global warming, one has to actively disagree with available evidence. Why do people do this? Why is evidence such a dirty standard? Why, when facing two mutually-exclusive possibilities, would one ever assume that the one not supported by available facts is the correct choice? I think that belief in God is a similar phenomenon. Ultimately, one cannot use evidence alone to believe that God exists, faith is required. When faced with two mutually exclusive possibilities, many people choose the alternative hypothesis over the null.

This may be due to a cognitive system that is advanced enough to look for and require explanations of unknown phenomenon. Ten thousand years ago, when weather patterns were as mysterious as the origins of the universe, people thought that prayer and dances affected the weather. (Correction: humanity has not advanced) Today, there are far fewer mysteries, but the origin of the universe is still unknown. Based on our previous track record of the advancement of knowledge, I do not think that that mystery is unknowable. If the answer is revealed, will anyone listen?

Can we?

I promise not to talk only about politics between now and November, but I've been ruminating about Obama and Clinton since Tuesday's primaries. I've become more set in my decision that Obama would make a better leader. On both an emotional and cognitive level, Obama is the right choice to be the Democratic nominee. Why choose a candidate who is despised by half the country? What is the basis of Clinton's superior experience?

Electability, a criterion I swore I would never after Kerry, is, thankfully, a wash: though Clinton does a bit better in polls against McCain, prevailing wisdom suggests that the only thing that could motivate large numbers of conservatives to the polls is a Clinton candidacy. Both polls and prevailing wisdom are horrible predictors of anything, but in this case they cancel out and are only being mentioned for the benefit of those who would like to incorporate "electability" into their decision-making algorithm.

In terms of policy, I think its a tie between the two. I like Clinton's mandates, but as demonstrated by Obama's below-the-belt "Harry and Louise" style mailer, I think it will not stand be able to pass. Neither candidate can provide the single payer, universal coverage that is the standard in modern societies, and if we as a nation don't want that, then as long as more health care is available in the future than is available now, I will have to accept it.

As for Iraq and foreign policy, Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama. She may be trying to counter any perceived inherent weakness as a female, which is unfortunate, but the fact remains that she has generally sided on the side of militarism on difficult decisions. If elected, both candidates would immediately improve U.S. foreign relations. McCain, on the other hand, who has openly joked about bombing Iran, would make the world that much more fearful of our intentions. Think about it, how did it feel when Hamas won the Palestinian elections, or Akmadinajad became president of Iran? If you were a little bit uneasy, join the club.

I know many of you have seen this before, and it is obviously not a logical way to make an informed decision, but could you imagine anyone every making a comparable tribute to Clinton?

Ok, I promise I won't talk about politics next time. Please be aware, I am not a great promise keeper.

Was my vote wise?

I voted this morning for Obama. I agonized for weeks. I feel tremendous loyalty to Clinton and think she would make a great president. Furthermore, I do like her foreign policy credentials, experience, and health care plan with mandated coverage. Obama, on the other hand, is a far less polarizing figure. I'm not just using the hackneyed "electability" criteria that gave us Kerry in '04, I think that he is a more likeable person that will have an easier time passing legislation since people won't be so hung up on who he is.

This is unfair to Clinton, I'll admit. I do regret not voting for her. But I think that the country will be a better place in 5 years if Obama were president than if Clinton were elected. In terms of their ability to beat McCain, I think that McCain will be a far less popular figure when people start to learn more about his hawkish nature. I could be wrong, but I think that either Democrat will win in November. If anybody can lose an easy election, however, it is the Democrats.

CO2 emissions of biking, driving and eating

From Random images

I heard recently that a beef eater actually emits more CO2 by biking a mile than driving. Skeptical, I ran a back-of-the-envelope calculation using data provided by the first reasonable-looking results I found after a quick google search of all the necessary assumption. Starting assumptions included:

It takes 43 calories to bike one mile. Beef provides 210 calories per 3 oz serving. Beef production emits 36.4 kg CO2 per kg of beef (Sources linked from here). Driving emits 8.81 * 10 ^-3 met tons per gallon (EPA). City driving returns 20 miles per gallon.

After crunching the numbers, a biker who gets all of her calories from beef would emit .63 kg of CO2 on that mile long trip whereas a driver would let .44 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I think the major lesson here is that eating less beef will be very good for the environment. David Tilman, in a recent talk here at Rutgers, showed figures that suggested that chicken and seafood release far less CO2 than beef, and that plant-based sources of calories use far less than any meat. Let's assume that chicken uses half the CO2 and plant-derived calories use one-tenth. In that scenario, far less CO2 will be given off than if the person drove or used beef to fuel her bike journey.

Finally, city mileage can vary by quite a bit. Large suvs could easily get 10 mpg, thus doubling one's carbon footprint, whereas a Prius or Civic hybrid could halve the carbon cost of the trip. Choose your vehicle purchases accordingly!