Archive for November, 2006
This is why I love the internet
Consider: By what means could this artist share his works 15 years ago? How many people would have seen it? The internet loves art!
Filed under culture, sites i like : Comments (0) : Nov 30th, 2006
Filler Post
I don’t have a fully thought out post for you, but I needed to throw something up to replace the [now outdated] Thanksgiving thing.
I will say this: Buy Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” for everyone on your Christmas list. It’s a really delightful look at religion & science and how they intersect. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to finish it before the public library needed it back, so I can’t give out a full report. But I will attest to the first half of the book. It’s good.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 27th, 2006
Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving to all and to all a good night!
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 23rd, 2006
Science
I engaged in a wonderful debate over the weekend with some conservative friends and came to a bizarre rhetoric junction: I found myself arguing the merits of science. I found this bizarre because to me, it’s a non-issue. The pursuit of scientific exploration and discovery is one of the great functions of human civilization. To suggest that the benefit of science is debatable on the same level as, say, the benefit of tax cuts is totally backwards and wrong. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority.
Science is one of the few places one can find Truth. It is not based on conjecture, opinion, hearsay, myth, or faith. Science is not politics. Science is not journalism. Science is certainly not religion. Science is built exclusively on truths that combine to make Truth.
One of the most important facets of science is the (aptly named) scientific method. The scientific method requires measurable, repeatable, documented observations that together prove or disprove a hypothesis. By following the scientific method, scientists can remove the human element from the end result. Any properly trained and equipped scientist could repeat an experiment to confirm some assertion. Before any scientific study is published, it must endure the scrutiny of peer review to ensure its merit.
I cannot stress this last point enough. Unlike politics, religion, journalism, etc., this ensures that the end result of the scientific method is entirely separated from the scientist. There is no room for spin, interpretation, bias, or opinion. This is why I capitalize Truth. Science is the closest thing to Truth that we will ever know.
A common counter-argument to the merits of science is that scientific Truth changes. That is, what was once considered Truth is now rejected as a flawed theory. To the contrary, the ability for science to correct prior errors makes it all the more powerful. The continuous search for Truth is what makes science so important.
Now the hook: the Bush administration has been very hostile towards science. They have cut funding at the EPA and NASA (among others) to the point where important studies cannot be done. They have stifled reports and attempted to discredit important findings by countering with opposing “studies”. Case in point: global warming. There are over one thousand peer reviewed studies in print that conclude that humans are drastically altering the composition of the earths atmosphere and, therefore, climate. There are zero peer reviewed studies that conclude otherwise.
Yet by finding a handful of scientists to go on national television and refute this conclusion, the Bush administration has convinced the American public that the issue is still up for debate. You might notice an important distinction: there may be plenty of scientists that think global warming is a myth. You will find exactly zero peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude the same. Unfortunately, most people are not familiar enough with science to understand this fundamental difference.
One final point: Does the federal government have any responsibility to fund science? In one sense, no. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is scientific funding mandated. Then again, neither is funding a standing army, which we seem unable to live without. If the intent of funding the military is to protect America from harm, then so too should be the intent of funding science. The threats may be different–global warming, toxic pollutants, food shortages–but the goal is the same: to protect America from harm.
It is absolutely critical that we citizens understand the power and value of science and that we demand it be funded by our government. We can’t afford not to.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (1) : Nov 14th, 2006
That good ol’ second amendment
I had a personal first yesterday: firing a handgun. Brandon and I went to the local shooting range, handed over some cash and a driver’s license, and took care of 100 rounds and 4 targets. I am delighted by how easy it was to get a gun at the range–significantly less rigor than renting a DVD. While firing the gun, I also took time to mentally thank our founding fathers who drafted the all-important Second Amendment.
It is my firm belief that we would be better of if every man, woman, and [appropriately-aged] child knew how to safely handle a firearm. I sickens me whenever I read about a child killing himself or his friend by playing with a gun. Without exception, a gun belongs in a safe, with a trigger lock, and without any rounds in the chamber. Likewise, any gun is handled as though it is loaded. If more people were actually educated about firearms, I would hope that gun accidents would greatly diminish.
Unlike many of my gun-loving compatriots, I don’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be allowed to carry their handgun around in public. Knowing how to use a gun and knowing when to use a gun are two very different skill sets. I would hate to live in a world where every purse-nabbing punk is liable to be gunned down. (i.e. the state of Florida).
This anti-conceal & carry exception is in keeping with the Framers’ intent. The Second Amendment provides the right to arm ourselves–to protect our rights against government intrusion. We are not granted the right to assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner for every dead-beat criminal on the street.
Takeaway: Do yourself a favor, go down to the local range, and learn to use a gun.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 12th, 2006
Tadfad Book Club
I just finished reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan and highly recommend it. I’ve read a few of Pollan’s books and all are excellent. This, his latest work, explores the source and pathways of food in the U.S. As you might imagine, there are many more kinks and bends in the food chain from field to plate than expected. The main thrust of the book is tracing the role of corn. (Shout out to Sam Steinberg who referenced this back a few months)
After recently reading Fast Food Nation, I really appreciated Pollan’s thorough and unbiased look at food production. He makes a very convincing case that our current food system is unsustainable and rife with external costs. A chapter is devoted to examining the corn subsidy program that encourages farmers to overproduce corn each season, leading to lower corn prices and higher subsidy payments. This taxpayer funded subsidy, as well as water and utility subsidies in farm-dominated states shows how the $1.99 pound of beef ends up costing far more.
Beef? But I was talking about corn. Another dirty little secret: to facilitate unnaturally-fast growth rates and unnaturally high cattle density on feedlots, beef producers feed their cattle unnatural food–corn. Because the cow isn’t designed to digest corn, this results in very sick animals that must be pumped full of antibiotics and other drugs to keep them alive. By contrast, the sustainable farming practice of allowing cows to graze on grass leads to healthy animals and tasty meat.
Pollan researches organic foods, hunting, gathering, and industrial farming and presents his findings with the humor and insight of a veteran journalist. This isn’t a book report, and I don’t want to give away too much of the content, but this should go on your reading list today. It also makes a great gift.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 9th, 2006
I never thought it could happen to me.
I never thought it could happen to me.
A great way to start any story. There I was, 7:30am on election day, standing in line at my polling place. As a new Milwaukee resident, I had done my due diligence and researched my precinct and ward so I register without any hassles.
I reached the front of the line, photo ID in hand, and present it to the poll worker. I gave the woman my address, and she looked up my street in her book of ward listings. “You’re in the wrong place,” she said.
I was shocked! “But I looked it up online,” I stammered, “and it said to come to this location.” She would hear none of it, even showing me the listing to confirm. I was to report to another polling station a few blocks away.
Feeling a bit the fool, I drove over to the next polling place. Again I waited in line, filling out my green voter registration card ahead of time. I got to the front, presented my ID, and got a ballot. Everything was working fine.
I felt so proud as I filled in the lines for my election choices. (Choices I will not disclose here, though seasoned readers might take a guess.) After checking, re-checking, then checking once more, I turned around and slid my ballot into the counting machine. The beep told me everything was dandy.
With great pride, I placed my “I voted” sticker above my heart and went off to work.
Once at my desk, I called the Milwaukee Election Commission to report the inaccuracy of their web tool. I gave my address and explained the situation–how I was first directed to one ward, then redirected to another.
The woman on the phone told me the website was correct–that the first polling place was indeed right. I again explained that the book of addresses contradicted this. “You’re on the even side of the street,” she explained, “which is in a different ward than the odd side.”
I was crushed! How could this be? I had registered and voted in the wrong ward. I asked, five or six times, if my vote would be counted. She assured me it would, but I have nothing more than her word and my sticker as a guarantee.
I was a victim of voting irregularity. I never thought it could happen to me.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 7th, 2006
TV Funhouse
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 6th, 2006
Voting
A democracy can’t function without voting. (This statement seems so obvious that I hesitate even typing it.) One would think that the United States, after 225 years of practice, would have this voting thing down pretty well. Instead, we are facing yet another election using poorly designed electronic voting machines. These machines are manufactured by only a few companies, have secret proprietary source code, and are demonstrably flawed. It is infuriating and pathetic that six years after our first major brush with flawed voting systems (remember hanging chads?), we are still in the same boat. The specific issues are different, but the crucial flaw remains: we do not have a secure, reliable voting system.
How can we fix our voting system? Glad you asked.
1) Use a proved technology: paper ballots. I’m all for saving paper, but I’m willing to sacrifice a few trees for the sake of our democracy. Paper ballots work. They can be counted (and recounted) reliably. Use them.
2) Open source code for electronic voting machines. If precincts insist on the electronic machines, insist on open source. The public should have unfettered access to the code running these devices. This would vastly improve the reliability and security of electronic voting and defuse any conspiracy theories.
3) Make election day a holiday. It’s rather silly that the most important day for maintaining our democracy is treated as any regular work day. If July 4 is a holiday, why on earth isn’t the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Give everyone the day off to ensure that people have time to vote.
4) If #3 doesn’t fly, make election day into election week. There is no reason to restrict voting to one day. Make it a week. Or at least a few days. This would both ensure everyone had the opportunity to vote and would allow time to fix any irregularities.
So there you have it. Four very simple, very reasonable ways to vastly improve voting in the U.S.
One additional point: There are approximately 3 months between election day and inauguration day. Instead of pandering to the whims of news networks to deliver election results 5 minutes after polls close, why not use this time to ensure that votes are counted correctly. The disaster of the 2000 election is justification enough to never again release results before they are confirmed. Never forget that when all the ballots in Florida were counted, Gore carried the state.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Nov 5th, 2006
