If you meet the Buddha...

So I've just stopped watching some clips from Fox, and I realized, Rove is perhaps one of the greatest practitioners of applied philosophical relativism we've ever experienced. The man can adopt any viewpoint, and treat even the most contradictory statements as absolute truth. No matter what happens, philosophers - from now, till the day the sun grows cold - will study at his feet, so they may understand the malleability and transient nature of material truth.

Truth is only Truth to those with context. And what context do you have when We Report?

Government is a Tool.

The recent brouhaha over Bloomberg’s push (not putsch) for a third term as mayor has dug up an old question which I’ve yet to fully resolve: Is it better to construct laws with the assumption that our leaders will be terrible (thus limiting their powers, the duration of their time in office, etc) or on the assumption that some of our leaders will be the best among us (thus offering them expanded powers, relaxed term limits, etc)?

The US constitution is founded on the belief that the best politicians will be able to unite the majority around compromises and universal aspirations, and thus override the limits placed upon government action. Meanwhile, overly partisan politicians controlling a vocal and powerful minority (the Founders would label them as members of “factions”) would be hindered by strict limitations, as they would not be able to unite the majority around universal human needs or goals.

What I’ve been wondering is whether the belief that we should secure against the worst, while relying on the inherent competence of the best, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Has this in turn has made positive government action much harder then originally intended? Perhaps the widespread assumption that government action is intrinsically negative or corrupting (thanks again, Gipper), has caused too many people to resist government when it tries to reform itself, and ignore failures of government as “business as usual”.

In short, is the decline in quality of governance due to our abysmally low standards? Are the bastards bastards, because we expect them to be so, and aren’t mobilized by surprise and outrage when they do - in fact - act like bastards? Why does, “it’s good enough for government work” carry connotations of expected, vaguely acceptable inadequacies? How come working for the government is seen as a less prestigious job then the private or academic sectors?

            Government is a tool. No one cares for tools they think inadequate, and so such tools rust from neglect. But a tool that is seen as useful, important, and worthy of respect will not fail, so long as loose handles can be replaced, edges sharpened, and frames tightened. 

You can't disown the Terrible Children

Something I’ve noticed recently is that people frequently separate the results of an ideology from the ideology itself. For example: “Those conservatives aren’t conservatives, because the government’s expanded and become less efficient, so they must be liberals.” The problem with this statement is that if people who are identified as, and identify themselves as, conservatives cause government to expand and become less efficient, they are still conservatives.

Their actions are a result of their ideology, and the values of that ideology are determined by the fruits of the ideology. In this way an ideology is different from a universally held and absolute value judgment. If a good guy kills an innocent, their status as a good guy should be held in doubt. However, if a conservative does something good or bad, he’s still a conservative, and his actions are result of his value system and beliefs.

In short, if conservatives expand the federal government and cause a budget surplus to crumble into a record budget deficit, then conservatives stand for increased debt and big government.

Thank God the music's better.

So, the stock market's crashing, oil prices are soaring, our president believes in trickle down theory, and we have knight rider and 90210 on TV. I'm fine with history going in cycles, but can't we skip the 80's?

As a liberal New Yorker, I've been reading the NYT since about age 12, and intensely since age 17. As a biologist, I've always found Oliva Judson's column, "the Wild Side" to be a very pleasant read, as her facts are usually dead-on, her commentary imaginative, and her wit scintillating. I've also always browsed the comments sections for little tidbits to meditate on, and usually there isn't much beyond agreement from the scientifically inclined crowd, and the occasional fundie-troll dropping by to decry evolution as a conspiracy to destroy God, Country and Apple Pie.

In her most recent article however (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/a-commitment-pill/?apage=2), the consternation was not originating from the usual suspects, but rather from two groups, one representing themselves as proponents of free will, while the other saw this as a matter of increasing happiness. Both of these positions I found to be a bit shallow, as in this case, I saw such a hypothetical technology as increasing happiness as well as augmenting free will.

In fact, what Olivia's was describing would be similar to having the afterglow of a honeymoon in pill form. It would be perfect for middle-aged men who felt conflicted over their flagging commitment to their wives, just like Viagra helps men with ED get over the emotional impact of reduced potency.

If the husband wished to leave his wife, then the option of divorce would certainly be open, but if he didn't want to leave her, then he would have more - and possibly more effective - options available to him then just marriage counseling.

The true danger, just as with all technology, would come from how our society would use such a pill. If we treat it as a way of enabling a person to make a choice, then I don't see a problem with such technology being developed. Of course it’s true that, if we use it to restrict the individual's ability to make choices on their own (i.e. a chemically-assisted shotgun wedding) then it would be an atrocity. But the responsibility for the atrocity will be on our own society, and not the fault of the technology.

Furthermore, arguing against such a pill because it's "unnatural compared to 95% of mammals" is innately flawed, and not just on a biological level (how many mammals domesticate other organisms?); sometimes people don't want to be restricted by their genes. If we could create a pill that cured Trisomy 21, or allowed transgender people to actually switch genders, or for people with early-onset diabetes to stop killing their own insulin-producing cells, would we decry it as wrong? If a man wishes to remain committed to his wife, to “get the spark back”, then why should anyone restrict his ability to do so?

Genetic engineering, pharmacology and biochemistry, like all of science, increases the choices available to us, and thereby can be a tool for enhancing individual freedom. The only way to make sure that we avoid the nightmare scenarios is to understand the science behind them, and thus become capable of recognizing the signs of encroaching authoritarianism before it has a chance to dominate us. Restricting the science just makes sure we can’t recognize it when it’s used by those with ambitions of control and domination.

9/11

Happy 9/11. We'll never see anything worse.

So... 9/11's tomorrow. It's kind of surprising how time flies, and how our perception of it changes. In New York, we have Christmas, Hanukkah, New Year's Thanksgiving. Each Holiday is marked by it's own trappings. The regular holidays get their miniature parades of students - free on what should normally be a school day - escorting the larger processions of family-filled cars, heading to the bridges and highways for a long weekend.

The winter holidays get a much more formal atmosphere, with communities stringing up emblems of their faith and those of their neighbors. Icicle lights above menorahs, shopping bags and red faces, everyone eager to live their own holiday dream, be it receiving or bestowing the perfect gift, or spending the cold, hard night before Christmas with someone warm and soft.
New Years is kind of the same way, except much more raucous: After all, we're one of the 10 or so cities whose parties are broadcast around the globe. Appearances must be kept, girls must be kissed, and the streets must smell vaguely of alcohol, vomit, and good times had by all.

Thanksgiving is of course Macy's Day, but at this point, the non-New Yorker is getting the drift. The city is a living thing, and it's moods are very obvious. We all participate, and we are all part of the show we hold for ourselves. It's what makes the city, The City. But we have one holiday that we haven't internalized yet.

It's the day that everyone who works in a tall office building looks south, and kinda zones out for a bit. It's the day you wonder if the train delays aren't due to the MTA. It's the day you wish the fucking politicians weren't among the usual crowds of tourists. It's the day that we look at clouds and remember that the only cloud we remember from That Day was the one coming from lower Manhattan, and heading out over the river.

One thing I'm glad about is that my memories from that day are getting confused. Parts are still vivid. I remember very, very clearly where I was when I first heard that something had happened. apparently, some plane had crashed. Probably a Cessna, everyone agreed. It had hit one of the towers at the World Trade Center (back when it was the World Trade Center, and not the WTC) and that was all I knew. I remember someone saying, or myself thinking, "Wow, poor bastard, at least the Towers won't be damaged." or something to that effect. I was in the basement of my high school, and I think that I'll be forever glad that I was. After all, it gave me an extra half-hour or so before I left the building, looked across the river, and realized that a part of city I grew up in was gone.

Another thing I'm grateful for is that I didn't directly know anyone who died. I knew relatives of neighbors, parents of people I knew, but everyone I could remember the face of, lived. I guess, more then anything I mourn two things. The first is the Towers themselves. They were, I think, one of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen. They were the compass by which New York oriented herself, and thus the axis upon which the world turned. When you stood underneath them, you could see them curve over you, as if they grew to fill the sky only they could reach. When you were inside them, you were either Seeing Something Cool, or Doing Something Important. The flags hanging in the atrium were a sign of New York's pull, the urge of everyone to interact, build, make money, become greater, and to do so in the Greatest City On Earth.

And so, now that they're gone, no one can become as great as they could have when the Towers were still in the sky. New York can't heal until our skyline is healed. We can't illuminate the world until we have our lighthouses back.

The other thing I mourn is how our city felt afterwards. If you hadn't lost someone, it was like being a child at a funeral. You knew that everything was wrong. That someone was missing, and you couldn't be sure who. Everyone else was around, but something was deeply wrong, something was missing; and you couldn't remember who it was, until your parents led you up to the casket, and you realized that everyone was in attendance, but one of the guests wasn't in the pews.

As I said, in New York, we have a day that we wish we didn't.

Flirting with Hypertension at the Last Straw Saloon

Long time no post. I've been working my ass off for several months, but the lab's quieting down, the stats work is done, and the publishing process has begun. So, I have a bit of time to update this... whatever it is. 

I'm still employed, maybe going to be published, maybe going to apply to grad school for this year, and maybe going to keel over from an undiagnosed ulcer brought on by obsessive attendance to that most futile of pursuits, following politics. So, what's been giving me broken molars this week?

- Georgia invading Russian enclaves because they thought they had US support, and Russians facilitating ethnic cleansing because they knew there was no such support.

- Limbaugh's "nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy."

- Hannity, Coulter and assorted other bottom-feeders accusing Obama of killing babies.


What's helping to alleviate the horrible impending sense of doom?

- Olympic women's beach volleyball.

- 'Rack Rolling.

- Hydrogen economy


Now, for purposes of therapy, I'll go down the list, talk about it, and hopefully get the bile out of my system.

1) The Georgian-Russian Conflict.
As far as I can tell, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili thought that - since he was such good friends with the current administration – he could retake the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Ashke-something. Georgia attacked them with conventional forces, but was repulsed by Russian peacekeepers and local forces. Russian army and irregulars from the breakaway provinces then advanced into Georgia, blowing the crap out of whatever villages and cities got in their way. There have been reports of artillery strikes against civilian targets on both sides, as well as a large-scale air campaign by the Russians against key Georgian cities and ports.
In response, Bush decided that – because our the bulk of our military is caught up in a useless brushfire war in Iraq – the only way to help our Georgian allies would be to put missiles in Poland. Unfortunately, that really is basically all we can do to help the Georgians, since our military is stretched so thin, our budget driven so deeply into the red, and our people so wary of another engagement.
Furthermore, since Europe relies on Russian oil and natural gas, they’re not going to do jack either. Thus, threats of intervention are rendered poor diplomatic tools, useful only for making us seem weak and inept. Since so much of our current foreign policy is based around the bullshit notion of unilateralism, we can’t act effectively, nor call on any allies to ignore their own interests for the sake of ours.
So America can’t lend a had to the Georgians, no matter how they deserve it, but instead get to be remembered for one more incident where our position as a hyperpower is once again shown to be frail in its stability, and neglectful of its commitments.
The Georgians are bastards because they’re trying to retake an area that doesn’t want to be part of them, while the Russians are utter bastards because they incited the breakaway in the first place, and are now refereeing a fresh round of ethnic cleansing. All because they’re pissed off that Georgia doesn’t feel like being under their thumb anymore.

2) Limbaugh.
So Democrats can’t say “no” to a brilliant politician who happens to be black, and Limbaugh can’t say “no” to the sweet release from guilt brought on by a handful of Oxycotin. What’s worse?

3) "Is that infanticide?" "It's shocking."
From what I can gather from the text of the bill itself, it seems that it aims to classify a child that survives an abortion as a full human being. It also states that no procedure that has a “reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child” being taken out of the womb may be performed without supervision from a physician who is not performing the abortion.
Now, when an abortion is performed late in the pregnancy, you of course have to take the body out, as leaving a dead fetus in the womb could kill the mother. However, if a doctor failed to perform the first part of the operation correctly, then the baby will still be alive. In terms of development, the baby will be very premature, to the point where the brain probably won’t be fully developed. The baby will be injured by whatever procedure was performed to terminate it. In short, the baby may be breathing, but is unlikely to be viable, and if it can survive past a year, the child will probably have severe developmental and physical problems for the rest of its life.
So what the bill is saying is that if there’s a mistake, and the doctor fails to terminate the pregnancy and the baby is alive when removed from the mother, the law will dictate that the brain-damaged, mutilated infant will now be kept alive by whatever measures are necessary. The child will then cared for by whatever parents can stick around to raise the most visible, personal reminder of what they will see as the greatest mistake of their lives. 

However, if the parents didn't want a normal child in the first place, why would they want to raise one they crippled? Who would gain anything from this? The child, now slated for being brought up by those who destroyed any chance of an existence even resembling a normal life? Maybe the parents, sticking around only out of a overwhelming sense of guilt - if they remain at all? No, those directly involved would only be harmed. 

The only people who would benefit would be those who derive a smug sort of pride from inflicting their version of morality on others. And the law does not exist to provide them with that pleasure. It exists to maximize freedom of choice, while minimizing harm done between members of the polity. The former always takes precedence, and since this bill violates both, Senator Obama voted correctly.


Now on to the Happy Thoughts section.

1) Olympic Women’s Beach Vollyball.
I love sports again.

2) ‘Rack Rolling.
I want someone to rickroll the Democratic National Convention. I want that someone to be Barack Obama. Never going to give [you] up… on change we can believe in.

3) Oxygen-evolving catalyst
One of the main arguments against hydrogen fuel cells is that generating hydrogen and oxygen from water (the most readily available source of both) is energy intensive. And if you have to burn fossil fuels to do so, a transportation infrastructure based HFC’s won’t reduce global warming. So, the team that discovers a good catalyst (something that reduces the amount of energy required to perform a certain action, in this case, splitting H2 from O) will not only help the world, but also make bank, as any overhaul of the transportation network would require use of the
Apparently, in the latest edition of Science, Kanan & Nocera discuss use of a catalyst formed using readily abundant minerals and capable of producing H2 and O2 using sunlight. This is important not only because of the because of the effects it may have on the way we travel, but on how we get energy in the first place. After all, solar energy is only available when there is abundant sunlight available. A way of storing this energy is vital. If a non-biological (and thus indigestible by microorganisms) manner of photosynthesis can be discovered, then that would go a long way towards solving the energy problem.

Update

Uh, yeah, I've been busy, if the +3 month space between posts didn't tip you off. I have a fairly amusing series of posts on politics, as well as a rant on Craig Venter, and why I want to bear his children. They're all below. I'd love to give you something better, but the lab is working on a grant right now, and I haven't been keeping up with such luxury activities as sleep and nourishment.

Quick update:

Professional: Job Rocks. I'm surprised I don't have to pay tuition. Post-docs are cool as hell, smarter then I dared hope, and in a group photo would look like an abbriviated meeting of the UN. Boss is still a little crazy, has us working nonstop, throws around ideas like they're candy and he wants to give us all diabetes and honestly, I couldn't be happier. He reminds me slightly of what I might want to be some day.

Other: Voted for Obama. Immediately wanted to vote for Clinton. Then realized that I also wanted to vote for Obama. Left booth feeling confused. Later, I realized that either way, we'd get a great president. This realization immediately led to a return to utter confusion.