Category Archives: Politics

James McCarthy on ScienceDebate2008

Get the embeddable video clips here.

Totally obligatory reading of the day!

Chez describes how and why CNN fired him for blogging and then piles on!
Spread the word. The old media needs to learn to respect the people formerly known as audience.

Lessig for Congress!

Lawrence Lessig is running for Congress and blogging about it. It would be sooooo nice to have him elected. Join the Facebook group and donate.

Plus ca change,….

While I was busy, I heard Castro resigned, Musharaff’s party lost the elections, and Kosovo declared independence. Wake me up when something really important happens, e.g., Bush leaves the White House….

Obligatory Readings of the Day

Orac: The American Academy of Pediatrics versus antivaccinationist hypocrisy
Drake Bennett: Black man vs. white woman
Sheril R. Kirshenbaum: The Presidential Science Debate That Happened TODAY In Boston! and The Boston Debate
Mike Dunford: The Role of Science in Politics: A Plea for Activism
John S. Wilkins: The ‘design’ mistake and, Brian Switek: No thanks, Ken; that argument is poorly designed
Ed reports on how we are messing up with future historians: I Always Wondered Where Those Things Went. How many historical artefacts and writings we believe to be true, but are not?
Paul Jones: Gorillas on my mind

Obligatory Readings of the Day

A guide to hiring women.
Obsolete technical skills (I have them all except #11!)
The social source of religion.
Charles Barkley for President!

Obligatory Readings of the Day

The elephants in the room: How the GOP lost its way by Hal Crowther
Kafkaesque Bureaucracies Impede Import of Scientific Goods in Brazil by Mauro Rebelo
Open Science and the developing world: Good intentions, bad implementation? by Cameron Neylon
Alternative Agriculture in Cuba (pdf) by Sara Oppenheim

Obligatory Reading of the Day

Mythbusting Canadian Healthcare, Part II: Debunking the Free Marketeers by Sara Robinson
Scientific Careerism 101: Yes, grad students and postdocs it IS your fault by DrugMonkey
The project of being a grown-up scientist (part 2) by Janet D. Stemwedel
The Well Dressed Professor… by Thomas Levenson
Your massive credit card debt means you’re doing great! by Amanda Marcotte
Barack Obama’s Achilles Heel by Jon Swift
The Cult of Obama by Sara Robinson

The Debate has a Date

Sheril and Chris have announced that the invitations to the remaining Presidential candidates for the Science Debate 2008 have been sent. The date is April 18th, 2008, just 4 days before the Pennsylvania primary (the last big primary that may decide the nominees unless something really weird happens before). The location – Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.
Read the press release, read the actual text of the invitation and check The Intersection to see how you can help make this actually happen (ignore the Ron Paul idiots in the comments there).

Obligatory Readings of the Day

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care — Part I by Sara Robinson.
Constitutional Originalism, Natural Law, and The Ninth Amendment by PhysioProf.

Military Sonar Testing

Obligatory Readings of the Day: Jennifer Ouelette and Chris Clarke explain everything you need to know.

National Academies sponsor the Science Debate 2008

Chris and Sheril report that the 600lb gorilla is in the room – the Science Debate 2008 just signed on probably its most powerful sponsor to date: The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, making the possibility of the debate happening even more realistic. Now read what Josh has to say about it. I agree.

Good news

Over the weekend (a civilized day of the week to hold elections – Saturday) Boris Tadic won (actually retained) the Presidency of Serbia. Sure, there were some better candidates, but this is a much better outcome than what could have happened – the various local versions of Huckabee and Paul, fortunately, lost.

Edwards speech in New Orleans today (video)


Good first responses on blogs:
Jonathan Cohn
Christy Hardin Smith
Pam Spaulding
Melissa McEwan
David Sirota
Chris Bowers

Edwards to Quit Presidential Race

NPR
MSNBC
Darn! The only one who understood how to fight the reactionary forces of the GOP.
It will be really difficult to make the decision now. Hope that Obama is not as naive as he appears?

Huckabee on Evolution

Welcome to the 18th century Presidential candidate (under the fold):

Continue reading

Obama wins big in South Carolina

Apparently, it was more important to some voters that the candidate looks like them than that the candidate is actually good for them.
Ah well, the identity politics… Clinton won the white women, Edwards white men, and Obama won big with African Americans.
Go figure….
Watch the results here as they get counted tonight…
Pam has been liveblogging and will be up on TYT at 9:30.

He’s funny!

AAAS joins the call for the Science Debate 2008

This movement is really gathering some serious momentum! On top of an already impressive list of supporters, the real 600lb gorilla has joined in the effort – the American Association for the Advancement of Science just put out a press release that is worth reading!

Last night’s debate

I always try to watch debates by erasing all of my prior information, just like a “virgin” voter, seeing the candidates for the first time. And with such a mindset, I have to say I was proud to be a Democrat last night! There were three formidable people up on the stage, obviously intelligent, thoughtful, capable and passionate.
It was easy to like Hillary while she was talking, and Barack when he was talking, and John when he was talking. They also seemed completely equal – there was no sense of the media-driven “two-person” race on that stage last night – it was unquestionably a three-person race although Obama had 12 minutes more of face-time than Edwards (with Clinton in-between).
So, if you are older, and you like a CEO who can manage stuff and does not scare you with too much novelty (same-old-same-old, but at least familiar stuff, and way better than Bush), you would pick Hillary.
If you are young and uninformed, but wide-eyed and eager to participate in a revolution, and if you fell for the whole “bipartisanship” frame pushed by the media and some groups and wonder “why can’t we all just get along”, you would pick Barack.
But if you are hurting, and insecure about your job and your future, and if you had your eyes open for the past 7 years and noticed that the people in power are really Bad Guys, not just inept politicians, than the only choice is Edwards.
At one point I thought how great it would be if we could elect all three for President and let them work together – they look like a Dream Team: a motivational speaker, a fighter and a manager. One plays a bad cop, one a good cop and one makes sure that everything remains calm and under control. Together, they could make a lot done to undo the enormous damage of the Gingrich+Bush years and to get us back on track.
They do not differ much on most issues and, since they have all been copy-catting Edwards’ ideas for the past year, they are getting less and less different as the time goes on. Even if he does not win, Edwards has completely designed and defined the Democratic platform for the next four years. The bloggers know all the details of their votes and how much each one of them glossed over the details of their past, but the regular low-information voter will find it hard to see how they differ on issues. But they obviously differ in governing philosophy and style.
On economy, Clinton talked about programs, Edwards talked about people, and Obama projected optimism. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, and each of the three approaches will appeal to someone.
On the question of Yucca Mountain, Clinton was matter of fact. Edwards said that he changed his mind when new scientific information became available (nice touch for the reality-based community!). But Obama used the conservative frame “sound science”!!!! WTF! This is like the hundredth time he used a conservative frame during this campaign – did nobody tell him that there are two variants of English language: one in the dictionaries and another one in the literature coming out of conservative “think” tanks? This is a typical Luntzism, one of millions of Republican Orwellianisms in which black is white and the sky is pink. Tobacco industry, polluters and others use the term to denote Bad Science that makes the point the industry likes. If they do not like what science says, they always try to postpone action with an excuse that there is not enough “sound science” there and that “more research needs to be done”. When they fund and conduct their own “research” and come up with an industry-friendly conclusion that goes against thousands of studies by legitimate scientists, they call that crap, you guessed it: “sound science”!
But, the looser last night was Subprime Media (TM), especially that symbol of big-headed, big-walletted, big-egoed buffoonery, Tim Russert. My wife and I were watching together last night and counting the minutes it took them to move on to the issues – 40 minutes! Those minutes were wasted on idiotic questions about horserace, and race, and gender, and generally stupid and useless drivel.
Fortunately, the candidates did not bite the bait at all and managed to foil and thwart every Tim’s attempt to draw the discussion into the gutter. As a result (and especially as a result of the chance for candidates to ask each other questions – the best questions ever asked in a TV debate), this was the best debate so far. This was the first time we could actually hear details and nuance and fine distinctions between the candidates, something impossible to do in a GOP debate, as there are no fine distinctions between slogans.
With the two recent Nevada polls showing all three candidates tied, and this debate probably making them come even closer, this is going to be an exciting caucus to watch. For a different reason than watching the Republican primaries, which is more like watching the clown car (TM) at the Circus.

Middle-East Diplomacy: the battle of wits between an Owl and a Lark

It’s rare that an article combines my two interests – in biological clocks and politics. This one does: Circadian rhythms differ for the king and the president:

One is a night owl who likes to do business after midnight. The other is an early-to-bed guy who brags about going to sleep around 9:30 p.m.
Uh-oh.
One of them is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The other is President Bush.
So what happens when the president comes calling on the king? Call it the battle over bedtime.

What the article fails to mention is that 9pm in Saudi Arabia is NOT 9pm for Bush. He just flew there. His internal clock is still on the Washington D.C. time. He is not just several hours off, but also jet-lagged. This is a known problem of international diplomacy – there is a definite home-court advantage. Not that Bush would not have made the same errors and mangled language if he was not jet-lagged…just sayin’

Now, this is passion….

…which I totally relate to. Can you guess which candidate they support? If you like one of their signs (e.g., ‘Elizabeth For First Lady’ one), they have set up a Cafepress store where you can buy them (as well as buttons, stickers and other stuff):
Edwards%20signs.jpg

Science Debate 2008 on NPR

If you missed it yesterday, you can now listen to the audio recording of the show here (the first 18 minutes or so were on this topic).

Electoral Compass

All the cool kids are doing it, so I did it, too, with no surprises:
electoral%20compass.JPG
It is fun, though you know I disagree that ideology can be mapped on a 2D coordinate system.
But you can sure play and see for yourself.

Science Debate 2008 on NPR today

Today at 2pm EST, tune in to NPR Science Friday with Ira Flatow for the discussion of the Science Debate 2008.

Primaries….

So far, Obama has a 1st and a 2nd, Clinton a 1st and a 3rd, and Edwards a 2nd and a 3rd. In terms of delegates they are all three very close (25 Obama, 24 Clinton, 18 Edwards). All the candidates have spent most of their money and their big donors have all maxed out, so they are all strapped for cash and all three have roughly equal amounts of money to go on.
Now that the phase of retail politics is pretty much over, the national polls are starting to be important as indicators how Super Tuesday may work out. Here is the latest summary of the Rassmussen tracking national poll:
Rassmussen%20poll.jpg
The trend appears to be making the three candidates closer and closer to each other! It looks like every primary and caucus from now until the very end will be a total war!

This is hardly a concession speech…

Science Advisor

Following his (excellent) article in Seed on the topic, my SciBling Chris Mooney blogs about the future of the position of the Science Advisor to the President, suggesting some potential names, and Matt Nisbet, RPM, Blake Stacey, Brian Switek, Scott Hatfield, Lila Guterman, Larry Moran, Mike Dunford, Flavin, c4chaos, Gordon Watts and PZ Myers chime in with their own opinions on the potential candidates.
For some reason, all the bloggers are focusing on popularizers of science and charismatic figures. But the job of a Science Advisor to the President is not really that public (unless the next President completely changes this role).
For a few decades, since the position has first been formed, the role of the Science Advisor was, well, to advise the President on scientific topics. Mooney is correct that there has been a shift in topic since then, i.e., what the most important science-related issues of the day are – from atomic energy that was really big in the 50s and 60s to the biotechnology and climate science today.
GW Bush waited almost a year – during which he did a LOT of assaults on science – before appointing poor Dr.Marburger for the role. Then, he demoted the role – the Science Advisor no longer has the ear of the President, but is relegated to some backroom to play rummy with the Origami Advisor, Interior Decorating Advisor and Dog-Grooming Advisor. Every now and then, when the Administration does something particularly egregious and the science community attacks them for it, someone goes to the back room and drags Marburger out to the microphones and cameras and instructs him to say something along the lines of “But, George Bush is a nice guy. Really. And he really likes science. He really enjoyed watching that nature show – did you see it the other day? – especially when the pack of hyenas ripped into that wildebeest. Wasn’t that cool?”
In the unlikely event that a Republican wins the elections in November, it is highly unlikely that the role of Science Advisor will get reinstated to the former level, not even by the least insane candidate, the only one who concedes that global warming is real and may be a bad thing and perhaps, just perhaps, humans may have something to do with it (McCain). When everything you stand for is against the empirical reality, why have some scientist keep reminding you that you are basing your policy decisions on fairy-tales, wishful thinking and gut-feeling?
On the other hand, all the Democratic candidates have indicated, at least indirectly, that they would reinstate the position back to the Cabinet level. Mooney reports:

The top democratic presidential contender, Hillary Clinton, has officially pledged to right the wrongs against Marburger–or at least, against his office. If elected, Hillary says, her science adviser will be named early, get the “Assistant to the President” title back, and report directly to her.

Thus, in the next Administration, the new Science Advisor will be a member of the Cabinet, will be present at all the Cabinet meetings, will talk to the President daily, and will have a direct influence on policy on a day-to-day basis. I do not see the Science Advisor as a public figure, though a public appearance may happen occasionally, perhaps to announce major science-related news from the White House. In other words, the person will not be responsible for selling science to the people, but explaining science to a reality-based President. A very, very different role.
All of the people mentioned by bloggers are completely unprepared for such a job. What is needed is someone who is well versed in science policy and politics and has a track record in administration of science and in dealing with the Congress. It does not even matter if the person is famous or a complete unknown to the general public, a highly controversial figure or someone universally liked, a theist or an atheist – none of those things are likely to ever affect the job (or the initial nomination) at any time.
So, my personal pick for the job is Harold Varmus, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine for his discovery of oncogenes and is a prolific researcher. He spent six years as the Director of NIH during which time he managed to persuade the Congress to double the NIH budget. He really got PubMed going, is a big proponent of Open Access, is now the President of Sloan-Kettering and he turned a dream into reality by founding the Public Library of Science. He has testified in Congress and is a very likable person and an effective speaker. He has no negatives I can possibly think of, knows his science, knows his policy/politics and is persuasive and passionate. I think he would be perfect.

The role of political reporters

Obligatory Reading of the Day, by Glenn Greenwald:

“Do they ever think about anything without reference to some high school cliche?”

The Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Two debates last night – both won by Democrats

I watched the first couple of Dems debates, then skipped most of them – too busy with work and stuff – then tuned in last night for the ABC/Facebook double-feature. Brief thoughts:
The GOP debate was surreal. A bunch of Grumpy Old White Men spewing nonsense and nobody called them on it (the same conversation could easily have occurred at a neighborhood bar or at a strip-club and would not seem out of place). McCain and Thompson looked like the two old geezers sitting on the balcony on the Muppet Show set, and were just as coherent.
Romney was like a deer in the headlights, insulted that someone may challenge his complete lack of idea what he’s doing. Big Pharma are good guys, trying to make medicines for all of us?! Sure, the scientists working there – the employees – may have lofty motivations, but their bosses are just in it for profit with approximately zero concern for the sick people of the world. And 47 million Americans refuse to buy health insurance?! Sure, I refuse it, too, when the monthly bill is more than a grand and my bank account is in the red. Is everyone earning less than a million per minute prohibited from ever being seen by Romney?
To say that these guys are out of touch is putting it too nicely. They just dropped from Tralfamador and the first hour of their English lesson was taped and put on TV for all to see. If the Saturday Night Live crew memorizes the transcript with no alterations and performs the skit, it would be just as loony and funny as the debate itself.
What we saw was the last remnants of the Republican party. Normal people who, for reasons of personal or family history, voted Republican for many years, are leaving the party in droves because there is nothing there for anyone but the professional GOP operatives, the uber-rich and the religious nutcases. What is left was on TV last night and is absolutely pathetic. They need to go back to the drawing board and redesign the party from scratch if they want to remain a viable party in the future. They are still attacking strawman ideas that Dems left behind 60-80 years ago – because they cannot attack what the Democrats are standing for today.
The one that worries me is Huckabee. On a very charitable day I vehemently disagree with the guy 99.9%. But, unlike the others, he knows how to talk, he is a great debater, he is comfortable, confident and likable and, if you are not aware that definitions of all the words he uses are not the definitions found in Websters or Oxford Dictionary but only in religious literature, you may fall for his rhetoric – and many low-information voters may do just that. He is the only Repub I am afraid of for the general and I hope that the GOP machine and the GOP-loving media will derail his candidacy soon because a prospect of his Presidency is scary.
Now to the Dems debate. Made me very proud to be a Democrat. The contrast was stark. On its own, the GOP debate was something out of a Bunjuel movie, but when placed in direct juxtaposition with the Democratic debate, it was an absolute disaster, a nightmare.
The big loser was ABC. The first question made a false assumption that a nuclear device is as small as something that can fit in a suitcase. The second question made the false assumption that Social Security is in danger. The third question made the false assumption that the “surge” in Iraq is working. not just that all three were false statements, but they are also all three important Republican talking points, and the part-and-parcel of Republican strategy of inducing fear in voters. And when Gibson showed his out-of-touchness by claiming that “a couple of professors, each earning over $100,000” he was laughed at by all four candidates and the audience. In what world does he live in? Oh, D.C. Explains it all.
Earlier in the season, when Dems debates featured eight candidates, Richardson was helped by the presence of Gravel and Kucinich. Next to them he appeared serious and reasonable. Last night, as personally likable he may be, he was clearly outclassed by the Three Stars. He has every right to keep trucking through the primaries, but he is not adding much to the debates and has no chance of doing well anywhere, so his funding is bound to dry up sooner or later and he’ll be forced to quit, having made himself visible and well-known and in a good position to be invited for a high spot in the next Administration.
The other three were really all good. I disagree with Clinton on many things and do not believe that her presidency would be capable of rolling back all the disastrous changes that Bush years produced, but I like her, always did. What she can accomplish is still light-years ahead of anything a GOP president can do. I am still worried about her electoral chances, though.
I like Obama, really do, always did. I am still not bought on his strategy, that it would work (though a part of it – campaigning, not governing part – worked in Iowa caucuses), but I can give him a benefit of the doubt. If he is the nominee I would gladly support him all the way.
And of course, I am an unabashed supporter of Edwards. The chattering classes cannot imagine that what he says is what he really means. But he is my neighbor. I met him several times. In bookstores. At the gas station pumping gas. I know he is genuine, the real deal. What you see is what you get. And I have already explained several times why I think his strategy (more for governing than for winning the election in the first place) is the right strategy for the country.
There is change and there is change.
Rearranging the furniture is change. Clinton would do that.
Burning the furniture and the house down is change. Republicans are already doing this.
Getting creative and building new furniture is also change. Obama and Edwards would do that – the difference being that Edwards would kick the Republican pyromaniacs out of the house first so they cannot keep ruining the creative process.
And as I alluded to yesterday, there is a parallel I see between the discussion of relative merits of Obama’s vs. Edwards’ strategy and the discussion between “appeasers” and “angry atheists”. The strategy of learning how to speak their language, being nice and gentle, and slowly helping them climb over the Wall to the sunny side is something that works on the ground, one-on-one or in small groups, away from the intruding eyes of cameras. The strategy of proclaiming loudly and strongly that BS is BS and that the alternative is the rational way to go moves the Overton Window in the right direction. The two strategies complement each other – the loud one determines what can be mentioned in public, the soft one moves people towards that view. The soft approach prepares individual people to accept and even rally for the lolud view.
You see where I am going with this, don’t you? We need BOTH strategies simultaneously. When we take the White House, there has to be one person in the limelight (the President) who talks to the people every day with passion. There also has to be the other person (the Vice-President) who stays away from the cameras and uses his talent to move people over one at the time, both in DC and in constant travels around the country talking to ordinary people. You know who is who so fill in the names yourself.

Lambert on Obama – the Obligatory Reading of the Day

When I put up a bunch of good election-related links about Iowa caucuses and the impending New Hampshire primaries last night, I have no idea how I missed this fantastic post by Lambert that everyone is apparently talking about. Right on. Much more elaborate and detailed and well-documented than this (a year ago), and more up-to-date than this (right after the 2004 election), but essentially the same argument and it is correct.
Obamamania reminds me of Deanomania from four years ago – what is important to the young-uns is the excitement of being a part of the revolution, not the understanding of political landscape, electoral politics, economics, or even where the candidate even stands on these things. That generation is four years older and wiser now (and hugely in the Edwards camp this time around). But the new kids are naive and went for the wrong guy again.
Related.
Update: It is interesting to look at the parallels between two separate debates, both of which invoke the Overton Window: there is one about atheism, where “appeasers” work well in the trenches, holding hands, slowly pulling people over to the Good Side, and the “Vocal Atheists” who move the Overton Window in public – the media, books, blogs. Both have a role to play, but also get in each others’ way sometimes.
The other debate is in politics, where Obama is the appeaser (and thus can do well in one-to-one retail politics on the ground), and Edwards is the one who pulls the Overton Window in public. If only MSM would not completely black him out! But this is why he wins the blogosphere hands down.
Unfortunately, after the election is over and one needs to start governing, people you deal with are not nice Iowan Republicans, but the Washington Republican animals, where appeasement does not work and there is no way to elicit any compromise. You need a tough guy for that – a political equivalent of Dawkins, not Collins, and this year that is only Edwards.

Some Horserace Links…

Just to add some more to yesterday’s numbers and links on the Iowa caucuses, which just shows that if you get all your news from the MSM, especially the TV, you are not just woefully uninformed, but criminally misinformed. Take your time this weekend to read up on these:
Sara Robinson: 2008: A Year In Limbo
2008, Part II: Hold On Tight To Your Dream
2008, Part III: Where There Is No Vision, the People Perish
2008, Part IV: On Denial, Collapse, and the Laws of Physics
Kevin Drum: CAJOLERY….
Glenn Greenwald: Worthless chatter
Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates
Hillary and the mean kids on the bus
John McKay: Let’s do this election right
John Logsdon: Iowa Boy Goes to the Caucus
Amanda Marcotte: Chickens coming home to roost
Pam Spaulding: Will the MSM ask Huckabee to explain his ties to the Christian Reconstructionist movement?
The Iowa Caucuses – open thread
A few headlines on Iowa
Mustang Bobby: My Two Cents Worth
Echidne: Voting Your Gender in the Iowa Democratic Primary
Melissa McEwan: Horse Race
Iowa Caucus Open Thread
Media glare
Wolfrum: GOP down to Huckabee or McCain amid field of Kooks
somewaterytart: Evangelicals: Detached from reality in new and interesting ways
Tristero: Strange Days, Take Two
Digby: The Real Deal
dday: John McCain Won Big Among People Who Voted For John McCain!
Hubris Sonic: Iowa Wrap Up
Ezra Klein: IT ALL DEPENDS ON IOWA, AND THE ISSUES.
OBAMA, HUCKABEE, WIN IOWA.
WHAT EDWARDS WON.
HILLARY STUMBLES.
OBAMA’S GIFT.
MCCAIN: ‘WHAT ABOUT 100?’
WHAT’S NEXT FOR HILLARY?
THE JOE AND JOHN SHOW.
HILLARY’S NEXT SPEECH.
Eric Kleefeld: Entrance Poll: The Second-Prefs Winner Was … Edwards
Entrance Poll: Obama Won On High Turnout — And Edwards Lost
Zogby: Hillary And McCain Slightly Ahead In NH, Before Iowa Caucus Was Held
ARG: Hillary Barely Ahead Of Obama In NH, Before Iowa Caucus Was Held
Greg Sargent: Edwards: From Here On Out, It’s Me Versus Obama
Edwards’ New Strategy Against Obama: Who Can Best Deliver Change, A Lover Or A Fighter?
Edwards Ad In New Hampshire: Corporate Greed Hurts Republicans And Independents, Too
Josh Marshall: (Very) Big Picture
From the Trenches
Feel the Rage
Lance Mannion: Introducing: My Obama Problem
The Southern Strategy backfiring at long last
Matthew Yglesias: Swift Boaters Return
Scott Lemieux: Official Non-Endorsement
David Brooks redefines conservatism as liberalism and vice versa in his typical dishonest effort to appear alway correct on everything: The Two Earthquakes
David Sirota: The Numbers Don’t Lie – Populism Is On the Rise
Chris Bowers: A New Generation Takes Charge Of The Democratic Party
New Democrats, Changing Democrats
New Hampshire Polls: Pre-Iowa Baseline
Exit Polls: Democrats Crush Republicans Across the Board
Less Iowa Momentum To Be Had In 2008 Than 2004
Clinton Campaign: Obama Can’t Win Because He’s Too Liberal
Matt Stoller: Turnout Thoughts
Adam Bink: Quick Thoughts from IA
Jeff Fecke: So What Have We Learned?
Alex Palazzo: My 2 cents on the Iowa caucus
Hunter: Thank God it’s Over
Jake Young: Friday Rant: I hate you Iowa caucuses
desmoinesdem: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 9
BooMan23: Why the Blogosphere Went for Edwards
davefromqueens: MSM Continues Blackout of John Edwards
JedReport: The MSM blackout of John Edwards: Some metrics
Kos: Dear Joe Klein,
And the best two minutes on TV over the last 24 hours – Elizabeth Edwards tells Chris Matthews everything that is wrong with him and his pundit buddies, a joy to listen and to watch his grimace:

Congratulations! 49 more primaries to go.

Final results of the Iowa caucuses:
Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)
More important numbers:
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
Biden and Dodd have quit the race.
Media pundits – catastrophic:
Frameshop: Obama And The ‘Balance’ Frame
With Obama’s Win, What to Expect at Fox News
So Absurd
Chris Matthews’ double-standard: makes Obama references like those he criticized from Kerrey
Matthews: ‘[L]ow 30 percent’ result in Iowa for Clinton would mean ‘reject[ion] … by two-thirds’ of Iowa Dems
Bennett: Obama isn’t *that* kind of black
The Punditry… It Burns…
Its about Change: Edwards 2nd in Iowa and its just getting started
Strange Days

New on…..Publishing

In the wake of the signed omnibus bill that funds NIH and ensures open deposition of NIH-funded research, here are some thoughtful questions:
Why the NIH bill does not require copyright violation:

The great advantage of the requirement to deposit in Pubmed (rather than simply to expose on a publisher or other website) is that the act is clear. You can’t “half-deposit” in Pubmed. They have the resources to decide whether any copyright statement allows the appropriate use of the information or is suffiently restrrictive that it does not meet the NIH rules.
At some stage the community will get tired of the continual drain on innovation set by the current approach to publihing. Whether when that happens many publishers will be left is unclear.

What does USD 29 billion buy? and what’s its value?

So, while Cinderella_Open_Access may be going to the ball is Cinderella_Open_Data still sitting by the ashes hoping that she’ll get a few leftovers from the party?

What is peer review, anyway?

A final question is perhaps the most difficult: How do we identify journals offering acceptable levels of peer review? Who’s to say whether a given journal is good enough? After all, even the most rigorous scholarly journals sometimes make errors — indeed, one of the most important parts of the scientific process is identifying and correcting problems in earlier work. Indeed, too rigorous a standard of peer review can stifle research just as much as too lax a standard.

Victory for Open Access!

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 2764) which, among else, mandates the repository of all NIH-funded research into PubMedCentral within at most 12 months after publication.
Until now, the placement of NIH-funded research papers into publicly accessible repositories was not mandated, but recommended. However, only about 5% of the authors actually did it, as the process was complex and not always clear. This number is growing, but far too slowly. From now on, authors will have clear guidelines and assistance in making sure that all the research becomes public a year after publication in a scholarly journal.
As you may recall, the original version of the bill was vetoed by President Bush. However, the language of the Open Access provision remained intact throughout the process, with no resistance from the Administration. This did not happen easily and the good people of SPARC and the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (as well as NIH itself) are to be commended for their tireless efforts in educating the Congress about the issue and congratulated for the success.
There has been opposition to this provision of the law mounted by some of the giant publishing houses. They hastily put together PRISM, an astroturf organization designed to lobby the Congressmen against this provision. However, they overreached, and the alert blogosphere caught their dishonesty as well as their breach of the copyright law. The information spread virally across the internet and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people. The outcry by the concerned citizens who, by the thousands, contacted their Representatives, effectively neutralized the efforts of the opponents and the Open Access language sailed through the two full rounds of the legislative process unscathed.
There has been quite a lot of celebration on science blogs today so, as I often do, I will post links to some of them here:
Peter Suber was the first to blog the announcement and the press release by The Alliance for Taxpayer Access. He is also tracking the online responses.
Jonathan Eisen is giddy with excitement.
Glyn Moody predicts that this will have a “knock-on effect around the world, as open access to publicly-funded research starts to become the norm.”
Peter Murray-Rust expects that having the papers Open will uncover new science as the data are mined by robots.
John Gordon wonders if Bush is even aware of what he signed and jokes about the Alliance for Taxpayer Access for having a “diabollically clever name” 😉
Leslie Johnston reminds everyone there is no need to wait exactly 12 months to deposit the papers.
Charles Bailey, Klaus Graf, Paula Kaufman, Oliver Obst, Dorothea Salo and David join in the celebratory mood.
There is also a long comment thread on Slashdot, the site that spread the word about the copyright infringment by PRISM.
Brandon Keim on the WIRED Science Blog also mentions the dubious tactics of the opposition.
Rich is a student happy that he will be able to read the articles from now on.
Marshall Kirkpatrick also sees how this will open up a whole new world for scientific research.
Kevin Smith is thinking about the ways librarians can help.
Georgia Harper is a step ahead of everyone else, suggesting the mechanisms for making the transition smooth.
Richard Akerman provides the appropriate movie clip.
Mark Patterson:

One of the most effective ways to comply with this new requirement is for researchers to publish their work in fully open access journals such as those of PLoS. As part of the service we provide to authors, we deposit every article in PubMed Central so that it can be a part of this evolving and important online archive. And this happens as soon as the article is published – so that anyone with an interest in the work can immediately read it and build on it.

Peter Suber collected even more blogospheric responses.

Icelandic woman mistreated at JFK, shackled and deported

This is hair-raisingly scary:
Iceland complains to US about treatment of tourist in New York:

REYKJAVIK, Iceland: Iceland’s government has asked the U.S. ambassador to explain the treatment of an Icelandic tourist who says she was held in shackles before being deported from the United States.
The woman, Erla Osk Arnardottir Lillendahl, 33, was arrested Sunday when she arrived at JFK airport in New York because she had overstayed a U.S. visa more than 10 years earlier.
Lillendahl, 33, had planned to shop and sightsee with friends, but endured instead what she has claimed was the most humiliating experience of her life.
She contended she was interrogated at JFK airport for two days, during which she was not allowed to call relatives. She said she was denied food and drink for part of the time, and was photographed and fingerprinted.
On Monday, Lillendahl claimed, her hands and feet were chained and she was moved to a prison in New Jersey, where she was kept in a cell, interrogated further and denied access to a phone.
She was deported Tuesday, she told reporters and wrote on her Internet blog.
On Thursday, Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir told U.S. Ambassador Carol van Voorst that the treatment of Lillendahl was unacceptable.
“In a case such as this, there can be no reason to use shackles” Gisladottir said. “If a government makes a mistake, I think it is reasonable for it to apologize, like anyone else.”
Van Voorst has contacted the officials at JFK airport and asked them to provide a report on Lillendahl’s case, Gisladottir said.

Lost:

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which beganas innocently as possible.

A young blonde Icelandic woman’s recent experience visiting the US:

I was then made to wait while they sought further information, and sat on a chair before the authority for 5 hours. I saw the officials in this section handle other cases and it was clear that these were men anxious to demonstrate their power. Small kings with megalomania. I was careful to remain completely cooperative, for I did not yet believe that they planned to deport me because of my “crime”.

Creeping fascism. Check out the willing executioners in the comments.
I hope she sues and I hope that all those JFK creeps who use uniforms as penile enhancement props get fired, jailed and shackled, while their mugs and names grace the cover pages of every newspaper in the country and the world.
(via Digby via Pandagon).

Political Polarization in the US and how to diffuse it

Opposite of what Obama is trying to sell as a recipe, as Paul Rosenberg explains eloquently and logically, with data and graphs.

Confused by the mortgage/housing boom and bust?

Then read this and the comment thread below it. That’s all you need to know.

Do you need….

…any more reasons to vote these guys out of office for many years to come? (via).

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #6: Space

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the sixth one, so comment away!

It appears that each President, soon after assuming office, radically changes the direction of our Space Program. Ongoing long-term projects get shelved in favor of starting new long-term projects that sound more spectacular than those of his predecessor. Often the politically spectacular projects involving manned spaceflight are of dubious scientific value compared to other NASA projects they displace. Under the current Administration, all of the basic science at NASA, as well as the well-established system for prioritizing missions, have been trashed in the name of the Moon/Mars program.
Recently, a number of private companies have started investing into manned spaceflight, potentially giving NASA even more room to experiment with numerous cheaper, safer and more science-valuable projects the like of Mars Rovers, the Hubble telescope, etc. If elected President, how would you balance the scientific research at NASA with the manned spaceflight program? How would you ensure that long-term projects do not have to fear the sudden changes in priorities by whoever is your successor in the White House, i.e., ensuring long-term stability of funding and relative independence of the NASA scientific programs from the vagaries of electoral cycles?
Previously:
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #3: Global Warming
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #4: Who has Scientific Authority?
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #5: Food

Presidential Candidates on the Environment

The League of Conservation Voters has issued a comparison of all the Presidential candidates of both parties on the topic of conservation and global warming. Look at the Chart and watch the Video. Then decide.

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #5: Food

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the fifth one, so comment away!

Back in 1973, Earl Butz (working for President Nixon) enacted the new Farm Bill. Up till that time, food prices were supported through loans, government grain purchases, and land idling. The Farm Bill changed the system to support food prices with direct payments to farmers. The direct, long-term result of this policy is overdependence on corn, monoculture with its gigantic need for fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides, inability of small/local/organic farmers to compete due to artificially low food prices, industrial-lot production of corn-fed beef (bad for cows, bad for us), enormous volume of oil used for food transportation and fertilizer production, and Big Agra control over legislation regulating food production and food safety (as well as workers’ safety inside food industry) further consolidating food production in the hands of a few megabusinesses.
Agribusiness is now one of the strongest lobbies in the country, yet people are increasingly looking for alternative sources of food in local sustainable farms, farms that are extremely difficult to start and run due to regulations written into legislation by the agribusiness lobbyists. And naturally in such environment, food and nutritional science is greatly focused on improvements in productivity of food production within the existing system instead of exploring the alternatives. Would you reverse the 1973 Farm Bill and what else would you do to restructure and reorganize our food-production system thus ensuring the availability of safer, healthier food, making it possible for small farmers to support their families with small farm business, and greatly reducing the use of oil for food production and transportation?
Previously:
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #3: Global Warming
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #4: Who has Scientific Authority?

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #4: Who has Scientific Authority?

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the fourth one, so comment away!

Emboldened by the generally anti-science positions of this Administration, both politically motivated and religiously motivated assaults on science have reached unprecedented levels of intensity over the past seven years, quite openly stating their goals of rolling back the Enlightenment. There have been increased attempts, often looked kindly by some people in Congress as well as the White House, to introduce Intelligent Design Creationism into public schools, to ban abortion and even contraception, to reduce sex education to the ineffectual “abstinence-only” classes, to ban nuclear transfer techniques (‘therapeutic cloning’), to ban stem cell research, to deny global warming is caused by human activity, etc.
For the first time in history the websites of Federal agencies (e.g., FDA, CDC, NASA) cannot be 100% trusted to present complete, up-to-date, correct and uncensored scientific information on such “hot” issues.
Various cranks, quacks, pseudoscientists and paid PR people are trotted out as “authority” on scientific matters for which they are not qualified in order to provide an illusion of ‘controversy’ where no such controversy exists. The media gullibly accepts the perception of controversy and strives to provide a false “balance” by giving both “sides” equal time and perceived authority.
If elected President, what can you do, and what you intend to do to reverse the anti-science trend seen in the USA over the past several years? How will you determine what is the voice of the true authority on a scientific question? What is your role as President to enhance public understanding of science and what can you do to ensure quality science education in all public schools in the country at all levels?
Previously:
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #3: Global Warming

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #3: Global Warming

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the third one, so comment away!

Back in 2004, global warming was not a prominent campaign issue for any of the candidates. This time around, most of the candidates have highlighted this issue to some extent. Unlike many other problems we are facing, the threat of global warming is neither just an internal U.S. problem, nor a problem that we can afford to wait a couple of more electoral cycles before we address it seriously.
The USA is not a signatory of the Kyoto agreement and countries all over the world are failing to meet Kyoto requirements. Reduction of CO2 intensity per GDP, or slowing down of the increase of CO2 production are not sufficient goals. The production of CO2 actually has to be reduced from current levels in order to avoid temperature increase. Many of the factors that lead to global warming (especially transportation) have additional environmental impacts, e.g., noise, light and space pollution. Reducing all the factors is not a matter of a single, simple policy – so much is deeply interconnected: the energy production and consumption, dependence on (foreign) oil, environmental protection, agriculture, transportation, infrastructure, design of cities, among else. Even the U.S. foreign policy, the way we do business and our way of life need to change.
Big systemic changes are necessary, and such changes are always strongly opposed by actors who fear a short-term financial loss from such changes. How do you propose to tackle the complex issue of climate change and, if elected in 2008, what can you do to persuade the Congress, the private sector and the American people, as well as all the other nations in the World, to accept your plan although it will require substantial changes in the way we think: choosing quality of life over raw wealth! Is America ready for this?
Previously: Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the second one, so comment away!

There is always a balance – and tension – between basic science and applied science. Some Presidents favor a greater emphasis on goal-directed research, e.g., earmarks for cancer-research at the expense of basic science ( e.g., cell biology) although both can ultimately result in findings needed for better treatments for cancer, while other Presidents are reverse, favoring basic science. There is also an ideological dimension present in funding decisions. For instance, conservatives are in favor of diminishing funding for behavioral research – both basic and applied – although it is potentially important research for the fight against terrorism: studying psychology of terrorists, religion, other cultures, i.e., this is not a post-modern promotion of “immoral sexual behavior” or being “anti-American”.
What are your thoughts on the ideal balance between basic and applied research? Is there a place, for instance, for a next-generation high-energy particle accelerator in the USA? On the other hand, do we really need so much funding of the research on defensive biological warfare, (something that potentially, and in the wrong hands, can be used offensively)?
What is the role of the opinion of the American public in guiding the research priorities?
Non-military research funding has historically been around 11% of GDP, yet it has been decreasing lately. Even worse than a steady decline is the “roller-coaster” pattern of science funding: big increases in funding resulting in an increase of the numbers of young researchers (freshly minted PhDs, postdocs and recently hired junior faculty) are followed by sharp decreases of funding leaving all those young scientists stranded mid-career (or “pre-career”) with no money for research and no possibilities for professional advancement. How do you propose to stabilize long-term steady growth in funding for science and what are the priorities when asking Congress to appropriate the funding?
There is also a tension – and a need for balance – between our wish for the USA to remain the scientific superpower and the intrinsic need of science to disregard borders – knowledge is universal and should be free for all of humanity (including for the American public, something that the Bayh-Dole bill has inadvertently restricted).
In recent years, there has been a lagging interest among young Americans in pursuing careers in science. In the past, there have always been scientists from other countries eager to come here to study and do research, thus filling the gap left by the lack of interest by Americans. However, due to the new immigration policies, it is increasingly difficult for scientists from many other countries to obtain visas to come here. They are also uncertain about the quality of research they can do in a country that is increasingly perceived as being ‘anti-science’ and lacking funding security.
At the same time, a number of other countries have recently developed strong research infrastructure of their own and are now capable of attracting and retaining their students and researchers. Furthermore, in some areas of research, most notably stem-cell research, we see the first signs of brain-drain – American researchers leaving the country in order to do research elsewhere.
How would you address the current problems of scientific research in the USA – stopping the brain-drain, attracting foreign students, energizing young Americans to consider careers in science, and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while still retaining the US dominance?
Previously: Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President

Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:
– correct my factual errors
– call me on my BS
– tell me why the particular question is counterproductive or just a bad idea to ask
– if you think the question is good, help me reduce the question from ~500 to ~20 words or so.
Here is the first one, so comment away!

Advancements in science and society have brought in new technologies over the past decades and centuries, so today we have to deal with the consequences of uses of such technologies that previous generations did not have to deal with, ranging from reproductive technologies to global warming, from ecosystem protection to bioterrorism. More and more policy decisions are heavily dependent on good understanding of the underlying science. Thus, there is an increased need for good science advice to the President and the Congress, as well as good implementation of science policies devised and enacted by the President and the Congress.
Unfortunately, empirical knowledge of the way the world works stands in the way of ideologically motivated policies, thus some politicians and some of their allies in the business community and/or religious community have systematically suppressed science and ignored scientific advice. First, in 1994, one of the first acts of the Gingrich Congress was to eliminate the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. President G.W.Bush demoted the office of the Presidential Science Advisor who in previous administrations was a member of the Cabinet present at daily meetings and who had the ear of the President instantly whenever needed. The President’s Council on Bioethics has been systematically filled with far-Rightwing ideologues. The Federal scientific, health and environmental agencies are now headed by party loyalists with no scientific background who act as censors of the research produced by the agency scientists. Finally, the reports of the National Academy of Science were ignored or even openly dismissed by the current President.
If elected President, what do you intend to do to make sure that you receive trustworthy scientific information and that your policies are based on the best available empirical knowledge about the world? What do you see as the primary role of the Presidential Science Advisor? In what way, if any, would you change the current federal framework of implementing science-related policy?

Let’s get the Presidential candidates to debate science topics

Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney have been promising something for a week, teasing us with tantalizing hints about something big. We were told to read Chris’ article Dr.President, and then this morning another article, Science and the Candidates by Lawrence Krauss.
Finally, today a little before 2pm EST, we got the idea what it was going to be and at 2, they posted their Call for a Presidential Science Debate on their blog, as well as invited everyone to the brand new Facebook group of the same title.
They have started an initiative to organize a debate for the U.S Presidential candidates on the topics of science, medicine, environment and technology. They got the support of a large number of top scientists, as well as journalists, science writers and elected officials, not to mention the ever-growing list of bloggers from all parts of the political spectrum.
While many of the policy topics that have been covered in speeches and other debates touch on science here and there, I am only aware of my Exclusive Interview with Senator John Edwards on Science-Related Topics as the only science-focused dialogue with any of the current candidates of either party. Yet, that was early in the process, at the time when they were just starting to come out with specific policy proposals. We can ask for much more specifics at this time in the cycle.
Some of the most pressing issues of the day are strongly dependent on the understanding of the underlying scientific findings, most importantly Global Warming. One’s stand on other issues, e.g., stem cells or evolution, is a pretty good indication of the person’s understanding of the world and how science studies it.
Of course, many details still have to ironed out. When would the debate be? Iowa caucus is in three weeks and the candidates’ schedules are packed to the minute. Perhaps later in the primaries (although there is a danger that it can all be over by early February in one or both parties)? Or during the general election? Would all candidates be asked in two debates (one Dem one Rep), or just the two final nominees? Then there is the question of Where? Which venue, or perhaps entirely online? Who would choose the questions? Who would ask them?
Just the response by the candidates to this invitation is an indicator of their seriousness about the job they are vying for.
Then, there is the question of how do we make sure it does not turn into a science pop-quiz? After all, the candidates are not scientists and need not know the details of stem cell research or to explain the hockey stick, as much as it would be nice if they could.
What we primarily want is to gauge their relationship with reality – will they govern using the best available information about the way the world really works, or will they govern by gut-sense and spiritual inspiration, or will they govern by immediate economic considerations only?
So, I think the questions should revolve around three general themes, while the specific topics (global warming, evolution, energy, space program, etc.) could be used as test-cases and examples of their thinking, their ways of demonstrating that their policy-making procedure will include correct science in a correct way:
Funding – what are the priorities, how much money is dedicated to research, who pays, who receives, who decides? Basic vs. applied science; science vs. technology.
Information – freedom of information, copyright, open source, open access, who owns and controls the information? How do they define “sound science”? What is the role of universities? What is taught in public schools?
Authority – what is scientific authority, who has it, who decides? How does governing rely on scientific authority? What considerations can be allowed to dilute the policy based on empirical information about the way the world works? Role of the WH science advisor, congressional Office of Technology Assessment, National Academy of Science?
For other people’s thoughts on this proposal, check out the early-bird bloggers, those who posted immediately after the 2pm announcement – and later check your Google or Technorati for additional responses:
Science Debate 08
Questions for the presidential candidates: where do you stand on science?
Let’s have a debate on science policy
Science Debate 2008
Science Debate 2008
Presidential Debates: The Future of Science in America
Call for a Science Debate
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
Science Debate!
Rattling the Presidential Science Debate Cage
Lets hear the candidates debate their solutions for global warming
Let’s Have a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
Presidential Science Debate
The Great Science Debate
A call for a debate
A Great Idea: A Science and Technology Policy Debate
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
Presidential debates with an extra helping of science
A presidential science debate?
Science Debate 2008 — Do We Need It?
Let’s make a date for a debate
We Want a Presidential Science Debate
A Call for a Science Debate
ScienceDebate2008
It Is Time For A Presidential Debate On Science
We Want a Presidential Debate on Science!
Wait a Minute… Why Isn’t There a Sci/Tech Specific Debate for the Presidential Candidates?
Science Debate 2008
Sciencedebate 2008
Shouldn’t the presidential candidates have a debate on science?!
Sciencedebate 2008
Presidential debate focused on science & technology
Should there be a Presidential Debate about Science?
Let’s have a presidential science debate!
A presidential debate about science
Science Debate 08
Sciencedebate 2008
Science Debate 2008 – Just Say ‘Yes!’
A Science-Only Debate For the 2008 Presidential Candidates?
ScienceDebate2008
Looking ahead in political science
In This Evening’s Debate We Will Be Focusing on Science
You Want the Presidency? Let’s Talk Some Science.
Science Debate
Do Politicians Understand Science at All?
Dispatches from the Emerging Technoprogressive Mainstream
Calling for a science debate
Presidential Candidate’s Science, Technology, and Energy Positions
Call for a Presidential Science Debate
Better Smart than Dumb
Group calls for presidential science debate
A matter of debate
Science Debate 2008
Call for a Presidential Science Debate
The Unforgiving Nature of Objective Reality
Since we don’t have a science blog…
Let’s Have Them Debate Science Before They End It
Join the Debate
Uncommon Ground
Science debate 2008
Political Science
Science Debate 2008
Science Debate 2008
SCIENCE DEBATE
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
Presidential Science Debate?
Science Debate 2008
Sciencedebate 2008
Si los políticos debatieran sobre ciencia
Citizen Scientists
Political Issues and the Science Lobby
Krauss joins top scientists in call for special presidential debate
Debates Worth Having
Presidential Science Debate One More Time
Bali, Global Warming in the Midwest, a Science Debate and More
A good idea whose time has come
We Need A Presidential Debate On Science!
Science Debate 2008, and Krauss on Science and the Presidential Campaign
Undecided…
Znanost v ameriški predvolilni tekmi
Science debate 2008
Sciencedebate2008
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
Sciencedebate 2008
Presidential Science Debate?
Science Debate?
Let’s get the politicians talking about science
A science debate, not a science exam
Support the push for a Sci/Tech Presidential Debate in ’08
A solution to the stem cell restrictions
Science and the Presidential candidates
Think outside Schrodinger’s box
Support the push for a Sci/Tech Presidential Debate in ’08
Let the candidates debate science!
Science Debate 2008
Time for a Presidential Science Debate
Science Debate 2008
Science Debate: It’s about time!
EnviroHealth in Blogs: Calling all candidates!
Science Debate 2008: Shockwave in the Blogosphere
Krauss and Mooney in LA Times
Would it be better to drop ‘Science’ and use the c-word instead?
A REAL Debate
Best Science Rant
Make science part of the debate
Science is Life
Call for Presidential Science Debate
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology Policy
Chapman and Kirshenbaum on HuffingtonPost
Make science part of the 2008 Presidential debate
Science Debate 2008
Debating Science and Technology
Presidential debating points: How about science and technology?
The Huffington Post
It Is Time For A Presidential Debate On Science – Part II
More on the Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology Policy
Republicans talk climate change (maybe) – and a call for real science debate
Presidential Science Debate
Science Debate 2008
Science Debate 2008
ScienceDebate2008: What Is It?
Should the Presidential Candidates Have A Debate on Science & Technology?
Nobel Laureates and Bill Nye, the Science Guy Ask for Presidential Debate on Science
Science Debate 2008
Edwards Interview On Science
More Bora – Science Debate 2008
The Third Leg of the Triangle
Science Debate
Science Debate 2008
Idiocy all around
Let’s have a presidential debate on science
Science Debate is a Great Concept
Do We Need a Presidential Debate on Science?
Wissenschaft und die Prasidentschaftswahl in den USA
No, I really do think we need a science debate
I’m on the Fence Regarding Sciencedebate 2008
ScienceDebate2008–The Latest
Science Debate 2008
Republicans talk climate change (maybe) – and a call for real science debate
More on Science Debate 2008
Given my love of science
Science Debate 2008
More on the science debate
A Presidential Debate On Science?
Lets Talk Science
Sciencedebate 2008
ScienceDebate2008 — It’s about time
A refreshing idea
Scientists Push Presidential Candidates for Positions on Science
Commentary: A science-literate president, please
Sciencedebate 2008
More on the Science Debate
Nobel Winners Call for ‘Science Debate’, Candidates Spar Over Jesus-Lucifer Link
Let the states decide!
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Is Science Debatable?
ScienceDebate2008
Sciencedebate 2008
Scientists Push Presidential Candidates for Positions on Science
Friday Blog Roundup
Science Debate 2008
Support presidential debates and discussions on science issues
Sciencedebate 2008
[PRESIDENTIAL] SCIENCE DEBATE 2008: CAN WE TALK ABOUT ISSUES NOW?
Presidential Science Debate
Science Debate!
Open Science Thread
This is a waste of time and effort
Please Support A Presidential Candidate Science Debate 2008
A Sound Debate on Science …
Science Debate 2008. A great idea, but is it plausible?
Sciencedebate2008 – It’s time!
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #2: Science Funding
Flip-Floppers
Science Intrudes on Baptist vs. Morman GOP Race
Sciencedebate 2008
Milano-Torino andata e ritorno
Science Debate 2008!
December 14 News Items
Letter to Ben (and Everyone Else)
Science Debate 2008
Exploration, Discovery—Solutions
Science Debate
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #3: Global Warming
Science Debate 2008
ScienceDebate2008: In Search of a Science-literate Leader
Science and the presidential debates
Science Debate 2008
Science Debate 2008
War on Science
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #4: Who has Scientific Authority?
A Canadian lesson for Science Debate ’08: Integrity trumps science literacy
Waxing Political
Culling them out!
Shawn Lawrence Otto on the Science Debate
Time for a Science Debate
ScienceDebate2008: Twelfth Nobel Laureate, Second University President, First GOP Governor, and Jamie Thompson
Science Debate 2008 – my Question #5: Food

Golden Compass – it’s about sex, really

This weekend, with 70 degrees F in Chapel Hill, it would have bin a sin to remain indoors. So I didn’t. But in the end, at twilight today, my daughter and I went to see Golden Compass, the movie whose first-weekend box-office earnings I wanted to boost.
I made sure not to read any reviews of the movie beforehand. I am, unlike most people who already wrote about it, one of those people who has never read the Pullman books on which the movie is based. Thus, like the majority of the target audience, I was a Pullman “virgin” and I wanted to watch it just like anyone else going out to see a movie on a weekend, with no big expectations.
Of course, there was no escaping knowing at least something about it. Before seeing the movie, I knew that:
– the books are supposed to have a strongly anti-religious sentiment, growing stronger as the story moves to the third book. But, I have no idea if the anti-religious sentiment is against the religion in the sense of belief in the supernatural, or the mythology, or the ceremony, or the community-building aspects (“us versus them”), or the top-down hierarchical structure of the religious organization.
– Pullman is a first-generation (“born-again”) atheist. This gives him a different view of religion than someone like me who was born and raised an atheist, in an atheist family, in an atheist country. His childhood religion colors him as a person, and his adult rebellion against religion also colors him as a person. He knows how it feels to be religious. I don’t. For me, religious people are curiousities, perhaps interesting as potential subjects to study: how is it possible for a human being to believe obvious untruths and how does such belief result in particular anti-social behaviors? It is like starting one’s research career by studying cockroach behavior because you want to eradicate the pest, but after decades of study you realize that you quickly forgot the fact they are pests and got fascinated by their brains, how they work and how they lead to particular cockroach behaviors. Having Gregor Samsa join your research group would be fascinating as he would bring new angles, yet also would bring biases that a merely human researcher cannot have.
– there was a controversy before the movie came out. Atheist groups protested the watering-down of the anti-religious sentiment compared to the books. The most extremely anal political organizations that like to voice their opinions publicly as if they speak for religion, voiced their disapproval of the movie and called for boycotts.
So, that’s all I knew. We got popcorn and sodas and went in.
And then, I loved the movie. It was fast-moving, it was fun, it has great acting, great characters, great scenery, great special effects and a fun story. My daughter loved it as well. We both now want to read the books (we have all three, sitting on the shelf right next to the Harry Potter series, still unread by anyone in the household, but that is soon to change).
Of course, the story is a typical fantasy story – it has all the elements such a story has to have. There is the main protagonist who is an unlikely hero, too young and inexperienced for the job, yet nobody else can do. Events thrust the protagonist into the role of the hero. This involves a journey. An older, wiser character serves as a teacher. There is a funny, yet also wise sidekick. The enemy is a jealous authoritarian (surrounded by a slimy posse of thugs) who wants to rule the world. An object is lost and needs to be retrieved. The hero finds help and shelter from a group at the edge of society that cherishes freedom. The journey is perilous, and each dangerous event on the road teaches the hero something new and adds crust and courage to the character (i.e., the character is built). Unexpected family ties are discovered (“I Am Your Father, Luke!”). The crescendo of events leads to the final battle between Good and Evil in which Good triumphs and the hero, irreversibly changed, rides off into the sunset.
So yes, all the archetypes are in the movie. And so they are in every adventure, fantasy, coming-of-age story in history. From Illiad to Winnie-the-Pooh and Alice in Wonderland to James Bond. From 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 to Brave New World. From Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings to Star Wars and Harry Potter. And so they are in the Golden Compass as well. Does it make the movie bad? Of course not – there is a reason why those elements are always in the story – they work! They appeal to something in all of us, make us identify with the hero and makes the adventure exciting!
So, what is special about Golden Compass? It’s sex. Everything in the movie has an interesting sexual or gender connotation. The hero is a heroine – a smart and brave girl. And, although there are many, many characters in the movie, very few are female. The society is entirely patriarchal. Thus, it is not just the age and the spunk, but also the gender of the heroine that rubs many other characters wrong (on both sides of the Good/Evil divide).
The place-time looks Victorian – I actually recognized the scenes filmed at Queens College and the Radcliffe Square in Oxford. And the society is Victorian as well. The school where Lyra goes to employs only men. The students, apart from her, are all men. White men. The only other female character at the college is the maid.
The Gyptians, while Billie’s mother appears to be a prominent member of the group, are still led by a group of old bearded men – she does not sit at their table when they make decisions.
With the polar bears it is hard to tell who is male or female, but there is no question that the King has to be male.
And of course, the Magisterium is led by a bunch of ugly, old, nasty, white guys who are the prime target audience for the Viagra commercials, if they only had anyone to use the blue pill with. Their sexual frustration, combined with the fear of death, turns them into power-hungry control freaks. If they can’t get it, nobody will! Thus, nobody, especially children, shall even know about sex, …er, Dust. Familiar?
In this world, every person has a daemon. Daemon is an animal and it is the place where the person’s soul resides. It is also a representation of the person’s sexuality. In kids, deamons are innocent and cute and change shape and form (aka species) all the time. At puberty, the species gets fixed. The soldiers have wolves. The farmers’ souls are horses. The servants’ daemons are dogs – higher in hierarchy, bigger the dogs, with the top servants walking around with Great Danes. And what are the daemons of the top leaders of the Magisterium? All are Great Cats. Now, why do you think these middle-aged guys are walking around with black panthers and snow leopards? Of course, for the same reason that their modern counterparts drive Jaguars to the grocery store.
And the very top dog, the leader of the cult? His daemon is a snake. Yes, really – a snake. The guy is constantly holding and playing with his python!
The king of the bears, the guy who likes to play with the dolls, is stupid enough to fall for the trick because the sweet-talking was delivered by a pretty girl who knows how to stroke his masculine insecurity.
The other bear, the good guy, also has some issues – he is a loner, a drunk, and a warrior. And as macho as can be. “Are you sure you want to ride me?” he asks, not being able to believe his good luck!
The other major female character, the ice-cold Mrs. Coulter – the brilliant stroke of lucky coincidence in naming, useful at pointing out to the dense what her role in the society is – is between the rock and a hard place. While the leaders of the Magisterium, all men, can sit around with stern faces, fluffing each others’ self-importance, Mrs. Coulter, being a woman, is supposed to actually do the work. She is doing the cleaning of the house. Being a woman, she is judged by her performance. Being a woman, she is dispensable if she screws up or becomes too uppity for their taste. They lust after her, and they hate her because they cannot have her. So, they own her and play with her destiny. And she, an independent spirit when younger, decided to play within the system, by their rules, choosing to have some power and temporary safety within their hierarchy in return for obedience. And she does it with a vengeance. If they are nasty, she has to be ten times as nasty just to be tolerated in their society.
Her project, an experimental splitting between kids and daemons, is a form of castration. Which she does with gusto. Except in one instance when her own offspring is to be rendered infertile. Her genetic immortality is more important to her than anything else in that moment of weakness.
So, is this movie anti-religious? Yes and no. It is primarily anti-authoritarian, so, as much as all organized religion is authoritarian, it is anti-religion. I do not know how the books are, but the movie does not mention God or even mention even a little bit of their beliefs and theology. We do not see anything from their sacred texts, do not hear the liturgy or see the ceremony. All we see is the social organization of the Magisterium which is decidedly authoritarian and bigoted, and on the other side, the Good side, the people are free-thinking and all-inclusive. The wiches, the bears, the Gyptians (who look like sea-faring Gypsies, the most despised and oppressed and simultaneously most romanticized nation in the world – for their love of freedom), the funny guy with a Texas accent – they never eye each other with suspicion for a split-second. Tolerance is in their blood.
But an authoritarian, hierarchical organization need not be limited to religious organizations. Political organizations, and others, can also be organized in the same way, motivated by greed, fear and sexual repression. Just because the leaders of the Magisterium wear funny robes, does not mean that the movie attacks priesthood in just religious organizations. Other, secular organizations also have their priests and uniforms. And of course the leaders of such organizations will want to headquarter their operations in as big and phallic buildings as possible, thus the cathedrals shapes in the movie. Again, the brilliant coincidence of the name of the second major female character….
And just because the audience is expected to want a “big one” as well, this little questionnaire produces, in about 90% of the trials, a Big Cat:

Ten Years Since The Kyoto Agreement….

Indy has the entire issue devoted to the topic of Global Warming, with some excellent articles:
10 years after Kyoto: You’re getting warmer by Bill McKibben
10 years after Kyoto: Winners and losers by Sena Christian
James Hansen won’t be quiet by Lisa Sorg
Ryan Boyles, state climatologist by Matt Saldana
Energy interests fund Duke University’s research on climate change policy by Matt Saldana
State senator parades dubious ‘global warming experts’ before commission by Mosi Secret