Wonders of AF'sD.

Via Inhabitat: "New Frank Gehry Residence in Los Angeles."

It is not often that an architecture master reinvents himself, but that is precisely what Pritzker Prize winning architect Frank Gehry has done. Gehry, who first won international recognition with his own residence, a masterpiece of post-modern architecture, has revealed what can only be described as the first post post-modern architectural work, the New Gehry Residence, completely confounding both his critics and promoters alike.

...

If it seems like this is simply a McMansion, be assured, it is not. This is the work of a modern genius, an artist in his prime. The New Gehry Residence is a masterful adaptation of the architectural typological expression of the modern American homeowner. It expresses, both without any irony and by having a profound sense of modern causticness, the expression of contemporary urbanism. A critical look at the consumer expressionism of the spatial factors involved in the formal relationships of how the shapes simply seem as though they formed themselves. It is a simple, yet brilliant reinvention of the modern American house. It is a work of genius.

Via Wired Online: "Top 10 Creationist Discoveries of All Time."

This has been a huge year for intelligent design research, we took a look back at some of the most important moments. Until recently, Wired has been too hard on the proponents of creationism. To rectify that, our science desk has hired a full staff of religious zealots. Here is their first story:

10. T. rex ate coconuts
According to experts at the Creation Museum, our favorite predatory dinosaur would have fit right in at Whole Foods.

9. The Earth is only six thousand years old
Carbon-13 and potassium argon dating are myths created by the devil to cast doubt on the existence of God.

8. Stem Cells are evil
Curing terrible diseases is not worth the trouble of sacrificing some abandoned eggs from the deep freeze at a fertility clinic.

7. NASCAR is the official sport of the spiritually enlightened
Some forms of entertainment were meant for the pure of heart.

6. Guns were created by God to kill deer
It is our responsibility as humans to encroach on their habitats by building track homes and then blow the sweet crap out of them so that they don't starve to death in the winter.

5. Liberals are evil
Even though most of the truly bizarre sex scandals have involved republicans, and democrats prefer to have affairs with women of legal age, left-wing politicians are morally more morally bankrupt than their conservative counterparts.

4. Civil Liberties are for sissies
Under the benevolent Bush II theocracy, we don't need privacy. Like the Pope, he is in direct contact with God, so we can feel secure knowing that every one of his decisions will be fair.

3. President Bush can look directly into our souls.
Bush II looked directly the soul of Russian President Vladimir Putin and saw that he is a good man!

2. Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, was enriching Uranium, and all that jazz.
By bombing Iraq back into the stone age, then occupying it, we have protected our country from terrorism. Who cares if we destroyed our economy while in the process? Dubai is certainly not complaining.

1. Evolution is a myth.
Just ask Ben Stein, evil academics suppress any luminary who dares to question the mounds of evidence that life evolved gradually. Get your facts straight. It took seven days to make the earth.

Via Google: Gmail Custom Time. I love the tagline: "Be on time. Every time." Geeky brilliance.

Yet another on nationality and identity

I received an application "form" for becoming a volunteer in the Rackham Graduate School's I-Connect Program for the 2008/2009 academic year. I filled out the entire form, but there was one item that stuck in my craw, and which I wrote a comment to them about, both commenting on my answer, and why their question was not a good question.

Here's the commentary I wrote:

Although I recognize that I fit into a minority category, let me explain why I don’t like answering the question of “Country of Origin.” Although I put down “USA/Japan”, if you think about it, my answer represents neither a country of origin (as requested) nor a true national identity (since I don’t consider myself to be either “typically American” or “typically Japanese”). To make it more complicated, I was born on Guam, which is only technically part of the United States of America.

A likely assumption underlying this whole thing is that your country of origin is where you grew up and from where you derive a nationality, culture, and personal identity. It was to the assumption of a conflation I answered “USA/Japan” (my nationalities, but not my personal identity). However, in this day and age, this assumption cannot be assumed (something to which I feel the I-Connect Program should be quite cognizant). I have friends who were born in the United States while their parents were attending university during the 1970s, but ended up growing up in their parents’ home country. Since many countries provide automatic citizenship for their nationals’ children, these friends of mine ended up with dual citizenship, and spent most (if not all) of their lives in their parents’ country of origin. What do these people put down on such a form? To report the literal truth, they would have to put down “USA”, since they were born (i.e., “Originated”) in the USA. However, they may well be as foreign to the United States as many of the international students in their incoming cohort.

If the I-Connect Program wants to ask a question about identity, then I suggest that in future it instead ask for a volunteer’s “National Identity” (or something that doesn’t conflate identity with origin). With this question, people in a similar position as my friends could put down that they are of the country where they grew up, and it offers an option for people like me, who grew up as “third culture kids” (TCKs) to give an answer unconstrained by national borders. Finally, it doesn’t change the answer given by those people who were born and grew up in the country of their nationality (indeed, I imagine that such people wouldn’t immediately see any difference between the two questions).

Although the question of “Country of Origin” is not as outmoded as asking for a single racial identity (which is no longer done), I believe it is just as difficult for people like me and my friends to provide a suitable - and ultimately useful - response to the question. As a mixed-heritage, multi-national student, born in an organized unincorporated territory of the United States, and grew up in seven different countries, asking me my “Country of Origin” has about as much useful truth for those using my answer as asking me to limit my racial identity to only one racial group.

Of course, if Rackham asked for some more concrete concept, such as nationality (and for many people, country of origin and nationality are the same thing), merely asking for nationality wouldn’t make TCKs and dual-nationals once again feel issues of inadequacy of not belonging to a wider culture, since “nationality” and “national identity” are not necessarily the same thing. Furthermore, nationality is a simple question, and if the eventual reader wants to assume some correlation between nationality and identity, that’s up to him or her.

About Radical Christian Craziness

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

This was so perfect that I had to edit my speech for Wednesday night to include it. From anti-gay whacko James Hartline and quoted, naturally, in the Worldnutdaily:

"The American Civil Liberties Union has done everything possible to destroy Christianity in the American culture and government. From tearing down crosses on public property to removing crosses and the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings, there has been no greater hate machine against our constitutional right to free religious expression in America than the ACLU!" Hartline said.

Notice how he shifts ground, using examples of government religious expression and then claiming that the ACLU is out to destroy individual religious expression? That's standard operating procedure for the ACLU haters.

This sort of conflation shouldn't come as a surprise when you realize that "Conservative Protestants' Religious Beliefs Contribute to Their Low Wealth", and that education and wealth are good indicators of each other. From the actual paper (free access!):

Low educational attainment is an important reason for low CP [Conservative Protestant] wealth. There is long-standing evidence that religion affects education (Glenn and Hyland 1967; Greeley 1969; Lenski 1961), and recent research shows that CPs complete comparatively low levels of schooling (Darnell and Sherkat 1997; Sherkat and Ellison 1999). CP cultural orientations tend to be at odds with the approaches of nonreligious schools and universities that propagate secular humanist values (Sikkink 1999) and promote scientific investigation rather than acceptance of divine truths (Darnell and Sherkat 1997). ... As a result, educational attainment for CPs is significantly lower than for members of other faiths (Darnell and Sherkat 1997), declining most noticeably after high school (Lehrer 1999).

To some people, the conflation that Ed outlines is non-existent. They only see government interfering with their "God-given" rights (through a "Christian-influenced" Constitution) of freedom of religion. The way to deal with these sorts of anti-ACLU accusations from such Conservative Protestants (wingnuts thought they may be) may well be to follow the advice that Cortunix suggests over at his blog:

Some people only know the language of power. They see conciliation and compromise as weakness. Show strength. If they are sissies hiding behind machismo, slam them hard. You have nothing to lose. Some will convert and come to your side. Some will go cower in the corner. None will hang around risking your anger for very long.

I mean, we aren't trying to "convert the choir" with the issues of public displays of religion; proselytization in schools; accusations of a "homosexual agenda"; the mythology of the United States being founded as a "Christian nation"; and others. Why not use their own tactics of bluster and steam-rolling (which they can understand) against them? (Of course, make sure we have all our facts correct at the get-go.)

Some USGS river gage data fixed... others still out.

The USGS has filled in the data for the Salt River gage. Apparently, there was a "little bit" of a change in discharge from the long-term average discharge values (~23000 cfs vs ~2000 cfs). And with the sudden increase in discharge, it's no wonder that the gage shut down/

However, the Big Muddy River gage at Murphysboro is still in need of correction, and may need to be replaced. (I'm basing this last hypothesis on the fact that there is no current discharge measurement being made at this site.)


I'm not familiar with the White River near Fayetteville, AR, but I assume that it normally runs at a discharge level of slightly larger than the ~1 cfs indicated in its graph. Possibly another indication of an outed gage?

Again, not being situated in the Mississippi River system, I have little opportunity to actually go out and check on the situation of these gages. However, based on news reports, the Kaskaskia river did overflow its banks in Fayetteville during the recent rain storms and flooding in the Mississippi River basin. (I assume that the Kaskaskia and the White converge at some point near the city.)

TMI and ignorance

Via PhysOrg:

... economists Isabelle Brocas and Juan D. Carrillo present a situation – commonly observed in real life – in which all parties have access to the same information, but one party still manages to control public opinion.

...

The study, “Influence Through Ignorance,” is the first to thoroughly examine situations in which power comes from controlling the flow of public information, as opposed to the possession of private information.

As Brocas and Carrillo explain, there are secrets – facts that are deliberately withheld – and there are facts that are not known to anybody.

“It’s not necessary to have extra information,” Brocas said. “You can induce people to do what you want just by stopping the flow of information or continuing it. That’s enough.”

Notably, the party manipulating the flow of information must deliberately choose to remain uninformed as well – which can backfire.

...

“Overall, the ability of to control the flow of news and remain publicly ignorant gives the leader some power, which is used to influence the actions of the follower,” the researchers wrote. “Our result suggests that the chairperson, the President and media can bias the decision of the committee, electorate and public by strategically restricting the flow of information.”

This is something that I believe can also be seen in any discussion of science vs. religion - specifically in the evolution vs. creation debate. In the end-point of such debates one is left wondering why the other side chooses to remain ignorant your point-of-view (note: I'm not presently saying that one side is correct in their viewpoints, just that both sides might well feel that the other chooses to remain ignorant of the evidence so clear to them).

What one must do when confronted with such a feeling, however, is to consider whether or not the actual reason why there is such a feeling arises from a lack of access to knowledge (or explicitly choosing to remain ignorant of knowledge) on one's own side, or if it is more the case on the other side. I would argue here that dogmatic environments of learning tend to control the types of knowledge their adherents (be they students or acolytes) receive, while more liberal learning environments tend to encourage their adherents to learn from a variety of sources (or even - gasp! - on their own).

PZ Myers points to a great example that shows an explicitly dogmatic point-of-view in this evolution vs. creation "debate", and it does seem to me that much of the dogmatism in this "debate" does seem to rest with the side of the creationists. There is a lot of what appears to be dogmatism on the evolutionist side, but one has to realize the difference between assertions and dogma (at least how I'm using them).



Assertions are statements of fact based on repeatable observation or a rational explanation. Dogma are statements of fact based on tradition, which requires neither repeatable observation nor a rational explanation. One can say that Newtons laws of motion are "dogmatic" within kinematics - many people accept the three laws based on the long line of physicists that came before them who used the laws accurately and without mishap. However, this "dogma" was based ultimately on an assertion which was (using my definition above) based on repeatable observation (which can still be done today) as well as rational explanations (which work to accommodate many other areas of physics).

The coverage of the Brocas and Carillo paper does go on to say that:

Competition, supported by media diversity and public sources of research funding, not only induces outlets to release more information but also causes the “influence through ignorance” effect to diminish – and under certain circumstances to vanish – the researchers found.

This leads one to wonder whether, in the evolution vs. creation "debate", competition-based information releases will actually reduce ignorance, or if the authors are only really discussing situations where the information produced on all sides is accurate and equally accepted. If the former, then scientists shouldn't matter, and the whole PZ-Dawkins vs. Expelled! controversy should just quietly blow over (which much of the scienceblogosphere doesn't think will happen) with the passage of time. However, I feel that the opposite will happen: hard-held beliefs will not be broken with merely the presence of well-disseminated information (especially if there is equally well-disseminated [false] information supporting the opposing view, which happens to match with the pre-existing world-views held onto strongly due to those very hard-held beliefs science might be trying to sway).

At least the fight should prove interesting. I only hope that we don't end up with an American version of Lysenkoism (because that would NOT be good for the advancement of American science).

Re: Where are the multiracial Americans?

From Sociological Images: Seeing is Believing:

Over at the New York Times, Peggy Orenstein wrote a light article about the social construction of race, ethnicity, and culture through the lens of multiracialism. This figure (in Hawaii, Hapa means "half") shows the states with the highest percentages of people claiming to be multiracial:


For background: 2000 was the first year that the Census allowed us to mark more than one race... talk about the social construction of racial categories!

My response to this posting (and to Orenstein's piece) is this:

I'm Hapa, but I think this has article has a few problems...

One might argue that there are many more "multi-racial" people throughout the country if the question were changed to ask if a person knew of having ancestors from more than one race.

I think that a whole lot of "African-Americans" are multi-racial, but identify themselves as "African-American", and not "multi-racial". Similarly, I think that many "Caucasian" peoples are likely to be "multi-racial" by descent, but identify themselves as only a single race.

Because of the relatively recent "allowability" of claiming multiple races on the Census, I think that this question only really affects people who have parents of different [single] "races" and aren't themselves subsumed into a single racial group. For example, Barak Obama is multi-racial. However, he is more likely to be seen as "African-American." He may try and distance himself from being "African-American", but I think that many people in a similar "racial descent" position may allow themselves to identify (at least publicly) themselves as the racial group which most of society sees them as.

On the other hand, some "races" have not allowed the children of mixed-race marriages to really enter into their society. (I'm thinking specifically of "white" and "Asian".) This provides for a strong environment for a person to cultivate an ethnic identity as something other than merely one or the other.

Similarly, in some places (such as some areas of California and many places in Hawaii), there are enough children of mixed "racial" heritage that identifying oneself publicly as mixed is acceptable (and one merely got aggravated with stupid government documents requiring that you note whether you were "Non-Hispanic Caucasian" or not).

Snowing.

It's snowing in Ann Arbor right now. It started about 15 minutes ago, and expected to go until 8AM.



And now for something apropos:

A March Snow
by Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Let the old snow be covered with the new:
The trampled snow, so soiled, and stained, and sodden.
Let it be hidden wholly from our view
By pure white flakes, all trackless and untrodden.
When Winter dies, low at the sweet Spring's feet
Let him be mantled in a clean, white sheet.

Let the old life be covered by the new:
The old past life so full of sad mistakes,
Let it be wholly hidden from the view
By deeds as white and silent as snow-flakes.

Ere this earth life melts in the eternal Spring
Let the white mantle of repentance fling
Soft drapery about it, fold on fold,
Even as the new snow covers up the old.

Some river gages are out/malfunctioning

There are a few river gages that are not functioning properly, due - most likely - to the major storms running through the area, possibly even tearing our or damaging the discharge sensors. For whatever reason, these USGS discharge gages are showing zero cfs discharge, even though the gage height indicator clearly shows a continued water column height increase after the malfunction of the discharge gage. Check out two of the sets of graphs below.



Unfortunately, due to specific station geometry (the geometry of the river-bottom at the location of the stream gage), it is not easy to directly translate gage height (the right-hand graphs) with the discharge (left-hand graphs). This might make it difficult to easily back-cast the actual discharge based on the gage height, especially if the user of the data is not local to the area.

Of course, the discharge gage could have just shut off due to reaching some pre-programmed maximum recording limit, and will turn back on again as flood waters decrease. Since I'm not in a position to go out and check on it, though, I'll just have to wait and see...

Photos from the end of winter/start of spring

For your pleasure, I tried to put a few photos together of what's happening around Ann Arbor as it slowly comes out from one of the wettest winters (in terms of total precipitation - not accumulation) in several years. Coming into spring, the snow and ice start to melt, humidity increases, and students start to feed the "wildlife."

Ducks swimming in the slowly-warming waters of the Huron River just downstream of the Argo canoe livery.

Fog lightly envelops the Diag. All the damp in the air started to condensate as nighttime temperatures dropped below dew point.

Students provide handouts to squirrels. (Notice the two students with cameras poised to provide their own private "paparazzi moment". I wonder if the squirrel can stand to be in the spotlight of so much attention!)

Sometimes I like to try and find views of Ann Arbor that make it look more like a proper city. I found this one when taking photos from atop a parking structure. The proximity of so many brick buildings, with the duct work snaking downward into alleyways made the shot look more "urban" than one might otherwise expect Ann Arbor to be.

Vernal Equinox

Yes, this year, because of the Leap Year, the Vernal Equinox is on the 20th of March (well, it isn't because of the leap year, since the equinox is either on the 20th or the 21st of March).

I'm off to the Grizzly Peak for some late-night-happy-hour beer in a few.

St. Patrick's Day in Cork Town

Yesterday, I went to Cork Town for St. Patric's Day. I'd never been before. I'm likely to go again, though. What a blast! Here are some photos of the trip.

Having never driven to Cork Town, it was a little difficult to actually know if where we were going was the right way to go. (There's a lot of construction around the "Bridge to Canada". All the construction tried to funnel people not in-the-know into Canada, rather than where one might otherwise want to go. Eventually, though, we realized we were in the right area.)

The minor festivities by the descendants of those Irish immigrants who settled in the neighborhood of Detroit which came to be known as "Cork Town". (As well as the people who want to just wear green, drink beer, and enjoy the company of throngs of people.)

The old train terminus station. Unfortunately, the only thing that's left of it is the shell of the building. Even the windows are broken.

Walking down Michigan Ave. after the majority of the parade has passed.

Armed America: Wow. Just wow.

This link sent to me from my brother, via Funtasticus:

Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes

March 13th, 2008 (Posted by Lordy)

Kyle Cassidy traveled 15,000 miles over two years photographing Americans in their homes and asking one question: “Why do you own a gun?” A good question, particularly since most of these guns are not easily reconcilable with the notion of self-defence and their true place should be somewhere in the Armed Forces. All the photo were later compiled in the book with its German edition being published this year. The pics below are taken from the latter. As said by Alan Cooperman from The Washington Post: “Each picture in Armed America could be a pro-gun advertisement - or an anti-gun poster. That’s what makes the book so riveting.”

The photos on the page are really nice in terms of composition and balance. There are even some which seem to show a sense of irony (or dead-seriousness). However, they are all a little spooky (at least to me) and somewhat overwhelming.

What's up with this guy?

Thanks to Ed at Dispatches for the head's-up about this article in the World "Nut" Daily. I love the method of how this article unconsciously appeals to a slightly sympathetic reader, since it shows a typical method of justifying a bigoted viewpoint by saying upfront that what follows is not a bigoted viewpoint. (Just like what that foul-mouthed Oklahoman legislator did the other day.)

Here's how I read the piece (with parenthetical comments):

Women are more depressed than men. Why? (Based on this opening rhetoric, I'm sure you're about to construct a strawman that you will easily destroy.)

I have a radio show. I've talked to many women about men-and-women issues on that show. I've informally counseled women over the years, and I've come to my own conclusion as to the root of female depression: feminism. (<-- Note the entrance of the strawman argument.) Before I continue in saying how bad I think feminism as a concept and a social movement is, I'd like to state that I'm not against feminism. Okay, now that I've made that completely empty gesture which puts me on the record that I'm not against feminism, I'll start bashing feminism. I'll start the bashing out softly by stating that the accomplishments of feminism - all good, mind - are unrelated to increased rates of depression in women. Feminism is - at the same time - good and depressing for women.

However, feminism increased women's expectations, which I wrote about in my book - here's a shameless plug. Having unfulfilled expectations leads to depression. Having fulfilled expectations does not lead to happiness, since having your expectations fulfilled only serves to undermines gratitude. (Funny how this sentiment seems to evoke derogatory statements like 'ungrateful b*tch,' but that must just be coincidence.)

Women in the past only had the expectations of house, husband, and home, and therefore were satisfied. But feminism undercut that satisfaction by letting women know that there was more to life: a career. (What about "a real life", "personal independence", and "demanding equal treatment for equal work"?)

I'm going to shamelessly plug my radio show now to let people know that depressed women in their 30s and 40s call in pining for the "good ole days." Now I'm going to generalize from these depressed women outward to the whole population by stating that most women would likely find house, husband, and home more fulfilling than a soul-sucking career. Just look at poor Lisa Nowak: her extreme jealousy only proves my point. (And Pranger wants us to think that her mindset can be extrapolated to the psychology of half the country? Pu-leez!)

I'll begin to tear down my strawman construct of feminism by stating as reasonbaly as I can that women and men need different things. Now I'll continue by the unvalidated claim that women need personal relationships to be happy, but not career work, while men need both work and personal relationships to be happy, and a man who can't give a good answer to, "What do you do?" feels a greater sense of emasculation than a woman could ever feel. Virtually no woman's identity is dependent on what she does for a living. (What is this guy on?) Men also work more hours than women, and are therefore superior, since I don't consider work in the home to be real work.

Women are disappointed with their jobs because they expected too much from work. Feminists promised a 50-50 split of household work (I don't recall this as a promise, but rather as a goal/demand of society), but this promise is usually an empty one, because men work outside the home, not inside it. Men don't have to change. It's women who must revert to the 1950s when they had only to live contentedly in the house, waiting for their husbands to return.

But this isn't the only reason women are depressed. There are more! Tune in later to read my inane driveling.

Yeaugh.

The next week and a half looks like it'll get warmer...

Good news - of a sort. The weather is supposed to get a little warmer over the next week. Therefore, although the temperature is supposed to be still cold, at least there won't be need for more salt on the roads.

This means that there is less need for car scrapers (which I don't personally need, since I don't drive), more need for umbrellas, less need for jackets, and more need for washing mud off my bike.

Of course, temperature lows are still expected to get below freezing...

Science, minorities, and science-blogging.

I'm an avid reader of some of the blogs over at Scienceblogs.com. Recently, there was a "much ado about nothing" when some anonymous person with way too much time on their hands went through all the Scienceblogs, copied out the posted photo of the blogger(s), and created a webpage showing how "Aryan" Scienceblogs is. (At least this guy didn't look at the German Scienceblogs! The petty-minded little bigot wouldn't know what to do!)

Anyway, the funniest thing was that he (I'm assuming that it's a 'he') put Scienceblogger 'Razib' in the category of Caucasian, in amongst the white people. If the guy had read Razib's blog for any amount of time, he would have thought twice about putting him in with a bunch of whities. Anyway, Razib's changed his blog photo, so that he (Razib) is no longer hiding behind his cat.

He's also written about how this whole thing is rather stupid - especially when it comes to the topic of Asians in science, pointing out that in some disciplines, Asians outnumber whites:

I assume you're not surprised?

1) There's a big difference between "Asians" and "Underrepresented minorities."

2) In most cases Asians are more overrepresented than whites. In fact, there are so many Asians in Electrical Engineering that whites are a touch underrepresented!

3) I perceive two general dimensions in the Asian data. First, one of practicality, and second, another of mathematical rigor. The more "practical" a field is, the more likely Asians are likely to be represented. Therefore, more in engineering than in physics. How many physicists do you know who went into engineering related work when the academy didn't pan out? For many of them a undergraduate engineering degree would have been the most optimal choice in terms of their career with hindsight. Second, the math aspect explains something like economics vs. the other social sciences. I know that political science, sociological and psychology use plenty of statistics, but econ can verge into applied math when it comes to the obsession with modeling.

What I want to know, however, is how are Hapa included in the above categories? Are we "underrepresented minorities" or are we lumped in together with our "non-White" ancestry? The other thing I want to know is why is this even an issue? I mean this in three ways:

1. This shouldn't be an issue because we - as a nation - should be moving away from categorizations based on the stupid social notions of 'race'. Being a "half-breed mutt" myself, I would hope that these silly notions would just disappear, but until they do, I'm stuck in limbo-land whenever dealing with people who cannot pigeon-hole me into the "correct" racial group. (Those arseholes.)
   
2. Among United States citizen scientists (see, I'm not including immigrant scientists who - by definition - aren't considered "minorities," since they aren't citizens), the majority of scientists are White. Therefore it's stupid to think that more than a minority of sciencebloggers should be non-White. Of course, if the site were called "Electrical Engineering Blogs," one would expect to see more Asians than Whites - and there would be decent (but weak) reasons for an outcry.
   
3. So long as Scienceblogs doesn't have a racial policy; advocate for one; show favoritism for one type of "race" over another; or hire a Scienceblogger that promotes the racial superiority of one race of scientists over another (without good scientific evidence to back up his or her claim), the question of the racial make-up of Sciencebloggers shouldn't even be one for consideration.

More on Georgia Border Dispute: No Claim for Georgia?

From The Chattanoogan:

...[In] March 1972, just after the [Civil War train] "General" had been given by the courts to the State of Georgia despite Chattanooga’s objection, Rep. Robert G. “Bob” Peters of Ringgold[, GA] had issued the resolution to accept the current border. (No reference cited)

He simply felt that bringing up the border issue would do no good other than to create ill will between the two states.

The Peters’ resolution was approved by a vote of 116-12.

In a prophetic statement during the 1972 Georgia House vote, Rep. Thomason did say that the resolution would forever end any future negotiations between Tennessee and Georgia over the border dispute.

After the Georgia resolution passed, Tennessee also passed a resolution [by Rep. Al Edgar] accepting the Georgia peace offer. (No reference cited)

So, it seems to me that (thanks to the efforts of John Shearer) this will eventually become a moot point again (until the next time). Based on this article, both Georgia and Tennessee passed resolutions saying that the border separating the states that existed in 1972 would be the permanent border of the states. Even without having seen the actual resolutions in both legislatures, it would be fair to assume that there was no time frame after which there would be re-negotiation of this resolution.

Therefore, the recent House Resolution 1206 - and supporting Senate Resolution 587 - in the Georgia legislature should be struck down by the state supreme court, since it failed to overturn the 1972 resolution. (Of course, my lack of procedural law knowledge is a drawback for me at this point.) Of course, the Georgia House and Senate can easily draft a set of bills that seek to repeal the 1972 resolution, and - further - have it's effective date pre-date the passage of HR1206 and SR587.

Of course, this brings up two questions. First of all, shouldn't Georgia start its border dispute with North Carolina, where the 1.1 mile 'hiccup' starts? I mean, if this is where the origin of the "mismapping," shouldn't the first claim be from this point westward? More importantly, if Georgia can win a border dispute with North Carolina, it will strengthen its case against Tennessee (against which it apparently has several small legal saber-rattlings).

The second question it brings up is exactly how much of a legal expert Brad Craver really is. I mean, if he didn't know of the passing of this legislative resolution back in 1972, then what is the basis of his expertise. If he did know of this resolution back in 1972, then where are his professional ethics in not bringing it up in his until-recently confidential report?

However, the Walker County Messenger doesn't mention the resolutions from either Georgia or Tennessee.

1947-71: Many governors of Georgia contemplated reopening the border dispute but none did.
1971: The Georgia General Assembly enacts a joint resolution calling for Georgia governor Jimmy Carter to talk with the Tennessee governor about resolving the border dispute.
[1972: Resolutions in GA and TN to settle border dispute mentioned in Shearer's piece.]
2005: Dade County officials sign an agreement with the water firm of Brown and Caldwell in Walnut Creek, Calif., to research the possibility of an agreement with Tennessee to pump water along a pipeline into Dade from the Tennessee River.

So there are a few reasons I can think of as to why the resolutions in both GA and TN are not mentioned in the Messenger's time-line. 1) They couldn't find it either (which might indicate that Mr. Shearer's source is wrong, or that he's lying), 2) they purposefully omitted it (shameful, to be sure), or 3) they found it but didn't realize what they had (shameful, but not as bad as #2).

In any case, John Shearer brings up one other point in his piece. This time from the Supreme Court:

The [March 9, 1972] article also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had some years before ruled that state boundaries as already established would not be questioned, even if the boundary was different from what was intended on original grants. (No reference given)

Again, sorry Georgia. Apparently, the Supreme Court has already ruled against you. However, it is strange that something this important would be forgotten about by the legal clerks in the Tennessee government.

However, the Messenger piece doesn't show any Supreme Court decision. This might be because they didn't include any Supreme Court searches when putting together their time-line (shameful, imho) or they omitted it (very shameful).

Anyway, the Chattanoogan provides a good article, but it leaves out important references that call into question the veracity of the source. Therefore, if Mr. Shearer could present the following references, it would be very nice, thank you very much:

1. The legislative resolution bill numbers passed by the TN legislature in 1972.
2. The legislative resolution bill numbers passed by the GA legislature in 1972.
3. The Supreme Court decision of the boundaries issue from "some years before" the 1972 article.

Oh, and while he's at it, if he could e-mail them to the Walker County Messenger as well as the Georgia state house, that would be very useful.

On use of public transport.

From Treehugger:

I complain about my city a lot (but I complain about everything) but it has subways, streetcars and buses galore (could have more) and a growing bike lane infrastructure (which they could plough in winter) but I was shocked by the statistics in Spacing that showed how many people rely on cars to get to work in Toronto, and how the number has barely budged in five years. Over all, 71.1% drove, 22.2% took transit, 4.8% walked and only 1% biked.

I live near Detroit, and was surprised at the high value of 2% that the Motor City got. One major thing that the study didn't account for was the penetration of non-bus public transportation. Here's my reasoning for why this is important: bus systems rely on the same roads that cars and trucks rely on (save for a very small handful of cities worldwide). Therefore, riding on a bus doesn't provide as much of a time-savings (especially when commuting through traffic) as riding the rails. Further, if the primary public transport is a bus system, there is less incentive to not own a car (especially if that system doesn't really provide good coverage throughout the city). However, if there is a dense non-bus public transport system (or a bus system operating on exclusive roadways), there is little reason to drive in order to live in your city.

Therefore, to return to Detroit - a city with a very limited non-bus transport system - I was surprised with the number of 2%. The only non-bus system in D-town is the People Mover - a one-way automated elevated tramway loop of only 2.9 miles through the downtown area - and with its limited service area, it's surprising that it has a reported 7,300 riders per day (quite possibly from parking garages).

Why giant CO2 bags on the bottom of the ocean should't explode

Via Inhabitat:

Plastic bags are the center of a huge green debate, but here’s one use we’d never imagined: Underwater ocean carbon sequestering!? With all the talk about carbon sequestration, which involves storing liquefied CO2 deep beneath the earth, Dr. David Keith from the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Calgary has devised a scheme to store it underwater in the ocean floor, contained in giant sausage-like plastic bags. Could this possibly be a good idea?

Just to give this perspective, visualize this: in order to hold around 160 million tons of CO2 (around 2.2 days worth of current global emissions), it would take a cylindrical bag measuring 100 meters in radius and several kilometers long. The obviously immense weight of the bag, as well as the pressure from the ocean, would contain the CO2 and prevent the bag from floating up. If you’re wondering where a gas-filled bag of this size might be located, it would sit 3 kilometers below the ocean’s surface. Just like in subterranean carbon sequestration, the CO2 would be pumped and moved via pipes to the bag.

Maybe it’s just us, but giant plastic bags filled with carbon dioxide, submerged in the oceans depths sounds like a recipe for disaster. What if one of those things leaks or explodes? And with that kind of deep-ocean pressure on a bag so large.. how would this really work?

I wish to address the "bag explosion" issue. Let's assume a few things:

1. The depth the bag is placed at is roughly 3800 m (the average ocean depth).
2. The temperature of the surrounding water is roughly 4 C (the average water temperature at that depth).

This means that the pressure on the bag (and the CO2 in the bag) is roughly 368bar, and the temperature of the CO2 will be roughly 277Kelvin. If you look at a phase diagram of CO2, you'll note that when CO2 is in this range of pressure and temperature, it is actually a liquid. (True, CO2 sublimates at ranges near standard temperature and pressure, but the ocean floor is anything but standard.)

It is likely, therefore, that if the bag bursts, there will not be a catastrophically large explosion. Instead, there will be a "pool" of liquid CO2 (CO2 is heavier than H2O) at the bottom of the ocean.

"So this isn't too bad," you say, right? Well, you have to remember that CO2 is also highly dissolvable in water. The pool of CO2 will slowly dissolve into the surrounding ocean waters - up to its saturation point, but here's the caveat. CO2 changes into carbonic acid when mixed with water:

CO2 + H20 <=> H2CO3

Near the atmosphere, this isn't really an issue, since there is gas exchange with the atmosphere, and the partial pressure of H2CO3 remains relatively low. However, at the ocean floor, this might be very different. (I'm not a physicist, nor a chemist, so I'll leave that train of thought there for now.)

The additional "downside" of all this is that you now have a pool of heavy liquid CO2 sitting on the ocean floor. That CO2, like any liquid, will slowly flow downhill, to the lowest point it can fill. This will mean that it could easily wash over organisms living on or near the sea floor (sponges, nudibranchs, etc.), suffocating them.

Therefore, long story short, the scary thought of an exploding bag of CO2 is not likely to occur (since the CO2 will change into a liquid at that temperature and pressure). However, a burst giant bag of CO2 will mean a liquid pool of suffocation streaming across the sea floor until it reaches a nadir.

Mexico City to start composting organic matter

I saw this on Treehugger.com:

Mexico City To Compost Food Waste From Central Food Market

Each day Mexico City produces 5,100 tons of organic waste, 600 of which come from the city's sprawling Central de Abasto, or central marketplace. The center, known as the CEDA, is the largest food distribution center in the country and one of the largest in the world. In February, the city closed one of its principal dumps, the West Dump, when it reached maximum capacity. The closure has forced experts to think creatively about new ways to divert waste.

I saw the photo on the Treehugger page and thought, "Holy crap, but that's a large food distribution center.... I wonder if I can see it on Google Maps." Short answer: yes you can:


View Larger Map

That such a large, sprawling operation is now starting to compost its waste material is a good thing. However, one hopes that there is good oversight of health and public safety issues that might well arise from a lot of rotting [former] foodstuffs. Hopefully, too, there's a good method of ensuring that no meat or dairy gets into the vegetable matter (or animal waste, either).

That said, one has to wonder what method of composting will be used for such a large operation. If something like this is really going to be "green", then one would hope for as little use of fossil fuel energy as possible, but yet having an adequate amount of tilling and turning to ensure methane production is kept to a minimum. (Remember that methane is 25 times more-potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.)

Also, composting up to 5,100 tons of organic waste per day is going to require a lot of land area. Looking around Mexico City, it is difficult to easily see where one might be able to build such an operation, and so it is likely that any single operation will be limited primarily by size. I think (since I'm not an expert on these things) that the tighter the area you need, the more energy-intensive your operation (to ensure proper aeration and turning of the compost).

Under optimal conditions, fresh compost can be had in as little as 2 months. However, two months is a long time in a start-up business. Luckily, the Mexican government is providing start-up funds (since it is eventually a saving for them on waste management costs). If the people are smart enough, they will set up the system to operate on a continuing rotation of compost production.

More on the Georiga border shift

Today, the AJC reports that last week's border shift resolution from the Georgia legislature is really a serious bid for more water. Georgia governor Sonny Perdue is apparently going to pursue this course of action (legislative resolution notwithstanding):

“I don’t think it’s a gimmick,” Perdue told reporters a few hours after his [Google Earth] demonstration [showing that moving the border to the 35th parallel will place the NW corner of the state right in the middle of Nickajack Lake]. But the enthusiasm the governor showed in the basement had shifted to a diplomatic practicality.

“I think we have to be very careful in the way we proceed in this effort. As it gets more and more serious, the people of Tennessee get more and more concerned. There was probably a better way to do this — legislation’s a sort of in-your-face sort of thing,” the governor said.

All of this appears to be part of a behind-the-scenes strategy to sustain the growth of the state of Georgia, specifically Atlanta. There's a link to the confidential report at the AJC.

[Brad Carver - a utilities lawyer in Atlanta - and a water expert at the University of Mississippi] drew up a confidential, 19-page memo that outlined the history of Georgia’s 190-year dispute with Tennessee, and offered advice on how Georgia might finally win the argument and gain access to a river with 15 times the flow of the Chattahoochee River at Buford Dam.

“As the drought got worse, this made more and more sense. We can’t conserve our way to a solution,” Carver said. The state is growing too fast, he said — and the only alternatives are desalination plants on the Atlantic coast, and the Tennessee River.

I personally think this is a perfect example of mindless "training-speak". By "training-speak" I mean the inability of people to think creatively within their own field. Carver is a utilities lawyer. I don't think he is an expert on water conservation strategies, modernist urban planning, watershed management, conjunctive management, water economics, or anything other than utilities law. The AJC doesn't list who the "water expert" is. However, I doubt that it is a person who is an expert on the subjects I listed above, either.

Both these people are experts in their own field. I'm sure that Carver is a good attorney. I'm sure the "water expert" is a "water expert." However, I've met too many civil engineers who can't look past their training to see alternative solutions that lie outside their field of expertise. Rigorous training (and success in one's field due to that training) has a tendency of narrowing one's vision, and looking at the world through their own lens of training.

Carver stated something that I've known for over 10 years (apparently the message hasn't gotten to Carver): that continued growth cannot be sustained. This is the lesson of Los Angeles and the Southwest (just read Cadillac Desert). One cannot (yet) overcome the "shortcomings" of nature and place, unless one wishes to invest ever-more into sustaining infrastructures. Atlanta cannot be sustained on a river the size of the Chattahoochee alone, unless there is a serious effort to conserve water (which Atlanta really hasn't done yet - sorry, but you haven't). The statement, "We can't conserve our way to a solution," is a mindset from the 1950s, and indicates (to me) that the man hasn't a grasp of how natural water systems and urban growth work (without the requirement of aforementioned infrastructure demands).

Let me ask what will truly happen if Atlanta gets the water from the Tennessee River? How much will the construction of that pipeline cost? What will be its maintenance cost? Who will profit from its construction? Who will lose? The costs of building the pipeline will make someone's company quite profitable. The costs of maintaining the pipeline will likely require a tax increase to pay for all the maintenance engineers. Will the state levy taxes from all citizens, or only the citizens of Atlanta? If all citizens have to pay for its construction, will all citizens benefit from the pipeline's construction? (Of course not.) If only Atlanta residents have to pay for its construction, will water rights remain exclusive to the city? (Probably.)

Will Atlanta be required to have a return flow back to the Tennessee River (thus making it a federal issue)? If so, then return flows monitoring means that Georgia will now have another level of federal government oversight.

What about all the people living across the border from Georgia, in Tennessee. Will Georgia purchase their homes to allow them to "move back" to Tennessee, their home state? If so, what will Georgia do with all their purchased properties? Possibly sell it to some real estate broker. (Who profits here, we wonder?) Will Georgia allow them to effectively remain Tenneseeans (thus having two standards of residency within the state)?

Meanwhile, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that the Tennessee legislature has introduced a resolution (HJR0919) criticizing Georgia's resolution. However, the Times reports:

... a Georgia lawmaker who helped engineer the Peach State resolution warned Tennessee would be wise to “join with us in resolving the border dispute in a neighborly fashion.”

“Appointing boundary line commissioners and beginning discussions would be better, all the way around, than litigation,” said Georgia state Sen. David Shafer, R-Duluth. “It would be a mistake to quickly dismiss the idea of discussions.”

Ahh, the wonders of the "fences make good neighbors" phrase are brought into the sharp glare of reality. Apparently, if one neighbor feels the other neighbor has their land (by original deed), the first neighbor feels allowed to take it over (regardless that 190 years have passed and this could set a dangerous precedent if won in court).

Meanwhile, there is still no word on the eventual water-sharing agreement between GA, FL, and NC that was supposed to happen on February 15.

Tennessee working out a retort

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

Tennessee officials said Thursday that drought-parched Georgia lawmakers legally are all wet in their attempts to claim part of the Tennessee River on grounds the border was drawn sloppily in 1818.

Tennessee state Rep. Henry Fincher, D-Cookeville, said his research of several legal cases indicates Georgia officials would not succeed if they sought to challenge the current border before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction in state boundary disputes.

What really gets my goat is what Georgia Senator Shafer (one of the initial Georga state senators to draft the resolution passed yesterday) said on Wednesday, “This is a serious effort to secure our [Georgia's] border and begin a discussion of water sharing.”

If this is a "serious effort," then why did Shafer wait until 2008 to introduce his resolution? If a nearly 200-year-old border dispute was a "serious effort," then why wait a whole seven years of being in the senate before raising it? Furthermore, why does it suddenly become a "discussion of water sharing" when Georgia can't figure out how to share water among its own users? When does "water sharing" mean "we will steal your water and when you complain about it, we'll say that you don't want to share with us"? And why is "a discussion of water sharing" contingent on on "securing [Georgia's] border"? Shouldn't you be thinking about water management (of which water sharing is but one option) anyway? (By the way, wasn't Georgia supposed to be talking about a regional water-sharing agreement with Florida and Alabama, anyway? And wasn't that supposed to be completed on February 15?)

The Georgia General Assembly attempt at a water grab from Lake Lanier was already shut down by the Army Corps of Engineers who manage the dam for the primary purposes of flood control and hydropower (the provision of municipal water to Atlanta was an additional incidental use that was approved by Congress - sorry Atlanta). In the meantime, I cannot find evidence on the interwebs that the Georgia General Assembly has made a real good-faith effort to figure out how to use water conservatively during a time of regional drought. (Makes you wonder - what with a time extension on water-sharing agreements - just how good these closed-door policy decisions are really going. "Smoke-filled rooms" anyone?)

There's a great timeline (through article progression) at the Chattanooga Times, so if you want to check out some of the previous stories on this (prior to this iteration of this silly little mess of cross-border politics), go and check it out.

Georgia Legislature passes bills to move the border! (Urgh.)

Apparently, the Georgia Legislature passed two bills to move the Georgia state line north 1 mile into the state of Tennessee.

House Resolution 1206 passed overwhelmingly (136-26, with 3 not voting and 9 excused). Senate Resolution 587 passed overwhelmingly (52-0, with 3 not voting and 1 excused). This is the first bit of both the House and Senate resolutions (my emphasis added):

WHEREAS, the northern border of the State of Georgia and the southern border of the states of North Carolina and Tennessee lies at the 35th parallel, north of the southernmost bank of the Tennessee River; and

WOW. I'm jaw-on-the-floor amazed for two reasons. The first reason is that this is (at least to me) a blatant water grab on the part of Georgia. Why? Well, because the root of this iteration of this border dispute, at least in much of what I've read, is about the water in the Tennessee River, and it seems to be supported in the first statement of both resolutions. The reason why Georgia wants to have all this water is because there is a drought, and the state hasn't taken any real measures to effect conservation measures.

The second reason I'm amazed is that the bill passed so overwhelmingly in both chambers. (There wasn't even dissent in the Senate!) I'm not an expert on Georgia Constitutional law, but it seems to me that it passed both chambers with a greater than 2/3 majority, meaning that (if Georgia is like other states) even if the Governor doesn't sign it, the resolutions are passed into law.

At the beginning of it all, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) asked if this resolution was a joke. Rgardless of whether Georgia's governor signs these resolutions, I wouldn't be suprised if Tennessee sues Georgia in Federal Court if any real action is taken on this. Right now, Tennesseean legislators are "trying not to take it too seriously":

“I think they’re embarrassing themselves, and I think it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money to have them going into session and doing such silly things on taxpayers’ time,” said Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga

I was only able to find one reaction in N. Carolina about this in today's papers, and that from Representative Roger West from NC's 120th District. (North Carolina's border with Georgia will also be affected, as it is here that the 1.1 mile "notch" south begins.)

"As long as that line's been established, I can't see them overturning it now. I think they're serious about getting access to the water in the Tennessee River. They should be talking with Tennessee about buying water. I don't think I'd take on a battle to move the state line."

If Gov. Bredesen doesn't cooperate with Georgia's "request", the border dispute decision will go straight to the Supreme Court (since it is a border dispute between two states of the Union), and it will be an interesting case to follow. (Or maybe not so interesting, if the Supreme Court decides not to pick it up.)

Now, both resolutions have words to the effect that this border dispute was brought up several times (1887, 1947, 1974), and the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suggested that there be some sort of resolution between the states:

WHEREAS, by suggestion of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Chairman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission and the Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission agreed in 1974 to reserve resolution of the general boundary issue until a later date (15 FERC, p. 61240), the resolution of which has never been reached; andWHEREAS, notwithstanding these authorizations and directions, the boundary lines have never been accurately resurveyed and marked and remain in doubt; and

I'm not sure what the actual wording was of that Court of Appeals judicial suggestion, or how much legal weight it holds (in terms of the United States Constitution), but I really wonder if Georgia really will go through with this whole thing. True, this whole thing started off as sabre-rattling on Georgia's part. The overwhelming passage of these twin resolutions out of the Georgia Legislature may the be equivalent of unsheathing that metaphorical sabre, readying for battle. I hope cooler minds prevail. I hope Georgians realize what happens when one outgrows (flagrantly wastes) one's available water resources, and pass some bills that really get at water conservation. If they don't then I feel that this chapter in the border dispute will easily be won by Tennessee (and they might be able to push for closure, once and for all).

Your Inner Fish

From Shifting Baselines comes a heads-up about a new book that's out there informing the public about our fishy heritage: Your Inner Fish. Reading the NYTimes book review, I think that it will be a good read for anyone who hasn't taken a fish biology, comparative anatomy, or evolution course at university. For those of us who have, it looks to be a good book to get us up to speed on what's been happening in the field since we last studied it.

Right now (7:25PM on 20 February, 2008), there are 14 book reviews on Amazon.com, and so far they are all very positive (5 stars, except for a 4-star review). I take it that the anti-evolutionists haven't figured out that the book exists (after all, it was written up in the NYTimes, and not the "Worldnutdaily").

Science discoveries at U-M

A little while ago, there was a story that came out about self-generated human power: strap a power generator to your knee and walk! Well, a research team at the University of Michigan was involved with that one. (Go Blue!)

The wearable mechanism works much like regenerative braking charges a battery in some hybrid vehicles, said Arthur Kuo, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at U-M and an author of the paper.

The University of Michigan's Department of Electrical Engineering have built an effin-powerful laser. (Yessss....) Are we next going to put these on sharks, a la Austin Powersi?

The record-setting beam measures 20 billion trillion watts per square centimeter. It contains 300 terawatts of power. That’s 300 times the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity grid. The laser beam's power is concentrated to a 1.3-micron speck about 100th the diameter of a human hair. A human hair is about 100 microns wide.

Just to prove that the University of Michigan does produce groundbreaking research in areas other than the physical sciences (although some might argue that biology is a physical science), we learn that researchers have found the cells that cause nervous system disease. (Alright!)

In addition to pinning down the cell type, Zhu's lab determined how non-myelinating Schwann cells start overmultiplying. They found that nerve damage and inflammation were among the two earliest events in tumor initiation.

Back to engineering now with a story about an autonomous seaplane with a twist: it can initiate and perform its own takeoffs and landings in the water. Nice photos and a video, too. (How do I get one of them?)

Flying Fish, an electric vehicle, drifts until its onboard Global Positioning System tells the craft it has floated too far. That triggers the takeoff sequence, which gets the plane airborne in just 10 meters. Other GPS coordinates trigger the landing sequence. The craft accomplishes both in simple ways, explained Ella Atkins, associate professor of aerospace engineering and associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science.

And finally, (although there are many other scientific outputs from this small Midwestern university listed on its news page), a study that says that viewing your spouse negatively is good for your mental health. (Just in case he/she asks you why you keep harping.)

Viewing our spouses more negatively over time may not be all bad, Birditt says. In fact, it might even be, well, positive. “As we age, and become closer and more comfortable with one another, it could be that we’re more able to express ourselves to each other. In other words, it’s possible that negativity is a normal aspect of close relationships that include a great deal of daily contact.”

So, in sum, if you feel like you're being nagged too much by your spouse, realize that it's for your own good, and that it is not the cause of your degenerative nerve problem, and definitely don't walk down to the pond as your knee-brace power generator powers up your DARPA-funded autonomous model sea plane for the express purpose of strafing your nagging spouse.

s

ScienceDebate 2008

A little while ago, I heard from The Intersection about what seemed (to me) to be a fantastically great idea: having the presidential candidates debate science and science-related issues. There have been a few people on the scienceblogs website that agree with my POV and some that disagree. However, just in case you want to know why I think that having a presidential debate on science is a good thing, check out the following (yes, Huckabee and I don't agree on many things):


If you want more (or better) reasons (in case the written statements on ScienceDebate 2008 website are not good enough for you) why it would be very good to hear why the presidential candidates should have a debate on science and science-related topics (as if scientists and science-related people don't know the reason already), then you will be happy to know that there are a number of videos available on the ScienceDebate 2008 website (to supplement all the written statements).

Now, in case you don't want to scroll through all the interviewees' responses on ScienceBlogs 2008 (you lazy bugger!), then I have embedded a few of the ones that I think are good. (Ha! That means that if you want to learn about other experts' points-of-view, you still have to check out the website).

ROSINA BIERBAUM - Dean of School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan


STEVE CHU - Director of Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory, Nobel Prize (Physics) Co-Recipient 1997


JOHN HOLDREN - Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University


JOHN C. MATHER - Senior Astrophysicist NASA, Nobel Prize (Physics) Recipient 2006

DEQ out of money?

From the Michigan Messenger:

The state agency responsible for cleaning up toxic spots in Michigan has run out of money.

Robert McCann, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said the 1988 and 1998 statewide bonds that funded cleanups are now "more or less completely exhausted," and the state is not accepting any new brownfield redevelopment proposals or cleanup projects.

"The DEQ is working with stakeholders to develop a funding strategy," McCann said. "It's going to be a difficult situation to deal with."

So this is another way in which tax cuts are helping the citizens of Michigan, by ensuring that toxic waste clean up doesn't go forward. Oh, wait. That isn't really such a good thing, is it? But smaller taxes is a good thing! Especially when you don't want big government to meddle in your affairs! And definitely especially when you want small government so that you can have big business!

Oh, wait. If you don't have a decent-sized government, there is little oversight and policing of bad business practices (such as what leads to excessive toxic waste being improperly (or unhealthily) disposed of, eventually creating brownfield sites). If you don't fund your decent-sized government, there is little ability to pay for oversight and policing bad business practices. And if you don't tax your people, then there is no way of being able to fund your decent-sized government.

Just another reason why it's a bit of a shitter right now.

Why definitions - in the end - might not really matter.

Is this really something that a mere definition can really bridge? I mean, on one side, you have rationalist thinkers, and on the other side, you have non-rationalist believers. I - for one - do not think that a definition alone will really solve any problems.

Of course if you do want to include correct definitions, one should require a definition of "scientific theory" in all science textbooks, including the very first science texts a student might get.

In any case, if this proposal were to pass, I think "scientific theory" should include all the following (and other scientific theories that other people know):
* the scientific theory of atoms
* the scientific theory of cells
* the scientific theory of circuits
* the scientific theory of [computer] computation
* the scientific theory of electromagnetism
* the scientific theory of gas kinetics
* the scientific theory of general relativity
* the scientific theory of global climate change
* the scientific theory of gravity
* the scientific theory of plate tectonics
* the scientific theory of quantum fields
* the scientific theory of relativity
* the scientific theory of special relativity
* the scientific theory of systems
* the scientific theory of the big bang

And you can also have (for those of us who don't think that mathematics is a "real" science), statements warning the students about "mathematical theories":
* the mathematical theory of catastrophe
* the mathematical theory of category
* the mathematical theory of chaos
* the mathematical theory of graphs
* the mathematical theory of knots
* the mathematical theory of numbers
* the mathematical theory of probability
* the mathematical theory of sets.

(Don't get me started on "mathematical theorems"!)

But guess the crazies on the side of the non-rational believers will say: "WOAH! So many theories! They must ALL just be based on wild guesses! SEE!?! Because a "scientific theory" is just a wild guess by stoopid scientists, and "mathematic theory" is the same thing with those dumb-ass mathematicians. Scientists and mathematicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes! Only faith in the ONE TRUE GOD, three-in-one, one-in-three, the mystery of faith can save you from the fiery pits of HELL to which you will be cast if you dare travel down the path of materialist atheism so central to the godless, evil[utionist], heathen mob of Fascio-communist totalitarian goose-stepping Nazi mathematicians and peace-and-free-love hedonistic gay-loving transvestic-transexual-transgendered Castro-worshiping dogmatic idolater scientists! And don't say we didn't warn you!"

A part of me just make me want to let that area of the country sink slowly into its own "Age of Endarkenment." Let them wonder why they are being "left behind" in the advancement of modern society. Maybe we should make Florida a state-sized analogue of an Amish community (nothing against FL or the Amish, but it is the only peninsula that would be large enough to hold all of them), and send all the "scientific-theory-isn't-real" people there. Given only a few years of social isolation, anthropologists even be given a new opportunity to study a non-modern society without having to travel great distances. (Of course, by this time, the English language spoken by the "natives" would likely have migrated to something completely foreign - with so many similar-sounding words - that it would provide linguists an opportunity to create their own theories (!) of language development. It might even provide the US military with an impenetrable code that could be used like the Navajo code talkers were used in WW2.)

The "Map of Misery" (aka, Crappy Ocean Map)

A new study in Science shows the human impacts on the world's oceans in a nice (!) little map the research group calls the "Map of Misery."


You can also view the layers on Google Earth, by downloading them from the group's project website. The group also discuss why they did the project, and how they came up with the final map. For something that is pretty dismal (degradation of oceans is something that everyone should feel at least slightly bummed about), it is an intriguing project.

I expect that the cumulative impacts from all these impacts will be really bad for oceanic fishing, as well as marine ecosystems, generally. Jennifer Jacquet discusses this (and other disturbing oceanic fisheries findings) over at her scienceblog, Shifting Baselines.