Science in the New Congress

In the November 16th issue of Nature Magazine(subscription only, unless you’re on an academic network), Emma Marris interviewed Bart Gordon, the ranking Democrat on (and next chair of) the House Committee on Science. Most of the interview is the same “we need to make America a global science competitor” blather that you hear all the time, without putting forth any new ideas. However, one question caught my eye and gave me reason for hope:

You’ve talked about censorship of scientists at agencies and politicization of science. Do you plan any hearings on that issue?

We hope that we can have some oversight hearings that are going to find out what was really going on. My goal is not to embarrass the administration but to shed some light on this problem so that people will be embarassed to do it again.

Although Gordon is aparently a fairly conservative Democrat (see the discussion at Political Arithmetik and myDD), I agree with what he says. We shouldn’t waste time pointing fingers when we all know where the fault lies. Instead, we need to make doubly sure that we don’t allow corporate interests and religious fundamentalists to hijack government-funded science ever again. Federal research funds should be for everyone (who deserves them, that is), and not just a tool to placate ‘the base’. Under no circumstances should any branch of the government be allowed to edit results just to bring them in line with policy. There are a lot of reasons for us to be embarrased, but it’s not too late.

If you have’t read Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, I recommend it, if only because of its dissection of what Republicans really mean by ’sound science’. (Hint: It may have something to do with campaign contributions.)

-superawesomestuff

The Post I’ve been meaning to write has been written….

And it’s a scathing one. Diane McWhorter at Slate lays it out clearly and without hysterics. I myself have noticed a slight German accent creeping into the Gang of 500 and the Kewl Kids diction lately.

But really this is about us.

Not Bush.

See what Diane is saying and then come back and let me know what you think.

A.Citizen

Wanna See Something Really Scary?

Malcontent turned me onto this.

Freaked out yet?

- tekstone

What are you laughing at?

In this week’s issue of Nature Magazine (subscription only, but you can read the public-access editor’s summary here), Tony Reichhardt reviews how researchers quantify happiness. He presents quite a few interesting facts, which are certain to make you more engaging at those holiday parties. The most shocking is that more money doesn’t actually make you happier – as long as you make more than 50 to 90 thousand dollars a year. Below that level, it does. Given that in 2004, real median household income was $44,389, one might speculate that the real median American was somewhat unhappier than, say, your real median CEO. So much for the root of all evil – take that 1 Timothy vi. 10!

Second, according to a study of 3,014 adult Americans undertaken by the Pew Research Center, when asked “How happy are you these days in your life?”, 50% of respondents reported being “pretty happy”, while 34% said they were “very happy”. Another 10% wanted to know why Pew had preschoolers writing the questions for their surveys.

You have to go to the data presented on the Pew website to get to the really good stuff. For example, did you know that Republicans are happier than Democrats? Plus, it has nothing to do with the fact that they were surveying in October and November of last year – it’s been true since Pew started collecting data in 1972. Hmmm…1972.. what was going on back then? Nothing like the loss of a generation’s innocence to bring you down. (I’m assuming that Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally) reaching #1 on the charts made everyone equally depressed.) It’ll be a while before we know how the last election’s results effect national happiness, but I’ve got a pretty good idea. It’s been almost three weeks now, and I still can’t stop smiling. When I think about Rumsfeld being forced to resign, I actually giggle!

-superawesomestuff

Breaking News

NBC and MSNBC decided over the weekend “after careful thought” that the correct terminology for the situation in Iraq is ‘Civil War.’

“Several analysts said NBC’s decision was important as the administration would face more pressure to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if the U.S. public comes to view the conflict as a civil war.” – Reuters Story

So we can thank NBC (80% owned by General Electric and 20% owned by Vivendi who also own Telemundo and Universal Pictures) for bringing some sense of reality to the MSM public discourse.

One has to ask: Why would GE turn on the Neoconservative White House/Pentagon? I thought they had the same goals.

In a related story, Kofi Annan said today that Iraq is “almost there,” referring to civil war.

We have known that Iraq has fallen into civil war for some time now. We knew they were very likely to since shortly after the US invaded. It’s about time someone in the MSM caught up with us.

-tekstone

A Question for Free Market Freaks

If so many Americans believe in ‘Free Market Capitalism’ – for that is surely the loudest voice in the room – then would they consider balancing the scale by supporting ‘Free Market Individualism’?

I suspect not.

If a corporation can be expected to police itself, then should not an individual be expected to police him or herself? Would it not be in the best interest of an individual, family or community to police itself much like it would be for a corporation? Is this a ridiculous idea? Perhaps.

But I would venture to wager that a corporation – or even an entire industry – would fail to properly police itself if it felt it could get away with it. I would have already won that wager as history has proven. Here is an impressive web site in case you cannot recall any instances of corporate malfeasance: http://malfy.org/

I ask you, my fellow citizens: Why is it considered acceptable to discuss the government’s regulating such personal things as ‘gay marriage,’ ‘a woman’s right to choose,’ and ‘a person’s right to get high if he/she wants to’ — yet politicians and pundits alike seem to avoid discussing real regulation of corporate actions and behaviors – behaviors that cause harm on a global scale, from climate change to economic strife? Would that lead us down the dark path toward the dread ‘Socialism’ or the evil ‘Communism’?

I doubt it.

So let’s have that dialogue. If senior fellows at right-wing think tanks can justify a ‘laissez faire’ approach to our capitalistic economy, why then can’t they accept a ‘laissez faire’ approach to the way you and I want to live our lives – our personal lives? Literally translated, ‘laissez faire’ means ‘let do’. Either let me do what I want with my life, or subject corporations to the same level of limitations.

If they want to try to justify ‘regulating’ our personal behavior, then let’s make them ‘regulate’ the behavior of the many corporations that impact our lives in such tangible and profound ways – dare I say rule our lives. I want the supply of gasoline to be regulated so that it is not subject to the greedy whims of petroleum companies who tighten supply to increase price.

I want corporations to be as afraid to pollute the environment or mistreat employees as I would be to sell a pound of cocaine in front of the DEA’s headquarters. Tell me, what’s wrong with that?

- tekstone

Weekend Movie Review

Borat

Borat is funny and edgy. It shows aspects of our American culture that a liberal blue-stater like me hates to admit exist, but sadly, they do… boy, and how. Seen through the eyes of a slightly naive (read ‘dim-witted’), sex-crazed, clumsy, affable, optimistic and antisemitic Kazakh, our great country reveals itself to be quite racist, sexist and homophobic – oh, yeah… and ignorant, intolerant and religiously whack-o. For all this plus the fact that Sacha Baron Cohen gives a flawless and hilarious performance, I give Borat a big thumbs up.

Fast Food Nation

I read the book a few years ago and loved it. Had to see the movie. Hated it. The acting is terrible! The characters are one-dimensional and annoying. The script is really preachy… really. There are a lot of great points that are made, and this is the kind of stuff that Americans need to learn more about. But I found this movie to be just plain insulting to my intelligence… no insulting to my humanity. As someone who appreciates the fine art of quality film-making, it was all I could do to keep from walking out. Seriously. It is bad. The cast (Bruce Willis, Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette and Greg Kinnear) is impressive enough to lead me to believe that the script and director must be to blame. If it weren’t for the scene at the end where they show how they slaughter cows with the blood and entrails sloshing down the production line, this movie would have NO redeeming qualities (the impact of viewing this is strong medicine and drives home an important point). Go read the book, but don’t waste your time with the movie. Thumbs down!

on DVD: An Inconvenient Truth

What can I say? Al Gore!! This movie, while preachy, is so well done and so sincere that I couldn’t help but love it. Gore is an inspiration and an eloquent spokesman. This movie reveals so much information about the facts surrounding the issue of global climate change in such a clear and convincing way. I wish Mr. Gore were living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. instead of the current criminal troglodyte. Please run again in 2008. I think this country is finally ready for you.

- tekstone

POW! BIF! SQUEAK!

In what I’m sure was a productive use of everyone’s time, dolphins at Disney’s Epcot Center in Florida have been taught to sing the ‘Batman’ theme. When asked about the project, one of our future cetacean overlords responded that he was glad it was over as, “maybe now I can get that stupid song out of my head…da du da du da du da du, BATMAN! Goddamn it!”

(I realize that the dateline on this story is October 3rd, which might make it ‘really old news’. I’ve got a backlog of stories, and this one was just too cool to ignore.)

-Superawesomestuff

So That’s what this insistence on ‘War in Iraq’ is all about….hint, it aint’ got nothin’ to do wit ‘Tehhah’…

Unless yer part of the .1 of 1% of upper income ‘Americans’ who are on the verge of soiling themselves. Why? Start with this link to relearn the real reason we attacked ol’ Saddam; as per usual it wasn’t anything President Death has said and it wasn’t anything the lying hyenas of the Corporatist Media have put forth, sorry PumpkinHead you and Tweet are jes ‘useful idiots for the ‘Upper Tenth’, and no it wasn’t anything about bringing Armageddon on a leetle early, Fundie WhackJobs and their delusions of The Rapture aside, although it’s not to clear what Mr. Bush thinks of that issue but then he’s not very clear on anything is he?Nope, as Malcontent has long maintained it’s all about ‘getting paid’ and it may be that Amerikkka’s long imperialist free ride while the rest of the world picks up the tab is over.

Or maybe not….The truth is nobody knows. But as these folks believe it seems that economic reasons for the Iraq War are perhaps a little shortsighted. No surprise given who’s supposedly ‘running the show’. But this brings up the larger question of survival. Our  individual and our society’s. I believe we can transition ‘peak oil’ and arrive a ’safe landing’ but…

We’d better get busy on this issue right fucking now. I apologize if this is somewhat scattered post but…

That’s kinda the way things are right now.

I, A.Citizen, posted this.

The best-of lists for which you’ve been waiting all year

Some people would say that the best reason to even have a year is so that at the end of it, you can totally over-analyze everything that’s happened during the previous 11 months. These people obviously have nothing better to do than to pour over lists of stuff. These are probably the same people who ask questions like “hot enough for you?” These people are not me, and I’ll bet they’re not you. For you, here’s a handy guide to the technological high points of 2006, assuming nothing cool will happen for the next 36 days:

Scientific American has announced their top 50 researchers, business and policy leaders, with former Vice President Al Gore receiving the “Policy Leader of the Year” accolade. SciAm has other suggestions for people to admire, including people who weren’t cruely robbed of the presidency. For example, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, whose foundation provides funding to female scientists so that they can pay for baby-sitters and housekeeping, and 454 Life Sciences, who developed a method for making DNA sequencing fast, cheap and easy – my three favorite adjectives.

Popular Science Magazine has chosen the top 50 innovations of the year that was. Our lives are better this year because of tissue engineer Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, who was able to seed an artifical bladder with a patient’s own cells. The cells grow over the bladder, the artifical parts dissolve, and problems with tissue rejection are avoided. The “recreation” and “home entertainment” sections read like a nerd’s fantasy gift list. Just don’t get it mixed up with the artifical bladder section.

Last, and most disappointingly, is Time Magazine’s best inventions of 2006. You’ve probably already seen that YouTube was named “Invention of the Year”. Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy watching a dog imitate a blender as much as the next girl, but is it really better than a countertop food sanitizer or a snow shovel re-designed to be easier on the back? YouTube may have had more of an impact on our lives, but the name of the list is ‘Best’, not ‘Most Impactful’, confirming what we mostly knew all along – Time Magazine sucks.

Slashdot also has commentary on the PopSci and SciAm nominees.