Science Debate!!!

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while. My internet has been on the fritz, and Comcast had to send someone out twice before they decided that maybe replacing the stupid cable modem was a good idea. Unfortunately, where I live, I can't get anyone else. So anyway, Hillary won Ohio and the Texas primary (Obama probably won the Texas caucus, but the results aren't actually in.) This thing is going to drag on forever, so the least the candidates can do is debate new and interesting things. Enter ScienceDebate 2008, a grassroots effort to get the Democratic and Republican candidates to debate science issues in Philadelphia on April 18. (The Pennsylvania Democratic primary is April 22.) The issues to be debated are divided into three policy areas:... The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy. Questions on topics such as climate change (I'm assuming this debate wouldn't include 'clean coal' commercials), population growth, stem cell research, drug patents, science education, and space exploration. Science questions are going to be particularly crucial in deciding where the nation is heading in the next few years in a variety of ways, and I for one would love to see the candidates discuss these policy positions more fully and openly with the public. Maybe we could even get a feel for relative levels of tech savvy/cluelessness. (Hint: If any candidate says "The Google," I will spring my secret trapdoor in the stage floor, just like they do in the cartoons.)

Homeless Time Travellers

Wow. Homelessness is no laughing matter, but this guy seems to be taking it with good humor. (Thanks 2Spare.) What actually makes me mad, though is that gridskipper can publish what amounts to a DC homelessness travel guide that trivializes homelessness but hides this behind a veil of sympathetic comments. I hate hipsters. Ok, so hate doesn't make the world better, but I sure wish they'd move on to their pupal stage of development, no matter what it is. (If you have any idea, leave it in the comments.) Trivializing homelessness is especially disgusting in the context of the recent tide of unprovoked violence against homeless people. Now that I've depressed you enough, here's something useful a graduate student did to educate people about this problem: Homeless: It's No Game a serious (yet fun and engaging) 2D video game about the problems of homelessness. Play it, and be inspired to go do something!

Judge Threatens Free Speech in US, Xmas Islands to Rescue!

Wikileaks.org was created as a space where whistleblowers could anonymously leak information about governments, corporations, and other institutions, in an effort to keep them accountable, without the threat of retaliation. According to the New York Times, "It has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing." However, Judge Jeffrey White of the Federal District Court of San Francisco issued a permanent injunction on Friday forcing the site's domain name registrar to disable and lock the domain name. This ruling came in response to a court case brought against the site by a Julius Baer Bank and Trust in the Cayman Islands based on documents published on the site that purported to show "reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.” Right...because banks in the Cayman Islands are known for their stellar records on helping the US government fight tax evasion. Luckily, this judge (like many of our lawmakers) was totally clueless about the workings of our beloved 'intarwebs.' New York Times journalists aren't, and those damned liberals love them some free speech. So, they let us know exactly how to access the page, both by IP address and through mirror sites in Belgium, Germany, and (I kid you not) the Christmas Islands. People all over the webs have been publishing these links, along with the forbidden documents, on their own sites. While this ruling will almost certainly be overturned, two things stand out: one, the US government is perfectly willing to censor the internet, just like all the big nasty furren' governments you hear about on TV, and two, people REALLY, REALLY don't like it. Are you listening, presidential candidates?

Obama comments on Cuba

Update...Obama is the first presidential candidate to come out with a statement about Cuba. He is also the only one who had previously publicized any plan to normalize relations with the country. He said:

If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together.

Now, what that means, translated out of politikspeak, I don't know. But at least someone in the public eye is talking about it.

Of exploding cigars...

Fidel Castro resigned as the head of state of Cuba today. He is succeeded by his brother, Raúl. Castro had led Cuba since the 1959 revolution. I'm going to be very honest here: somehow, I subconsciously believed that he would be in charge of Cuba forever. I knew, of course, that such a thing wasn't possible, but change just seemed so unlikely. My parents can barely remember the idea of Cuba before Castro; they were six years old at the time of the revolution. Residents of Washington, DC, still had not ever been eligible to vote in a presidential election. For God's sakes, Eisenhower was president. And now he has resigned. This opens up a world of possibilities.

American politicians could, at this point, end the embargo without losing face. Or, the next president could do so when he or she gets into office next year. 'Socialism' is gone, except in North Korea, where life REALLY sucks. (China totally doesn't count. They are a capitalist dictatorship with an extremely powerful and corrupt government. C'mon now.)

I have had a lifelong desire to see Cuba, perhaps because it was the only place, to my knowledge, to which I was always completely forbidden to go. I want to go before it is overrun with American tourists and transnational corporations. Many Americans probably want to go. I wonder how that would change both Cuba and the Americans.

I also wonder, if we lift the embargo, will Americans feel differently about Guantánamo? Will being able to go so close to it make us feel more responsible? Will it make us wonder what on earth we need a military base there for anymore anyway?

Hillary Clinton and Tracy Flick!

I'm an Obama supporter, for so many reasons that I decided not to blog on the subject based on the idea that other people tend not to be more than 10-issue voters. I'm probably a 50-issue voter, if I think about it enough. It's kind of a problem. If you aren't into politics, or you, like my mother, support Hillary Clinton so intensely that a sense of humor is not an option, stop reading this post here.

For everyone else, this video comparing Hillary to Tracy Flick in the movie "Election" is so funny I almost cried.

Gamers to the Rescue!

If you're going to spend time playing games when you should be working, you might as well learn something. Games4Change is an organization that promotes digital games whose objective is social change. So instead of watching Strindberg and Helium for the umpteenth time, or playing the Plushies game (you know who you are), avoid work by playing games like Karma Tycoon, where you run a virtual nonprofit and "solve community problems, such as homelessness, in cities across the US," or try Melting Point, where you work to "balance the energy needs and economic growth of regions around the world against the accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2)." If you find one you think is particularly cool, let me know in the comments. (I only have so much time to screw around, so I can't play ALL of them myself...one-year MA programs are killer on the work front.)

Climate Special on National Geographic

"Six Degrees that Could Change the World" is showing on the National Geographic Channel tonight. The program shows what could happen as the temperature increases, degree by degree, due to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by 2100, global temperatures will have risen to somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees above 1990 levels. 6 degrees is a doomsday scenario. Unfortunately, there is a significant problem with all of this information, as with much information in the field of climate change. Explaining a crisis is useless without translation. Scientists, along with much of the world, measure temperatures in Celsius. Americans measure temperatures in Fahrenheit, and most have NO CLUE of the conversion rate. They assume 6 degrees means Fahrenheit, which means they think it's about half as bad as it actually is. No wonder so many 'climate skeptics' seem to be Americans. (Disclaimer: I'm an American, born and bred. I also grew up in Washington, DC, where an increase of even 6 degrees FAHRENHEIT in the summer could increase the death rate pretty significantly based on the heat alone.) I suppose my point here is that before blaming Americans for ruining the planet, make sure that you aren't ignoring less-intuitive aspects of American culture that might make even communication on the topic harder. Another example of this is our heavy reliance on cars. I've hated cars since I was in a nasty accident a while back. I still need to use them, because our public transportation system is simply insufficient, even in areas where people live in higher concentrations. I'd be glad to pay higher taxes for better infrastructure, but I can't do it by myself. If there were fewer tractor trailers on the roads where she lives, my mom wouldn't drive an SUV. (The nurses in the hospital after my SUV was T-boned by a pickup truck said that my partner and I probably would have been dead had we not been driving one.) We could have more long distance freight rail. But we don't. And not all Americans can afford to live in cities. The ones who can, can afford to tell everyone else how good it is for the earth, but they're idiots if they think people live in Delaware and drive to DC for work because they LIKE the 4-hour commute. (Yes, I met someone who does this every working day, God bless him.) We need to involve people in change rather than lecturing them. Maybe then we can get something done.