Ridiculous martial arts actor turned walking Internet meme Chuck Norris doesn't get that his major support base is entirely ironic and writes an open letter to the President-Elect, demanding that Obama ignore all his policy promises, blaming the economic meltdown on Clinton and hilariously linking abortion to national security.
While we're on the topic of batshit insane, Turkey, fresh from banning it's citizens from accessing RichardDawkins.net because those wacky atheists had the gall to make fun of a creationist 'science' book, is now suing BATMAN. And you thought the US had a monopoly on frivalous lawsuits. Those who missed the Atlas of Creation story can see a video of Dawkins here.
World of Warcraft's Wrath of the Lich King went on sale last night. The BBC provided typically boring coverage.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Weekend news roundup
This morning British Newspaper The Guardian reported that upon taking office, to-be-President Obama will take action to reverse a number of policies enacted by the current administration.
John Podesta of the Obama transition team, singled out stem cell research and environmental restrictions on oil drilling as key areas for use of extraordinary powers to be used to institute rapid change.
This wasn't mentioned in the Change.org blog. Valerie Jarrett told Meet the Press that the major issues of concern to the incoming administration would be the economy and national security during the transition period. I guess that's to be expected though, it's something which needs a lot more preparation for Jan 20th.
PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula opines that Republican enthusiasm for the fragrent Sarah Palin could lead to a Palin persidential campaign in 2012. I confess that although the prospect is a pretty horrifying one it doesn't strike me as a very likely one. The video linked in Pharyngula is worth watching to see the shouting match between Pat Buchanan and Laurence O'Donnell.
Dr Adam Rutherford spoke with British education site teachers.tv on Friday, in response to the the teachers.tv poll whic revealed that 18% of science teachers think that creationism should be taught in the classroom. It's a little worrying that a country as secular as Britain could have almost 1/5 of it's science teachers so poorly suited to their professions.
Speaking of godlessness, Prof Paul Bloom of Yale, writing in Slate, discussed a psychological study which suggests that atheists are less charitable than the faithful. Interestingly, this apparent parsimony doesn't appear to be directly related to atheism, as secular communities outside of the United States don't show these tendencies. In fact, it may be the group exclusionism tendency of humans that lead to atheists to feel alienated from the wider religious mainstream, disincentivizing them from participating in charitable work. After all, who would be willing to contribute to a community that excludes you and labels you as immoral and unpatriotic?
John Podesta of the Obama transition team, singled out stem cell research and environmental restrictions on oil drilling as key areas for use of extraordinary powers to be used to institute rapid change.
This wasn't mentioned in the Change.org blog. Valerie Jarrett told Meet the Press that the major issues of concern to the incoming administration would be the economy and national security during the transition period. I guess that's to be expected though, it's something which needs a lot more preparation for Jan 20th.
PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula opines that Republican enthusiasm for the fragrent Sarah Palin could lead to a Palin persidential campaign in 2012. I confess that although the prospect is a pretty horrifying one it doesn't strike me as a very likely one. The video linked in Pharyngula is worth watching to see the shouting match between Pat Buchanan and Laurence O'Donnell.
Dr Adam Rutherford spoke with British education site teachers.tv on Friday, in response to the the teachers.tv poll whic revealed that 18% of science teachers think that creationism should be taught in the classroom. It's a little worrying that a country as secular as Britain could have almost 1/5 of it's science teachers so poorly suited to their professions.
Speaking of godlessness, Prof Paul Bloom of Yale, writing in Slate, discussed a psychological study which suggests that atheists are less charitable than the faithful. Interestingly, this apparent parsimony doesn't appear to be directly related to atheism, as secular communities outside of the United States don't show these tendencies. In fact, it may be the group exclusionism tendency of humans that lead to atheists to feel alienated from the wider religious mainstream, disincentivizing them from participating in charitable work. After all, who would be willing to contribute to a community that excludes you and labels you as immoral and unpatriotic?
Friday, 7 November 2008
Become part of the solution!
Recently gone live http://www.change.gov/
This new site, the site of the President-Elect's office, is a guide to the Presidential Transition process. It solicits suggestions about YOUR vision of America and offers applications for non-career positions in the new Administration.
Interestingly, the site states that some of this positions require Senate approval, suggesting that they are positions of significant influence. US citizenship also does not appear to be an absolute bar to employment, but holding a valid work permit does.
They also have a blog. I've subscribed to the RSS feed and you should consider it too if you have any interest in the democratic process.
This new site, the site of the President-Elect's office, is a guide to the Presidential Transition process. It solicits suggestions about YOUR vision of America and offers applications for non-career positions in the new Administration.
Interestingly, the site states that some of this positions require Senate approval, suggesting that they are positions of significant influence. US citizenship also does not appear to be an absolute bar to employment, but holding a valid work permit does.
They also have a blog. I've subscribed to the RSS feed and you should consider it too if you have any interest in the democratic process.
Blog subject request #1: Campaign Finance
I'm very flattered to have received a request for a blog entry on the subject of Barack Obama's campaign finances from reader PG. He writes:
'Obama campaign funding: aside from the small donations, where did it all come from? Will the large contributors ask for favors back when the time is right? Will it influence his decisions?'
Well, the President-Elect's campaign finance disclosure can be found here, listing his total campaign fund as 639.2 million dollars, of which $579,178,033 are listed as individual contributions (as opposed to PAC ($1,280), Party ($150) and Candidate ($0).
The individual contributor list is here, organized by the size of the contribution. If you'd prefer something a bit less unwieldy, you can download a state-by-state breakdown of the contributions here. You'll note that the locations I'm giving you are all on the official FEC site; I'm not personally hosting the files and everything I'm investigating is repeatable by a third party.
Rather than wade through the many, many pages of donations and identify trends and add up contributions from people sharing employers, I'm going to build on the work of others in the best traditions of both researches and lazy bums. I headed to opensecrets.org, a project run by the Center for Responsive Politics. The CRP says it accepts no funding contributions from businesses or labor unions and claims to be non-partisan.
CRP Disclaimer: The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.
The list below is also far from exhaustive, I just picked the ones I found interesting.
First up is investment banker Goldman Sachs. Historically, this investment bank takes a close interest in economic policy, trade and legislation that affects the finance sector. It's heavily in favour of privitization of Social Security and deregulation of investment banking and the securities industry. It does make contributions to the Republican party, but tends to give most of it's contributions to Democrats.
Microsoft: The spellchecker in Microsoft Word doesn't recognise 'Royalism' as a vaid word and offers no substitutions, but it has no problem with 'Parliamentarianism'. Presumably this means Microsoft is opposed to the return of monarchical rule to the United States; on this basis I therefore assume that Obama has no intention of having himself coronated. On a more serious note, the manifesto of MSPAC seems to indicate it is in favor of education reform and technological innovation (and, one assumes, making money and disseminating Microsoft products as widely as possible). They currently have some admirable programs providing refurbished computers to underserved communities worldwide and are facilitating the improved information services in underserved parts of Europe and Africa.
Microsoft's public policy agenda states that they are in favor of economic growth through promotion of IP rights and protecting patent quality and apparently think that competition in software development is a GOOD thing. They like free trade and open markets, the internet as a vehicle of free expression and less restrictive immigration policies.
JPMorgan Chase & Co: a leading financial firm and one of the top consumer credit card issuers in the country. They lobby heavily on bankruptcy reform and banking deregulation.
Citigroup Inc: Oh, another banking firm! This one has a subsidiary called Salomon Smith Barney, which was implicated in the financing of Enron and WorldCom. In 1998 Citigroup helped repeal a federal law that prevented banks from getting into other businesses, and promptly acquired an insurance firm. Major interests include financial privacy, bankruptcy reform and terrorism reinsurance.
Time Warner: right now their major lobbying interest is the rules governing television ownership. They want the rules prohibiting cable TV stations from owning broadcast TV stations in the same market to be relaxed.
Sidley Austin LLP: International business lawfirm. They've got wide experience in just about all aspects of legal services. Barak Obama was a summer associate at their Chicago office and Michelle Obama was a full associate in Sidley's Austen office - they met while working at the firm. I seached briefly for some hint of an agenda for Sidley Austin, but I didn't turn up anything that I thought looked supportable, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.
Skadden, Arps et al: another law firm, more focussed on mergers and acquisition. Tend to support the Democrats more than the Republicans. Hosted a phone bank in support of Obama during the election.
Morgan Stanley: Another investment bank. Major proponent of privitizing Social Security and deregulation of the securities industry. Looks like they want to further extend their reach into financial services.
So there you have it PG, I think that answers the first part of your question. The second and third parts aren't really something I can answer though; I don't know the President-Elect personally and I can't see the future. That's something we're going to have to keep an eye on together.
'Obama campaign funding: aside from the small donations, where did it all come from? Will the large contributors ask for favors back when the time is right? Will it influence his decisions?'
Well, the President-Elect's campaign finance disclosure can be found here, listing his total campaign fund as 639.2 million dollars, of which $579,178,033 are listed as individual contributions (as opposed to PAC ($1,280), Party ($150) and Candidate ($0).
The individual contributor list is here, organized by the size of the contribution. If you'd prefer something a bit less unwieldy, you can download a state-by-state breakdown of the contributions here. You'll note that the locations I'm giving you are all on the official FEC site; I'm not personally hosting the files and everything I'm investigating is repeatable by a third party.
Rather than wade through the many, many pages of donations and identify trends and add up contributions from people sharing employers, I'm going to build on the work of others in the best traditions of both researches and lazy bums. I headed to opensecrets.org, a project run by the Center for Responsive Politics. The CRP says it accepts no funding contributions from businesses or labor unions and claims to be non-partisan.
CRP Disclaimer: The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.
The list below is also far from exhaustive, I just picked the ones I found interesting.
First up is investment banker Goldman Sachs. Historically, this investment bank takes a close interest in economic policy, trade and legislation that affects the finance sector. It's heavily in favour of privitization of Social Security and deregulation of investment banking and the securities industry. It does make contributions to the Republican party, but tends to give most of it's contributions to Democrats.
Microsoft: The spellchecker in Microsoft Word doesn't recognise 'Royalism' as a vaid word and offers no substitutions, but it has no problem with 'Parliamentarianism'. Presumably this means Microsoft is opposed to the return of monarchical rule to the United States; on this basis I therefore assume that Obama has no intention of having himself coronated. On a more serious note, the manifesto of MSPAC seems to indicate it is in favor of education reform and technological innovation (and, one assumes, making money and disseminating Microsoft products as widely as possible). They currently have some admirable programs providing refurbished computers to underserved communities worldwide and are facilitating the improved information services in underserved parts of Europe and Africa.
Microsoft's public policy agenda states that they are in favor of economic growth through promotion of IP rights and protecting patent quality and apparently think that competition in software development is a GOOD thing. They like free trade and open markets, the internet as a vehicle of free expression and less restrictive immigration policies.
JPMorgan Chase & Co: a leading financial firm and one of the top consumer credit card issuers in the country. They lobby heavily on bankruptcy reform and banking deregulation.
Citigroup Inc: Oh, another banking firm! This one has a subsidiary called Salomon Smith Barney, which was implicated in the financing of Enron and WorldCom. In 1998 Citigroup helped repeal a federal law that prevented banks from getting into other businesses, and promptly acquired an insurance firm. Major interests include financial privacy, bankruptcy reform and terrorism reinsurance.
Time Warner: right now their major lobbying interest is the rules governing television ownership. They want the rules prohibiting cable TV stations from owning broadcast TV stations in the same market to be relaxed.
Sidley Austin LLP: International business lawfirm. They've got wide experience in just about all aspects of legal services. Barak Obama was a summer associate at their Chicago office and Michelle Obama was a full associate in Sidley's Austen office - they met while working at the firm. I seached briefly for some hint of an agenda for Sidley Austin, but I didn't turn up anything that I thought looked supportable, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.
Skadden, Arps et al: another law firm, more focussed on mergers and acquisition. Tend to support the Democrats more than the Republicans. Hosted a phone bank in support of Obama during the election.
Morgan Stanley: Another investment bank. Major proponent of privitizing Social Security and deregulation of the securities industry. Looks like they want to further extend their reach into financial services.
So there you have it PG, I think that answers the first part of your question. The second and third parts aren't really something I can answer though; I don't know the President-Elect personally and I can't see the future. That's something we're going to have to keep an eye on together.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Cyber-hands and Cancer research breakthrough
Fantastic news for amputees from British company Touch Bionics this week, with the unveiling of their new i-LIMB bionic hand, which took 14th place in Time Magazine's 50 top inventions. the hand has 5 separately articulated fingers (which can be detached from the main hand for ease of maintenance, instead of the user being denied use of their entire hand while waiting for replacement parts) and has a range of grip setting, from credit card to 'power hold' (which I think is for stuff like coffee mugs, not crushing shotgun barrels with your fingers).
In cancer research, a team at Washington University's School of Medicine have decoded the entire gene sequence of a cancer patient and traced the development of her disease (acute myeloid leukaemia).
Researcher Dr. Richard K. Wilson is quoted as saying: "This suggests that there is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity in cancer, even in this one disease.
"There are probably many, many ways to mutate a small number of genes to get the same result, and we're only looking at the tip of the iceberg in terms of identifying the combinations of genetic mutations that can lead to AML."
It's still far too early to start popping champagne corks and declaring that we've beaten cancer; this breakthrough is mainly valuable to the development of treatments for various blood cancers, which tend to have simpler chromosome changes than solid tumor cancers. However, the significance of this feat should not be underestimated.
Read the full story here.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
The President-Elect calls for unity on faith
We're going to have to jump back in time a little here for this one, it's Obama talking about the nature of faith in a modern America back in June. YouTube link here. I caution readers to disregard the title given to this video by the poster.
I really found this speech to be quite admirable, however much the President-Elect and I may disagree on theological matters. It's quite clear that Obama has a clear grasp on the intent on the First Amendment and despite his personal religious beliefs has a clear grasp of the arguments on the dangers of faith put forward by the Neo-Atheists.
This speech, reinforcing as it does the idea that America is a secular nation that happens to have a large base of religious believers, is a breath of fresh air. The key point to this clip for me is probably around 2.23, where Obama says that:
'...in a pluralistic society we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality....To base one's own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.'
Bravo, sir! An administration based on the rule of reason is exactly what the world needs right now. As you went on to say, I am also tired of seeing faith used as a tool for attack.
Which brings us neatly onto the horrible debacle that is the North Carolina Senatorial race. As I'm sure you know by now, Kay Hagen has taken the senatorial seat from incumbent Elizabeth Dole. This particular senatorial race grabbed a lot of headline attention because (aside from being a crucial seat) of the nature of the attack ads run by the desperate Dole claiming that Hagen, who is a Sunday School teacher for her local Prebyterian church, was in the pocket of the Godless Americans PAC and was herself an atheist, complete with out of context quotemining and a fake voiceover which was implied to be Hagen herself saying 'There is no God.' If you've not seen it, you can find a link here.
I do sympathise with Hagen's position, but I'm saddened by the vehemence of her denial and by the fact that implicit links to a pro-secularist group can actually be used as an attack by a political opponent. There is far too much of this nonsense that America is 'one nation under God' and the talking heads who pronounce this revisionist view seem to have credibility because a large proportion of the electorate remain unaware that those words were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, in the middle of McCarthyist anti-Communism hysteria. Our current climate of distrust of atheists is partly due to this attitude and partly due to misunderstandings (both inadvertent and intentional) of the nature of atheism amongst the faithful majority. One nation under God...but which God? Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah? Krishna, perhaps? The Deist God of the founding fathers, maybe. Maybe Spinoza's Deus sive Natura, God and Nature being interchangable terms for the same thing; certainly an idea that Einstein found and Hawking appears to find palatable.
Ultimately the very fact that we have strident voices raised insisting that we ARE one nation under God strikes me as the most powerful argument in favour of returning the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency to their previous, secular state.
While an implied lack of a belief in God remains a social embarrassment sufficient that it must be responded to with legal threats America cannot make serious claims to be the pluralist society the President-Elect claims it to be.
I really found this speech to be quite admirable, however much the President-Elect and I may disagree on theological matters. It's quite clear that Obama has a clear grasp on the intent on the First Amendment and despite his personal religious beliefs has a clear grasp of the arguments on the dangers of faith put forward by the Neo-Atheists.
This speech, reinforcing as it does the idea that America is a secular nation that happens to have a large base of religious believers, is a breath of fresh air. The key point to this clip for me is probably around 2.23, where Obama says that:
'...in a pluralistic society we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality....To base one's own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.'
Bravo, sir! An administration based on the rule of reason is exactly what the world needs right now. As you went on to say, I am also tired of seeing faith used as a tool for attack.
Which brings us neatly onto the horrible debacle that is the North Carolina Senatorial race. As I'm sure you know by now, Kay Hagen has taken the senatorial seat from incumbent Elizabeth Dole. This particular senatorial race grabbed a lot of headline attention because (aside from being a crucial seat) of the nature of the attack ads run by the desperate Dole claiming that Hagen, who is a Sunday School teacher for her local Prebyterian church, was in the pocket of the Godless Americans PAC and was herself an atheist, complete with out of context quotemining and a fake voiceover which was implied to be Hagen herself saying 'There is no God.' If you've not seen it, you can find a link here.
I do sympathise with Hagen's position, but I'm saddened by the vehemence of her denial and by the fact that implicit links to a pro-secularist group can actually be used as an attack by a political opponent. There is far too much of this nonsense that America is 'one nation under God' and the talking heads who pronounce this revisionist view seem to have credibility because a large proportion of the electorate remain unaware that those words were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, in the middle of McCarthyist anti-Communism hysteria. Our current climate of distrust of atheists is partly due to this attitude and partly due to misunderstandings (both inadvertent and intentional) of the nature of atheism amongst the faithful majority. One nation under God...but which God? Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah? Krishna, perhaps? The Deist God of the founding fathers, maybe. Maybe Spinoza's Deus sive Natura, God and Nature being interchangable terms for the same thing; certainly an idea that Einstein found and Hawking appears to find palatable.
Ultimately the very fact that we have strident voices raised insisting that we ARE one nation under God strikes me as the most powerful argument in favour of returning the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency to their previous, secular state.
While an implied lack of a belief in God remains a social embarrassment sufficient that it must be responded to with legal threats America cannot make serious claims to be the pluralist society the President-Elect claims it to be.
Obama on Science and Technology
With the relegation of GWB to a lame duck, it is appropriate to look to the President-Elect for information on America's future. What do we have to look forward to from the White House after January 20th?
Well, the Obama-Biden Science and technology policy is available here and interesting reading it makes.
High points of the policy include the doubling of federal investment in basic research, in accord with Bushes' America Competes Act. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology, basic research is primarily exploratory investigation driven by the curiosity of the researcher and is the necessary precursor to applied research. That doesn't make it pie-in-the-sky impractical nonsense; on the contrary basic research frequently provides unexpected new applications of scientific principles which can be developed. In fact, in our current areas of inquiry (notably electronics and biotechnology) basic research often runs hand-in-hand with the development of practical applications.
To be fair, this increase in the budgeting for pure research is a legacy of the Bush Administration, but the fact that this was ratified by Obama is significant; historically Republicans tend to spend more on research than the Democrats do. I'm with Laurence Krauss on this one; it is devoutly to be hoped that this increase in funding will tempt the more promising minds of our current batch of high-school graduates to move toward science and engineering as a career over finance.
What's going to be vital to the fledgling President's science policy however is his choice of scientific advisor. Whatever the choice is going to be, it's going to have to be made early in the administration to allow the advisor to place other scientists in key strategic positions within the various federal agencies and to allow the development of a robust and dispassionate scientific policy. John Marberger wasn't appointed until 10 months or so into the Bush administration, well after the President had made his position on climate change and stem cell research clear. There wasn't really a lot for Marberger to do policy-wise for a lot of his service.
Now, we've already got a fair idea of Obama's opinions on some of the current scientific issues; his response to Science Debate 2008 can be found here. The juicy parts here include a promise to lift the ban on federal funding for stem cell research, support the Recombinent DNA Advisory Committee's recommendations on recombinant genetic engineering and re-establish the NASC.
On the environment, the President-Elect's targets seem to be compatible with those of Governor Schwarzenegger.
Not all is champagne and sunshine, however. Obama's health plan, while an improvement over the current system, isn't such a major revamp of things as they stand. Religiosity remains a de facto, if not a de jure requirement for high political office. A significant minority of the electorate still base their opinion of others on skin colour. Prop 8 was voted in. No major changes in Iraq.
We've got a lot of work to do still to live up to the vision of America and the President-Elect will have his work cut out for him to enact his plans. Congress remains much the same beast which cooperated with GWB's more questionable policies over the past 8 years so it's hard to see how big a practical impact the new administration will have on the nations policies as a whole, especially with his political opponents flinging the dreaded curse-word 'socialist!' at every suggestion made.
It's too big a job for one man, even the chief executive. It ill behooves us to put too much faith in Obama as a magic bullet to fix all of America's ills; it is the responsibility of us all to effect a cure.
Well, the Obama-Biden Science and technology policy is available here and interesting reading it makes.
High points of the policy include the doubling of federal investment in basic research, in accord with Bushes' America Competes Act. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology, basic research is primarily exploratory investigation driven by the curiosity of the researcher and is the necessary precursor to applied research. That doesn't make it pie-in-the-sky impractical nonsense; on the contrary basic research frequently provides unexpected new applications of scientific principles which can be developed. In fact, in our current areas of inquiry (notably electronics and biotechnology) basic research often runs hand-in-hand with the development of practical applications.
To be fair, this increase in the budgeting for pure research is a legacy of the Bush Administration, but the fact that this was ratified by Obama is significant; historically Republicans tend to spend more on research than the Democrats do. I'm with Laurence Krauss on this one; it is devoutly to be hoped that this increase in funding will tempt the more promising minds of our current batch of high-school graduates to move toward science and engineering as a career over finance.
What's going to be vital to the fledgling President's science policy however is his choice of scientific advisor. Whatever the choice is going to be, it's going to have to be made early in the administration to allow the advisor to place other scientists in key strategic positions within the various federal agencies and to allow the development of a robust and dispassionate scientific policy. John Marberger wasn't appointed until 10 months or so into the Bush administration, well after the President had made his position on climate change and stem cell research clear. There wasn't really a lot for Marberger to do policy-wise for a lot of his service.
Now, we've already got a fair idea of Obama's opinions on some of the current scientific issues; his response to Science Debate 2008 can be found here. The juicy parts here include a promise to lift the ban on federal funding for stem cell research, support the Recombinent DNA Advisory Committee's recommendations on recombinant genetic engineering and re-establish the NASC.
On the environment, the President-Elect's targets seem to be compatible with those of Governor Schwarzenegger.
Not all is champagne and sunshine, however. Obama's health plan, while an improvement over the current system, isn't such a major revamp of things as they stand. Religiosity remains a de facto, if not a de jure requirement for high political office. A significant minority of the electorate still base their opinion of others on skin colour. Prop 8 was voted in. No major changes in Iraq.
We've got a lot of work to do still to live up to the vision of America and the President-Elect will have his work cut out for him to enact his plans. Congress remains much the same beast which cooperated with GWB's more questionable policies over the past 8 years so it's hard to see how big a practical impact the new administration will have on the nations policies as a whole, especially with his political opponents flinging the dreaded curse-word 'socialist!' at every suggestion made.
It's too big a job for one man, even the chief executive. It ill behooves us to put too much faith in Obama as a magic bullet to fix all of America's ills; it is the responsibility of us all to effect a cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)