Westboro Baptist Church

A couple of years ago when I lived in Lee, New Hampshire, there was a big ceremony a few miles down the road at the arena of the University of New Hampshire, for the Rev. Gene Robinson, who was being made the Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson is gay, so this was a big deal, and my friend Holly and I went down to watch the protests. There were plenty of people on the pro-gay side of the argument, all standing around in the rain, and after a good while a small delegation from the Westboro Baptist Church rolled up and took their appointed place amongst the protest ropes laid out by the police. These are the followers of the odious Fred Phelps of Kansas. They had all their "God hates Fags" signs out, and stood around in their appointed spot and tried to make a scene.

I had a notebook and an umbrella and so I pretended I was a reporter on a deadline and went up and talked to someone in their pit. I stood next to a woman who was protesting and asked her for her thoughts. She started talking but there was something really weird about her, like she was strung up on something and not really herself. She talked to me about her feelings about gays, but it was more like a rant, and more like something she had had drilled into her -- there was something robotic about her words, and nothing that seemed to convey any emotion. It seemed all very rote. The most notable thing was that she refused to look anywhere close to my eyes.... After about two minutes I stopped and since it was raining really hard I stepped aside and let them protest another 10 minutes or so, when they they marched out of the area, to jeers mostly, and got back on their bus.

All in all they seemed pretty pathetic. And completely ineffectual.

So I am surprised to see someone awarded $10.9M dollars because the Westboro Baptist Church protested at his son's funeral. His son was a fallen Marine. I am more than sure than this man grieves for his son. I think the Westboro Baptist Church are bastards who one should get their comeuppance. But I don't think that matters. I think the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at this guy's funeral, and express any thoughts they want, however odious. I don't think the courts have any business fining them for expressing their First Amendment rights. This is a classic first amendment case -- that is, the only ones who really need first amendment rights are those don't seem to deserve it. They were cited for emotional distress and invasion of privacy, but come on, any judge should surely know this kind of speech is allowed under the First Amendment. This is why the First Amendment was invented. But all-in-all I think they have the right to be there.

I can't take the Westboro Baptist Church seriously, especially based on what I saw that day at UNH. I saw that there is no passion behind their words, just a form of... well, evil. Not inherent evil -- I don't believe in that. These were just poor people -- and they were mostly kids who were protesting -- who had been severely warped by their parents and grandparents. The parents and grandparents were noticeably absent. But when you looked them in the face, you saw they were just pathetic, not threatening. They won't look you in the eyes. In a way, it says all you need to know.

Bumper Sticker

Bumper sticker I saw on the way to the store:

The Emperor has no brain.

Biology animation

One of the reasons I've felt like I never have understood biology to the degree I feel I understand physics is because I can never understand how all those big macromolecules get all that cellular work done. Maybe I never will, but this neat animation seems to give a glimpse of the poetry of what might be going on.

Via: Dark Roasted Blend

response to "The End of Science"

Lubos Motl has a pretty good response to John Horgan's continued insistence that science is coming to an end. There have been very significant findings since Horgan's book came out about 10 years ago, in physics, and especially in biology/genetics. Every day my Inbox overflows with new discoveries -- every day, it seems, literally, a new human gene is discovered.... and in any case I don't know what Horgan expects. It seems to me that science is progressing at least at the average rate it has over the last 400 years, and probably a lot faster. I don't buy Horgan's argument.

Romans

Wikipedia:

"...60 percent of Roman citizens died, from all causes, before age 20...."

Universities and Colleges

I see that some conservative organization named Family Security Matters has named the Ten Most Dangerous Organizations in America. They list "Universities and Colleges" at #2.

OK, let's take them at their word. I'm sure, therefore, if they think Universities and Colleges are so dangerous, that they will be more than willing to forego the discoveries and benefits which have come from these institutions. Let's construct a partial list:

1) x-rays, discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Rontgen at the University of Wurzburg. When they break a bone, Family Security Matters members can decline an x-ray and just let their doctors feel around for a bone break, guessing as to its extent.

2) nuclear fission, finally demonstrated by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago. Family Security Matters members will, I'm sure, be more than willing to do without the Gigawatt-hrs of electricity produced in this manner around the world.

3) Giant magnetoresistance, discovered at a university in Paris. Family Security Matters members can do without hard drives or anything of the sort which make a modern computer useful.

Do we really have to go on? You can fill in the rest as well as I can. FSM can decline to take many of today's pharmaceuticals. I'm sure they won't mind exiting themselves from anything having to do with gravity or astronomical research, discovered and perfected by Newton, Einstein, and others all at universities. Are they willing to live with polio? In 1950 William Hammon at the University of Pittsburgh isolated a serum from the blood of polio survivors.

Would FSM members like to benefit from solar energy? Fuel cells? Nanowires?

Do we really have to go on?

The fact is, the liberal traditions of free speech and open inquiry are exactly what have brought us these advances over the decades. FSM can put their conservative ideas out in the intellectual marketplace for approval and advancement -- the truth is, over the last several decades, these ideas have mostly been found to be wanting and deficient. It has almost always been open, liberal ideas that lead to advancements of our society, not closed, regressive, conservative ideas.

FSM can criticize these ideas if they want. If they do, they should be forced to live without them.

Morning

This is not far from my typical morning:

Your Phone Number

Via David Brooks in the NYT:

I read in a piece by Clive Thompson in Wired that a third of the people under 30 can’t remember their own phone number.

Wow, is this really true? Is there anybody out there who really doesn't know their own phone number?

David Reinhard wrong... again

The other day David Reinhard,the conservative opinion-monger for the Oregonian, thought he could get away with disparaging the parents of Graham Frost, implying that that they were so well off financially that they could afford private tuition for their children, and that, thus, they didn't deserve government-sponsored health insurance (SCHIP).

Mr. Reinhard is, in fact, quite wrong, and I don't understand why he won't admit it.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun on Oct. 10, and in Time magazine on the same day, the Frosts received financial aid (a scholarship) in order to privately school their children.

Mr. Reinhard is unwilling to accept this error. He needs to be called out until acknowledges the truth. Isn't that what journalism is supposed to be about?

Bridge article

I have an article in the November issue of Scientific American, just out:

"Repairs without Rivets:

Carbon-fiber composites could lead to quick fixes for old bridges"

Haka

The problem with my profession: no haka.

Carbon Intensity

I am really astonished at yesterday's announcement that the world's carbon intensity has been increasing since about the year 2000. Carbon intensity had been decreasing for a hundred years and I thought it was akin to a law of nature that carbon intensity always and forever decreases, because people are always and forever naturally striving to use energy more efficiently.

Up until 2000, carbon intensity had, over the last 30 years, been decreasing by about 1.3% per year. Since 2000 it has been increasing by about 0.3% per year.

This is huge, it seems to me. I still do not really understand it and am still studying this paper to figure out what's going on.

Dot Earth

Andrew Revkin of the NY Times now has a blog:

Dot Earth
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

Oil Production Peaks

Oil production peaked last year, says an energy group in Germany, much sooner than experts predicted. (The International Energy Association isn't worried.) Production will now be decreasing 7% a year, they say.

"The world soon will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. This is a huge problem for the world economy...."

Current supplies are good only for about 30 more years, they predict.

May you live in interesting times.

Conscious machines

A British Telecom futurologist, Ian Pearson, predicts that there will be conscious machines by 2015-2020 (whatever that means--in fact, he predicts that we won't really understand it) and that one will win the Nobel Prize by 2020. (Imagine the conservative snipping about that.)

Oceans taking up less carbon

This is not encouraging: in the last 10 years the oceans have been taking up significantly less carbon dioxide than they once did: 50% less in the North Atlantic, since measurements began about 10 years ago.

The researchers who did the study admit they can't attribute this to human-caused climate change -- they simply have no baseline against which to compare, and it's possible there are significant natural fluctuations in the ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Definitely something to keep an eye on. If the ocean sink saturates climate change is going to happen even that much faster.

Lucinda Williams - Drunken Angel

In memory, supposedly, of Blaze Foley:

NYT Letter to the Editor

Mitchell Turker, here of Portland, has a letter in today's New York Times that perfectly encapsulates my feelings after seven years of the Bush administration:

As an American citizen, I am tired of being disgusted with my government. We deserve better.

How to Save the World

This is a pretty screwed up world, there's no doubt about it. Answers seem few and far between, and it's hard to believe we are not doomed in 50 years, if we will even make it that long. But some people refuse to accept this fate, and they speak out, with answers that are simple but aren't easy to admit:

Marburger and 2 C

Wow, I am amazed to read this: John Marburger, the President's science adviser, yesterday refused to acknowledge that climate change ought to be limited to +2°C.

2°C is 3.6°F. That is a huge amount of warming. It is absurd for Marburger to claim that that amount of increase "is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives." Simply absurd. It is one of the most unscientific statements I have read in a long time.

In its April report, the IPCC outlined a range of environmental impacts that could transpire if temperatures rise 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above 1980 levels. These include placing between 20 and 30 percent of all species "at increasing risk of extinction" damaging most coral reefs; and "increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts."

Marburger said, "you could have emerging disasters long before you get to two degrees. . . . There is no scientific criterion for establishing numbers like that."

There is no scientific criterion for establishing any number -- such establishment is a question of values, not of science. Marburger looks foolish for even implying otherwise.

In 50 years, the world is going to look back on the climate criminals of the turn of the century. Marburger just established himself as one.