Lennard-Jones

Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer, points out how the response to terrorism is misguided and overblown. Amen to that.

"We do not face a global jihadist "movement" but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda."

"The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere."

And he concludes:

"We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are."

I've long thought that the fact that our most threatening enemies are a ragtag band of brutes straight out of the Dark Ages is more an indication that we've won as a civilization than it is an actual threat. The real danger from terrorism is not the violence itself, but the way we'll turn our society inside out in an attempt to eradicate terrorism completely. The (dubious) cure is worse than the disease. I would suggest our government has already done more damage in the form of awful policies designed sold to combat terrorism than have terrorist attacks themselves. Especially if you include the Iraq invasion, which may not have passed the public opinion test had Americans not the perception that Al Qaeda worked with Saddam Hussein.

In similar spirit (the Spirit of Awesome) to my stalker mix, I've been tossing around the idea of a break-up mix, and I need help with song ideas. I'm not entirely sure what the rules and regulations of the mix are yet. For instance, I'm not totally sure what emotions I'm going for, probably mixtures of angry and pathetic. And at the moment I don't think it matters if the perspective of the song is that of the dumper or the dumped; if there are enough awesome songs it could be worth two mixes. Here are the few songs I've come up with so far, in no order:

Cup of Coffee - Garbage - Beautiful Garbage
Ruin - The Pierces - Thirteen Tales of Love and Revenge
You Oughta Know - Alanis Morisette - Jagged Little Pill
Shame - Stabbing Westward - Wither Blister Burn and Peel
Don't Speak - No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom

It looks like I definitely need more dude vocalists in the mix. A close call that won't make it is Self Esteem, by the Offspring. Perfect tone, but it's disqualified because he doesn't break up with the girl.

Of course, I'm always happy to add to the Stalker Mix as well. The current list for that:

1. Mix Tape - Avenue Q soundtrack
2. (Everything I Do) I Do It for You - Bryan Adams
3. Hungry Like the Wolf - Duran Duran
4. Every Breath You Take - The Police
5. Open Your Heart - Madonna
6. I Drove All Night - Roy Orbison
7. Obsession - Animotion
8. What Do I Have to Do? - Stabbing Westward
9. Turn Around Look at Me - The Vogues
10. I Touch Myself - Divinyls
11. #1 Crush - Garbage
12. It's No Good - Depeche Mode
13. Closer - Nine Inch Nails (not totally fitting the theme, but it makes a good finale)

This morning I joined the Berkeley Ironworks gym. It's bloody expensive, but it's fun, and it should be good for me. I've been three times so far and I'm still on the beginner's rapid advancement trajectory. As a work out, I really like climbing because there's a bit of strategy to it and it's goal-oriented, unlike, say, moving around heavy objects. People are really friendly there too, so maybe I can get my socialization on. It's also a proper gym though, with treadmills. On the week days, there's a bus that goes pretty much door to door from my house so I think I can get a proper work out pretty early before going to work.

Researchers using data on identical and fraternal twins have discovered a relationship between genetics and voting. The MAOA and 5HTT genes more generally have to do with the serotonin system that regulates fear, trust, and social interaction. High levels of the MAOA allele increase the likelihood a person will vote by 5%, while the 5HTT increases that likelihood by 10% if the individual is a regular religious attendant. And 53% of the variation in voter turnout can be attributed to differences in genes, according to the study. I found this from the Reason Hit & Run blog and the study's press release. I haven't read the actual study though, because I'm a bad blogger.

Maybe I just need some gene therapy to get me to do my civic duty.

My science is banged up. My microchannel plate detectors appear to be working fine. And I know I'm producing anions, because I can see the glow from my discharge plates. These means either my gate valve is mysteriously not opening all the way, or a lab gremlin crawled into the high vacuum region and is gobbling up the ions before they reach the detector.

I'm happy about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the DC gun ban.

I think I'm losing weight. I attribute this to running, not eating like a fatty, and cutting my meat intake by about 50% (90% 2003 levels).

I had a dream last night in which Angelina Jolie was visiting our labs for a day. I asked her if she minded I watched one of her movies while I took data. She said that would be great. I watched Hackers.

I think the data was the most fanciful part of that dream.

I saw Mongol tonight. Apparently a lot of people haven't heard of it, but it's a movie. In theaters. Well, actually, one theater in Berkeley. I learned of it by trailer surfing on apple.com.

I thought the movie was excellent overall. It could be subtitled Genghis Khan: the Wee Years, since it only covers the period from when he was ten to the battle that made him the meta-Khan or whatever. And for that matter, all of the battles leading up to that were skipped completely. That was a general approach of the movie:; it told the audience Temudgin was clever, but didn't show how. That was a little disappointing at times, but ultimately that's just not what the movie was about.

The movie showed just how many accidents sculpted Temudgin's character and his fate. He spends a good part of the movie (especially when he was a youngin') getting his ass kicked and running away. He completely lucked out by escaping (albeit cleverly) captors all the time and getting rescued by strangers. But all that made him the hard and determined fellow he's remembered as. Superstition, too, played a key role in his success. Most of the time this fell under the accident category, but toward the end it seemed like he was beginning to consciously use superstition to his advantage.

And his wife. His wife was brilliant. She might even make the vaunted List, though that would depend on how historically accurate the movie was. She basically foisted herself upon him as an assertive little girl (well, she was actually a whole year older than him). She advised him, and he listened to her. She saved his neck a couple of times, often at great personal risk. She was what made me like Temudgin so much, or at least their relationship. He seemed to view her as an equal and a partner. I have no idea if this was common among mongols at that time. He also didn't seem to bat an eye at adopting the children she had with other men. The film made clear that that was certainly unusual. This was an extension of his general fair-mindedness, which also made men want to follow him.

Very good movie, I think. With pretty landscapes and a good soundtrack to boot.

This started as a reply to smandal's response to my last post, but it got a bit long.

My first thought is that I find it distasteful to attack individuals for providing goods that others misuse or overuse. From my limited observations (I don't want to tilt against straw people), the public sentiment is "Oil is causing global warming! This is the fault of the oil companies! It's their responsibility to do something about this!" Just because overuse of oil and other carbon fuels causes global warming doesn't mean it is the responsibility of the energy producers to ween the public off their products. In the case of tobacco, yes tobacco can cause cancer but no that does not mean that tobacco companies should parent their customers away from their products or sever supply. Although I wonder how Congress would react if they did start choking supply ...

I think this point of public sentiment is the meat of the issue, but it obviously doesn't address the real issue of false advertisement or fraud on the part of the oil executives. Is Oil Company X defrauding the public by attempting to blur the links between global warming and X oil? I suppose yes, if it can be proved they have deliberately deceived the public about the hazards of their product and their witnesses for the defense can be discredited. But I'm not sure that that could happen and I certainly don't think high crimes against humanity and nature is the appropriate charge. Rather than fraud, I think Big Carbon's stance on the causes of global warming is more like public relations self defense and an understandable desire not to bear witness against themselves.

For most of the time the carbon industries have been around, there has been no global warming nor any reason to suspect that the globe might start warming. And when the concept first emerged, I don't think it was unreasonable to blow it off as just another environmental doomsday campaign. The point at which a scientific consensus emerges is indeed fuzzy and is certainly not obvious to non-experts until a while after the fact. I think it's reasonable for energy companies to cling to lingering doubt. In fact, energy executives have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders, and latching willfully onto an idea that could spell doom for the entire industry might be considered bad for profits.

And unlike the tobacco companies, for instance, use of oil does not lead to damage to any specific person or property. So I don't think they're breaking any of the full disclosure type laws governing, say, ingestible foods or medicines.

The reason I think this idea is more akin to a lynching than a legitimate pursuit of justice for a crime is that the root problem, global warming and the real need to emit less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, can be addressed more directly and without recourse to overt violence. If enough congressheads can be persuaded to try oil executives for high crimes against humanity and nature (what is a crime against nature, anyway?), then surely enough can be persuaded to levy a carbon tax or at least a cap and trade scheme. This would internalize the external costs of carbon and modify the behavior of individuals to use less of it. And it would increase incentives for energy efficiency and alternative energy research and development. All without making bad guys out of anyone.

One last plug for the much maligned Big Carbon: if they can be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature, can whatever sentence is passed be commuted on account of good behavior? For all of the atmospheric consequences of cheap, efficient combustion, think for a moment on the benefits accrued to society. The industrial revolution has so far lifted at least a third of the world out of poverty, with more pulling themselves out every day.

Because witch hunts are awesome, and because the bad people won't listen to him, James Hanson, a leading climate scientist, wants to try oil executives with high crimes against humanity. In fact, I think we should waterboard these oil executives until they publicly admit that global warming is real and that they caused it. Knowingly. For money. And so that little black babies would die. And then the the whole energy industry should be nationalized so that this can never happen again.

I can't really see a downside to this.

A little more on George Carlin. I'd never seen this clip before, but it's brilliant.

George Carlin on voting

"Two reasons I don't vote. First of all, it's meaningless ... Secondly, I don't vote because I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know. They say 'Well, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.' But where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people and they get into office and they screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem. You voted them in. You have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote ... who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you have created that I had nothing to do with. So, I know that a little later on this year you're going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You'll enjoy yourselves; it'll be a lot of fun. And I'm sure as soon as the election's over your country will improve immediately. As for me, I'll be home on that day doing essentially the same thing as you. The only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I'll have a little something to show for it."

George Carlin died last night of heart failure, age 71. Time has a pretty good brief on him and his career.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1817192,00.html

I heard on NPR he was to receive some 'Mark Twain Award for American Humor'. I'm not familiar with the award, but if anyone deserves it, it's George Carlin. I hope it can be awarded posthumously.

Kerry Howley's article in Reason about the decline of fertility rates and associated angst is good for a lot of reasons. But some of them relate to my last post.

Some choice excerpts:

"For those who, with good reason, worry about the solvency of transfer programs in an age of population decline, replacement immigration looks like a partial solution, and therefore xenophobia is part of the problem. But for many if not most of the people preoccupied by fertility rates, immigration is no solution at all. The question isn’t about whether the United States, Singapore, or France will be without people in 2100; it’s about what kind of people will populate those countries: what they will look like, what they will teach in their schools, what God they will bow before."

"Periods of anxiety over “race suicide” are rarely good times for women. Protestants who were worried about the rising tide of foreign Catholics passed anti-abortion laws in the 1880s that endured until 1973, when Roe v. Wade limited their scope. Embracing historical continuity with the nativists who came before him, Mark Steyn takes time in America Alone to blame women for aborting the generation that might have stood between us and the coming Islamification of the West. It’s not surprising at all that the single greatest social anxiety of our time has been reduced to crude demographic projections that pin the blame on empty wombs."

"But as pro-baby policies are inevitably sold as pro-mother, and by extension pro-woman, it’s worth recalling the sentiment behind the Australian birth premiums and Singaporean matchmaking schemes. At the heart of any fertility incentive lies an attempt to encourage a particular group of women to orient their bodies in a traditional way. Every pro-fertility policy is an effort to slow cultural transformation, to stabilize a society’s ethnic composition, to ossify a current conception of a national culture by freezing the genetic makeup of a nation. From Poland to Singapore, swollen wombs are a bulwark against change."

I'll be damned. The Economist has an article in the current issue about the ground resistance to the enlightened and cosmopolitan 700 mile fence Congress has commanded be constructed. Apparently the resistance comes from property owners, and a group of various officials has banded together to file a class action lawsuit claiming infringements against property rights. Environmentalists also complain, because the fence will cut through some wildlife corridor. And sentiment among the smallfolk tends to note the pointlessness and paranoia of the fence. I'm impressed.

This relates to a conversation I had over lunch with Natasha, a colleague of mine. Natasha, I've realized, is a great medium for reflecting and magnifying my angst (stimulated angst emission, if you will) over immigration policy. There are lots of reasons to love immigration. Immigration is great for consumers: it generally lowers prices because immigrants don't demand such high wages. It's great for the immigrants because they and their children are afforded greater work and educational opportunities. And, you know, they probably wouldn't go to the trouble of emigrating if they didn't at least think they would find better lives. Immigration is vital if we expect to pay for Medicare and other entitlements in the coming decades; we don't spawn and rear our young fast enough to pay for all these goodies we're promised. On that note, immigration of skilled workers is an oft-overlooked issue and an oftener-overlooked partial remedy for high health care costs. Increase the supply of health care workers, then prices will decrease. Here's a Wall Street Journal article on just how high our barriers to skilled immigration are and how bad that is for American competitiveness. And beyond the economic costs of immigration restriction, the xenophobia underpinning it all is just so vulgar.

But what I found most interesting in talking so much about the topic today was why I take it so personally. Unlike, say, Natasha, who is marrying a foreigner, I really don't have any personal connections to the issue. But I would rank it as one of my most important issues, along with civil liberties and a non-aggressive foreign policy.

Yesterday I watched the Incredible Hulk with Gawalt and MJ. I had expected it to suck, because the last Hulk sucked. And, you know, the Hulk? Really? I love comic books as much as the next geek, but there is a lot that can happen in a comic book that might very well be not okay in a movie. Example: Galactus. Here's a big guy in a purple suit who eats planets. Believe it or not, he's entirely believable and respectable as a cosmic deity in the comics. Could never work in a movie. Say what you will about the Fantastic Four films, Rise of the Silver Surfer did a fantastic job with Galactus in making him some dark, spooky, incorporeal space cloud. And the Hulk is a big green monster.

That was an aside I hadn't planned on writing, but the point is the Incredible Hulk wasn't terribly cheesy or campy at all. I'd read in reviews that there was a strong anti-military theme in the movie, and I was worried that it was going to be overdone. Despite my own views of the military, I thought it would cheapen the movie if Norton got too political. But it wasn't overdone at all. And seen in the context of Iron Man, which presented an entirely neutral picture of the military (I found it delightfully un-fellatious), overall the Avenger character movies have been pretty fair and balanced.

That's the other thing though. I'm really looking forward to the upcoming movies, but the inherent cheese problem is just going to get tougher. Captain America? Sounds way too patriotic even if he isn't actually over the top about it. And Thor? A Norse god? Really? I mean, I loved the comic; it was the first title I started collecting when I was wee and I continued to read it for years. But how do you fit something like that into the world of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner? I am optimistic because Marvel Entertainment has straight up performed with these last two movies, but I'll still remain at least a little skeptical.

This morning I submitted my paper to the Boss. This is my first paper, so it's a good feeling. I know it's going to come back smeared in lamb blood. Or maybe Christian blood since ... well nevermind. I think the paper will be okay in general, after a couple edits. Hopefully. Today I came back into lab for the first time in two months and started massaging the lasers back to health. We're going to do a couple system check runs with the last molecule we looked at, but after that we're off to start a brand new experiment. Woohoo!

It appears that Clinton has finally conceded to Obama, which means that if there were ever a primary pool the payouts to those who picked Obama would be $40, and that I would have lost money. Not that there ever was a pool, because gambling is illegal.

I don't think a pool for the general election would be very interesting, since there are only two candidates. On the other hand, a pool on the point spread might be interesting. Especially since a fair number of people have predicted that Bob Barr might have a non-negligible impact. What say you readers?

At least, that's the take-home message I ... took home from this article:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11449804

Lately I've been doing all of my (very excessive) linkwhoring on Google Reader, but I thought this article was great enough to make a special livejournal post about.

From Cato, via Reason, the Cult of the Presidency, by Gene Healy.

It's an essay about how the American presidency has evolved from a post that was little more than an executer of laws and watchdog into those reasonable among us know and loathe and fear today.

"The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He—or she—is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the “commander in chief” as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power."

I think I might read the Federalist Papers as one of my summer projects.

w00t. The new issue of Berkeley Science Review is finally up with my article.

My article is here but you should check out the rest of the issue as well.

Also, I've started writing my first journal article. I have just a bit of grading to do and then I'll be completely done with teaching for the rest of grad school. Thank fuck. And the undergrads will be gone soon. The campus will be beautiful and quiet.

w00t.

w00t. I had my third year group meeting tonight. Third year group meetings in my research group tend to be a pretty good opportunity for the Boss to make you look really dumb and feel bad about yourself. But tonight went pretty well. It was long. I gave an hour talk (perfectly timed!) and had about thirty minutes of questions, but they were questions of interest, not questions that made me feel dumb (even though I didn't know the answers to all of them). So, good night. I kinda feel like I can relax for a bit now. You know, before writing that paper I need to write.

J.K. Rowling just got pwnd by Orson Scott Card for her bullshit lawsuit over the Harry Potter Lexicon thing.

On just how original her work is:

"A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world."

"People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch."

Here's a really good article by Matt Yglesias on just how militaristic you can expect a McCain president to be:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_militarist

Yglesias makes the point that McCain has been extremely hawkish since the early nineties, advocating direct conflict with Yugoslavia, North Korea, and Iran. Further, he appears to view military engagement as something of an end in itself, an important part of his 'national greatness' ideology aimed at suppressing selfish individualism.

Oh, and another awesome part of another four years of military adventurism would be McCain's notion of fiscal conservatism, which includes extending the Bush tax cuts. Now, I'm as fond of low taxes as the next libertarian, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in the finiteness of resources. I suppose the very idea that the military expansion of America's greatness around the globe will cost money strikes McCain as the kind of base individualistic materialism that is the real threat to the nation.


I think if the democratic candidate latches on to these lines of attack (maybe with some LBJ/Daisy Girl style ads), (s)he should be able to win.