Saturday, January 31, 2004

A long response to Mike Davis' post on evolution

I've been reading your alternate explanation for why the 2nd law doesn't apply and I still can't follow it. The reason the 2nd doesn't apply is exactly because we are not in a closed system and for no other reason. Chemical reactions that produce heat are still increasing entropy (disorder) and would eventually fizzle out in a closed system. Heat is energy, but it is non-recoverable as work.

The point you are indicating (which to me seems to be a very different argument) is that certain creationists claim that the complexities apparent in life could not have evolved in the time necessary. This I think is a rather weak argument since any kind of calculation would make so many assumptions as to be meaningless. More interestingly, humans have a built in bias for how to solve problems and what we consider an “easy” or “complex” solution. For us, an easy solution is one that is similar to one used previously, to evolution an easy solution is one which uses a physical configuration similar to the one in currently in use.

I studied this effect when I wrote a computer program to evolve programs to play chess. Without being told the rules, the “chess-bots” were forced to play each other and the worst playing ones got replaced with mutant versions of the better ones. I ran the program for 11 days continuously and churned through (literally) a million chess-bots and you know what? They really sucked. They could only last in the game for about 5 moves, mostly didling with the pawns. However, when I looked at how the chess-bots were making their decisions, I found a baffling array of equations and functions. Evolution had produced a crappy program for playing chess which was almost incomprehensibly complex to me.

I know this isn’t going to convince anyone, but the point is, anyone who tells you that they know that life’s complexities are impossible or even improbable is speaking with the certainty that only blind faith can provide. And quite honestly, God didn’t give us our intellect so we could ignore it. Would it be nice for evolution if this point could be proved? Yes. Is it a fatal stumbling block? Hardly. It is well within reason to believe that it is possible, and certainly much more plausible than believing God would have set up the universe so poorly that he would have had to break his own laws to create life.

On a different note, I have difficulty understanding the faith of those who wish to see physical law breaking miracles everywhere. (This is especially prevalent in the Catholic Italian community) I like to think that every physical law and rain drop and moving electron is a blessing and a miracle. Just because they happen everyday should not lead us to grow jaded and seek out miracles that contradict them. Perhaps it is because I take to heart the warning given to my patron saint, “You see and believe. Blessed are those who do not see, and believe.” Those who build their faith on what they see as physical evidence of God’s existence blind themselves to the true majesty of God’s creation.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 4:20 PM
(0) comments

Friday, January 30, 2004

Misguided religious doctrine and fact collide in Peach State; peanut farmer, former Commander in Chief, and Habitat for Humanity founder responds:
"There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to defend our religious faith."

As if this debate had not been exausted thoroughly, Goergia school superintendent Kathy Cox is proposing that the word "evolution" be omitted from the state's public education curriculum, prompted by both the desires of local parents and undoubtedly her own misgivings about integrating into classrooms scientific discovery that might contradict a millenia-old text written by mortal men.

Jimmy Carter, who vaguely reminds me of my Grandpa Brown (except that my pop's pop is aging a little better), responded by rightfully accusing Cox of enforcing ingnorance and censorship. Further, he argues that faith and science need not be combatants:

"The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy."

Whatever your opinion on evolution or religion or the Bible or whether fossils of homo sapien ancestors ware elaborate hoaxes, the legality of regulating curriculum is a little hairy. The state (federal or local) has a compelling interest to teach its citizens the most provable and up to date information as possible, in my opinion. Even if you don't buy that argument, you might buy the converse argument: the state does not have the right to deliberately keep its citizens ignorant of the most provable and up to date information as possible. I don't feel this is a states' rights issue, either. States' rights issues are ones like minimum wage and immigration or issues where circumstances (cost of living, ability to accomodate immigration) vary. The facts and fictions of evolution absolutley do not vary from one locale to another; the attitudes toward this topic merely change.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 12:20 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Is anyone besides me bothered by the fact that voters vote for whom they think will win and not the candidate whom they think would be the best leader? Does it annoy anyone else that political media coverage is devoted to speculation rather than analysis of the candidates' ideologies and issues? Is anyone else bothered that genuine diversity of political thought is drowned out by a cry for simplicity and the demeaning of "fringe candidates"? Do any of my readers thirst for a more intellectualized political atmosphere not driven by television ratings but by consumer advocacy?

No? Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Whatever.

In other news, ASUC Apple senator Misha Leybovich has a groin of steel.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 6:56 PM
(0) comments

Sunday, January 25, 2004

Blood, Sweat, and Tears

Give blood this Friday at Pauley Ballroom (on top of the Cal student store) between 10am and 4pm. I'll be there around 11am so I can have a blood-giving race with Paul and so I can lend him some XTC CDs. Last time, Mr. Bruno walloped me and gave his pint in half the time I did, but that's because my assistant forgot to tighten my tourniquet. He also owes me a nickel because my assistant exclaimed that I had great veins, just as I had predicted.

No matter what your political affiliation, whether you're a protectionist or a proponent of free trade, whether your hero is Ralph Nader or Pat Robertson, whether you want the US out and the UN in or you're the president of Haliburton, I think we can all agree that giving blood is an free, easy, and almost painless way to save three lives. Plus you get free juice and cookies. It's better than church.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 3:14 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Comments are down.

Sigh. Looks like our vitriol will have to wait.

In the meantime, Squelch has future comedy legend Arj Barker on Monday night. Just show up to the Bear's Lair before 8pm or find us on Sproul that day to buy tickets. He's one of the funniest men on the scene right now.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 5:02 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

I'm retracting my prediction.

I no longer think Edwards will pull out before mid-March. I like the senator's momentum. I'm now switching my doubt from Edwards to Gephart. Don't you like how my predictions change once evidence against my previous predictions surfaces? Any minute now MSNBC will be writing me an email asking me to bring my wit and prognosticating abilities to their network.

I think Edwards could beat Bush, or at least come closer than anyone else. Dean has already absorbed so much mainstream criticism, and the public has long since given in to the artfully fabricated "Dean is really angry" bit that the media has been reinforcing. Kerry looks like a basset hound. Clark's head is too tiny for his body. Gephart's hair is the same color as his skin. Lieberman has a perma-frown. Sharpton is black, which to many Americans still means that he's gonna steal my bike and sell my straight-A student some crack. And Kucinich is just way too awesome for Americans to handle right now.

That leaves the amiable, Southern, slightly-left-of-centrist-lefties, Clinton-esque Edwards. He's just so damned likable. And don't let his boyish good looks deceive you: John is 52 years old. What's his secret? Obviously he's not my favorite candidate, but he's certainly far from my least favorite. I would be pleased to see a John Edwards presidency.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:15 PM
(0) comments

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Braun Drops Out; Rebecca Not Surprised.

My prediction, yet again, is that by the time the California primary rolls around, only Dean, Kerry, Gephart, Sharpton, and Kucinich will still be in. Lieberman, Edwards, and Clark will also stop spending their respective monies on an unwinnable campaign. I'm 60-40 on Gephart, and 80-20 in thinking that Kerry staying in. Sharpton and Kucinich, of course, have too much zeal (or stubburness?) to drop out. Kucinich is Nader in elf's clothing.

Braun's drop and subsequent endorsment of Dean shows yet again that women can only mildly succeed in politics if they are total sell-outs. Index Arianna Huffington and Hillary Clinton.

With the DC caucus under our belt, I'll be the first on CalJunket to say that they should get two senators and a representative. They have more people than Wyoming, and they pay federal taxes. I really don't see why there is even a debate on the matter.

Speaking of how our nation is a federation, cheers to California for having the lowest smoking rates of any US state (besides Utah, of course) at 16.4%. Jeers to Kentucky at 32.6%. This just goes to show that if you make any semi-public smoking prohibtively difficult by law and thus contribute to decreased smoking rates, then you can gently ram nearly any value system down a population's throat. I'm totally for it, too. Of course general public opinion and mainstream culture values determine law, but to a small extent law can help change public opinion. Make butt sex legal and Joe Citizen might not be so grossed out by butt sex, says I.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 10:43 PM
(0) comments

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

BOOKSWAP!!!

Come to the 3rd semesterly ASUC Bookswap!
Buy, sell, and trade with other students and cash in without the middleman!

Tuesday and Wednesday, January 20 & 21
11 am - 3 pm
Sproul Plaza

for more info ...
email: asucbookswap@uclink.berkeley.edu
web: csba's bookswap.berkeley.edu

(On a related note, David Duman and I spotted Misha Leybovich, the senator who runs the bookswap, at Baja Fresh today at lunchtime. He was wearing a hat. A really sweet hat.)

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 12:43 PM
(0) comments

Saturday, January 10, 2004

A discussion the other day with a fellow Cal Blogger got me thinking. I was arguing that debates about public policy and ideology are important and that they have a strong effect on politics. He was arguing that strategy is more important and that, for the most part, people don’t change their minds once they’ve decided their position. He went on to argue that since people weren’t going to change their minds, discussing public policy isn’t a fruitful. At the time I hesitant to cede his point about people’s hardheadedness, but I upon further reflection, I have to admit that yeah, people are pretty dogged in their beliefs and there’s not much you can do about.

Why then, do I bother arguing about for example, whether people are right to celebrate gay pride parades? The reason is I think that while people may not change their minds, hearing a countervailing opinion may dull the edge of their political will.

It all goes back to feelings vs. beliefs. Although a lot of people would have you believe that feelings and beliefs often contradict, I posit that they less often in conflict than they appear. More often than not, if someone feels that (again, for example) it’s ok to cheat on a test, when asked they’ll say, “Really, I know it’s wrong… but I feel like I have too. I’m so conflicted!” What they actually mean “Really, I don’t believe it’s wrong, but let’s just pretend, OK?” They want to appear conflicted so they don’t have to feel the societal pressure of disapproval. This is why, though more people at my high school probably cheated then were Republican, the Young Republicans had a club and the cheaters did not.

This faux-conflict is crucial. Since an individual’s interests will never be perfectly aligned with society’s it makes sense that society needs a way to dull the collective power of selfishness. Politics then, is not so much a battle to change people’s minds, but to change “society’s” mind. When a policy analyst tut-tuts Bush’s incoherent economic policy, she is not aiming to convert anyone. She is trying to introduce doubt into the mind of those with whom she disagrees. To turn them from a cohesive group who can organize and take affirmative action on their feelings, to a disorganized group unwilling to act collectively for fear of societal pressure.

Regardless of how many people agree, if no one is willing to defend the ideology, or if the only people willing to do so are clearly fools*, then no effectively led movement can form.

In Politics then, it pays to be able to justify your feelings. The Communists knew this and so they funded communist groups all around the world when they had the power to do so. In most of the developing world (where people had a real emotional hatred for the changes capitalism could bring) Communism was an acceptable school of thought, like any other. After the USSR fell, and the money dried up, these groups pretty much disappeared except where they had become part of the local power structure. It’s not like a bunch of hard core communists changed their mind the day after the Soviet collapse. Unable to socially justify their hate for capitalism, they slunk back into the shadows.

Republican’s know the value of having a good argument, too. That’s why they’ve (or rather, their many rich, rich benefactors) spent billions supporting think tanks, policy forums, and whole media enterprises in order to come up with some logic behind their… well, I guess I’m partisan now, so I’ll say it: the logic behind their anti-social agenda. After all, you know and I know that it’s wrong to steal from your children to pay your own debts, but if you have someone muddle along while occasionally saying the words "supply side economics" for half an hour, it suddenly seems to be a matter of opinion. It’s all a struggle to take ideas that would never pass the giggle test (like the idea that businesses can regulate themselves) and make them socially acceptable.

This same system can work in society’s favor as well. If the Republicans (with a little NAFTA help from Bill Clinton to work the tough crowd) hadn’t done a good job pushing the logical reasons for free trade, the US would have missed out on the economic benefits and opted for protectionism and stagnation instead.

This effect isn't the whole story. Given enough time people actually will change their minds, but in the meantime, it is my honor to participate in this contest of ideas. Now, if only I had a dependable intelligent and respectable opposition.

* Tommaso’s favorite blogging moment of 2003: Capitalist Worker referring to Petty Bourgeois as a “researcher in the field of Chicano nationalism”.

Update: fixed some gramatical errors and enahnced USSR section.

posted by Tommaso Sciortino at 9:24 PM
(0) comments

Friday, January 09, 2004

HR3687 Lays the Smack Down

108th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 3687
To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 8, 2003
Mr. OSE (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before `Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `shit', `piss', `fuck', `cunt', `asshole', and the phrases `cock sucker', `mother fucker', and `ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'.


(Huh huh. He totally just said "cock sucker.")

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:29 AM
(0) comments

Let's see those submissions!

The Heuristic Squelch is back in action this week, and the guts of our magazine go to the printer on Wednesday, January 14 at midnight. That means you have six days to submit any funny articles, newsflashes, top tens, page 18s, or generally funny ideas and try to convince us to put it in our issue. submit@squelched.com. Also, if you have any Adobe InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, or PageMaker skills, or if you have business skills and are looking to be a member of the coolest group on campus, drop us a line. feedback@squelched.com.

Look for the new issue on Sproul or in you dorm, frat, or co-op the first day of school.

posted by Rebecca C. Brown at 9:06 AM
(0) comments