Stephen Colbert vs. Santorum on UC/Cal State Education

Thanks to Artologica for this.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Rick Santorum Speaks from His Heart – California Colleges
www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

CA Proposition 16: PG&E’s outrageous, offensive, misleading initiative

Just heard an ad on the radio from the Vote Yes on Proposition 16 campaign here in California.  And got a heads up from a friend about it too. Just to cut to the chase before getting into detail – this initiative is horrendous and deceptive.  Here are some details 


From Ballotpedia.Org:
The proposed constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote of local voters before a local government could:



It is being pushed by promoters as the “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote.” bill.  But really what this is a move by PG&E to help it make more money.  Some comments/questions


1. Why is the only major donor to the Vote Yes campaign PG&E?  See here for more detail on donors, where as of today the top donors are all PG&E. 


2. Every editorial I could find came out vigorously against it:

3. Not surprisingly, many other utilities have come out against this, as it clearly favors PG&E, aka the status quo.  I am not overly sympathetic to the opinions of these other utilities but it seems that the initiative is more about reducing competition than in favoring democracy.
4. One thing that really annoys me is the component of the proposition that a two-thirds majority vote will be required before local communities can change their energy plans.  To then say that this initiative is about protecting our right to vote is just absolutely offensive.  What this is a way to try and make change of any kind very very difficult.  In this day and age, with energy becoming more and more of an issue, we should have as much flexibility as possible.  What we do not need is an initiative that requires a 2/3 majority to make changes.
5. The most astonishing aspect of the proposal has been some of the words from the head of PG&E, as reported in the Mercury News

Asked why the company was sponsoring the initiative, Darbee referred to the 2006 battle in which it spent more than $11 million to prevent Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento from defecting to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

“So it was really a decision about could we greatly diminish this kind of activity for all going forward rather than spending $10 (million) to $15 million a year of your money to invest in this,” Darbee told the shareholders. “The answer was yes.”

So basically this is there way to limit the choices of cities by putting this on a statewide ballot.  In essence, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, I can’t see why anyone would support this Proposition.  A conservative could easily see this as  PG&E trying to be the big hand of government to take away taxpayer choice.  A liberal could see this as a company using their money to buy votes and prevent choice in energy usage.  I really cannot see any potential upside in this for anyone but PG&E.  Lovely

Simple solution.  Vote No on Proposition 16.  More comprehensive solution would be to actually punish PG&E for the audacity and idiocy of this measure as well as the misleading nature of all of their ads and claims about it.  Not sure how to do that but boy do they deserve it.

Clip of Harold Varmus on the Daily Show

There really is no better advocate for Science these days than Harold Varmus. He balances politics and science incredibly well and also simultaneously advocates for applied and basic science as well as access to scientific information. Here is the clip of his latest interview on The Daily Show.

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(‘http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}

NSF looking OK in revised stimulus bill

Just downloaded what I think is the current bill that the House just passed for the stimulus.  And it looks like the National Science Foundation is coming out OK.  It says

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NSF is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a spending plan, signed by the Director, detailing its intended
allocation offunds provided in this Act within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

For research and related activities, the conference agreement provides a total
of $2,500,000,000, to remain available until September 30,2010. Within this
amount, $300,000,000 shall be available solely for the major research
instrumentation program and $200,000,000 shall be available for activities
authorized by title II of Public Law 100-570 for academic facilities modernization.
In allocating the resources provided under this heading, the conferees direct that
NSF support all research divisions and support advancements in supercomputing
technology.

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
The conference agreement includes $100,000,000 for education and human
resources, to remain available until September 30, 2010. These funds shall be
allocated as follows:
Robert Noyce Scholarship Program …………………….. .
Math and Science Partnerships …………………………… .
Professional Science Master’s Programs ……………… .
$60,000,000
25,000,000
15,000,000
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
The conference agreement includes $400,000,000 for major research
equipment and facilities construction, to remain available until September 30,
2010.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The conference agreement includes $2,000,000 for the Office of Inspector
General, to remain available until SeptemberJO, 2013.

Obama’s Science Team Big on Evolution

Much has been written and will be written about how Obama is taking science seriously.  To me, one great sign of this is that not only is evolution OK to talk about now, but – gasp – many of his science team actually have worked on evolution.   For example:

  • Eric Lander, part of Obama’s council of advisors on science and technology, has written many papers either directly or indirectly about evolution. 
  • Harold Varmus also on this Council, has written about evolution of viruses (e.g. here),
  •  Jane Lubchenco is an ecologist who in much of her work has an evolutionary ecology angle
Even John Holdren, who is more of a physicist and as far as I can tell has not written explicitly about evolution recently certainly discussed it in some of his earlier publications with Paul Ehrlich.  
So – not only is science in general and life science in particular on the upswing.  But evolution is too.  Maybe this is why Darwin endorsed Obama so many months back. 

The Bush Administration IS NOT and WAS NOT anti-science

So much has been written about the supposed anti-science stance of the Bush administration (see for example Chris Mooney, AFP, many Nobel laureates, etc  and even me).  But I have been obsessing about this in my head for some time now.  And I think it misses the point.  Bush and his administration have not really been anti-science.  There I said it.  Ready to smack me over the head?

Before you do that.  Wait.  What I think Bush is is even more insidious.  He is anti-evidence.  Or, in other words, he does not believe science should be used to discover things but instead simply as a means to an end.  Sound familiar?  This was his approach to weapons, torture, Guantanamo, gathering intelligence about US citizens, and so on.   All these things were justified because evidence and objectively testing multiple possibilities was not really needed – we knew the answer and just had to back it up with something consistent with the theory.  In essence, everything he did titled against evidence in all sorts of areas.  
So – even though he was not anti-science per se.  The anti-evidence attitude hit scientists really hard.  Science is NOT about just trying to get to an end.  It is also about discovery.  And thus I look forward to a president who believes science is a way to discover things about the world that we do not already know.

Obama indicates his clear support for science with Chu as Secretary of Energy

Well, say what you will about Steve Chu, but the fact that Obama has nominated him to be the Secretary of Energy is only a good sign for science and society as far as I am concerned.

It is a good sign for science because it shows explicitly Obama’s respect and support for science. Most recent Secretaries of Energy have been non scientists (the #s depends on whether you count an engineer as a scientist – I do – but some don’t) and Bush (who I want to say is out previous president but we still have him for another month) does not believe in evidence in any way, let alone science.

It is a good sign for society because it is important for the president to understand and respect science. So – some may criticize Chu for some issues – but none of the criticisms I have seen really hit home with me. Sure, I would like a Biologist in their in the Cabinet, but Chu seems to actually understand that the biological diversity of the planet is under threat from global change and he wants to do something about it. I cannot really ask for much more from a Physicist/Administrator. For full disclosure – I have an Adjunct position at LAwrence Berkeley Lab where Chu just happens to be the Director. So maybe I am not completely objective, but anyway, I think this is a good day all around.

Conflict between religion and evolution? Not according to the Papal Conference on Evolution …

Not to beat a dead horse here, but some people out there still think there is a absolute conflict between religious beliefs and believing that evolution occurs.  And if you still think that, you might want to check out the schedule for the Vatican Conference on Evolution (and related topics) that is going on right now (see here for the PDF and here for an outline).  
Held at the Vatican from Oct 31 – Nov 4 and sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a conference on “Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life.”  Among the speakers: Takashi Gojobori, Werner Arber, H.Em. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, David Baltimore, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Christian de Duve, Francis Collins (who is the only one of the speakers with God in the title of his talk) and Maxine Singer.  Sounds like a pretty good conference and I really wish I had been invited.  But suffice it to say that (1) the Pope has strong religious beliefs and (2) that the Pope and the Vatican are enthusiastic about evolution as a science.  
Too bad one of our VP candidates seems still stuck on the notion that we need to teach “the controversy” about evolution.  Just what controversy is that?

Nature Endorses Obama for President

Nature has an editorial (America’s choice : Article : Nature) on the US Presidential Election that is worth looking at. For those interested in the Cliff Notes Version they end the piece with

“This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.”

For more detail, I think the key point is here:

On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain. This is not a panacea. Some of the policies Obama supports — continued subsidies for corn ethanol, for example — seem misguided. The advice of experts is all the more valuable when it is diverse: ‘groupthink’ is a problem in any job. Obama seems to understands this. He tends to seek a range of opinions and analyses to ensure that his own opinion, when reached, has been well considered and exposed to alternatives. He also exhibits pragmatism — for example in his proposals for health-care reform — that suggests a keen sense for the tests reality can bring to bear on policy.

They basically reiterate my concern for the McCain-Palin platform regarding science but they do not really go far enough. McCain and Palin have expressed decidedly anti-science positions recently (well, Palin has expressed them previously too). And thus it is not simply what advisors they surround themselves with but whether they would listen to any of them. Sadly the hints are that McCain and Palin will not listen to scientific advisors on many issues. Obama has made it clear that he will. Not that he puts science above all else (nor should he) But at least he will listen and make rational decisions that include science as a component. McCain and Palin seem dead set against “evidence” of any kind much of the time (note – McCain still exhibits occasional glimpses of the reasonable person he used to be on some issues like Global Warming – but these are few and far between).

Hat tip to Oliver M. for sending this around …

Proposition 8 – My Vote

I generally shy away from non sciency topics here but occasionally a few slip in. And as I was filling out my absentee ballot I just felt I had to post something about California’s horrendous Anti-Gay-Marriage Proposition 8.  Originally, I was going to post a picture of my no vote on my absentee ballot but then  I read this New York Times article about how many states have laws that say something like

“No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of a voted official ballot for any purpose not otherwise permitted under law.”

So instead of a picture I am going to simply put words here.  And since a picture is worth 1000 words, here are mine.

No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8. No on 8.