Monday, October 12, 2009

NFLPA Commits Penalty on this Block

You may not agree with Rush Limbaugh on many of his opinions (although I am not sure I can dignify his utterances as opinions), but the NFLPA's attempt to oppose his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams is misguided. While Rush has certainly been a lightning rod for controversy with his commentary, and his opinions on Donovan McNabb and Barack Obama have clearly rankled African-American NFL players, the only difference between him and the NFL owners is that his points of view are well-publicised. And yet his political leanings may be quite in line with those of most NFL owners and players; a list of recent campaign contributions by NFL teams has been compiled here. Not surprisingly, the donations are skewed heavily to the Republicans; the party long-identified with lower taxes for the highest-earning Americans is significantly supported by some of the highest-earning Americans (i.e. professional athletes and their team owners). Of course, the reasons for the support may be beyond simply financial reasons. Thus the NFLPA may want to take a look at the true political leanings of its current ownership before it tries to block Limbaugh and his group from purchasing the Rams simply because of his bloviations.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Are you smarter than an infant?

Not likely. Check out this interesting article from Slate.

Perhaps most interesting is the idea that we become less able to take in information as we get older, or that we require ourselves to focus on particular tasks at a time (this may also explain why infants learn language more effectively that adults). Is it also possible that we are using less of our brains as we get older (most people assume we only use about ten percent of our brains)?

Monday, April 27, 2009

Most Polarized Electorate Ever?

A recent Pew Research Center study showed a wide partisan gap in President Obama's approval ratings. The news media immediately seized upon this, declaring Obama the most divisive president ever. Hyperbole aside, is this really a logical conclusion based on this data?

I disagree with this line of thinking. Rather, I think the polls better reflect what's been happening to the American electorate: right or wrong, this is the most polarized and partisan electorate in memory, and there may not be much President Obama can do about it. This is most clearly reflected by the shift in news media coverage in the last decade or so.

I grew up watching CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other network news programs which all covered the news in a neutral manner (truly "fair and balanced"). In the last decade or so, there has been a marked shift in coverage: many news programs have opted to lean politically left or right. This isn't some media conspiracy to get you to pick a side; you want this coverage, and this is bourne out in the ratings: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly host the most popular news programs in their time-slot, shows which offer clear opinions in one political direction.

(By the way, is anyone else disturbed by this report? There are way too many people buying into the factually dubious bilge propagated by Fox. And yes, this blog leans a particular direction too!)

TV news isn't the only indicator: conservative radio is wildly popular across the country, while liberal radio continues to make in-roads in this market. Even newspapers have adopted such ideology (e.g. the New York Times versus the Chicago Tribune). People no longer want to hear all the news, presented in an even and unbiased manner, or all the sides of an opinion; they want affirmation of their opinions.

Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it may better account for the polarization of the American electorate. There's no doubt some of Obama's ideas may not appeal to conservatives, but at least he more faithfully subscribes to his political principles than the Bush administration (an exercise in political versus ideological contradictions). The bottom line in all this: the Obama administration won the election, and at the very least the majority supports his ideas to bring a new direction to American legislative policies. We should remember that all of us stand to benefit should he succeed.

UPDATE: This article is along similar lines, published in yesterday's NYTimes.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Just when you think the world can't get any more stupid...

...I think we are running out of adjectives to describe the ignorance in the Republican party.

In the video, Representative Joe Barton, of Texas, questions Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate, about where oil comes from (a question any 4th grader could easily answer). A stunned Chu tries to explain this without insulting the intelligence of everyone present (little did he know, there was no intelligent life present).

What is even more stunning - Barton assumes Chu's hesitation to carefully phrase his words as meaning he is somehow puzzled by the question (did I mention he is a Nobel Prize winner?). If people can get dumber than this, then just shoot me now, please.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Fat-based Tactics

A couple of interesting policies to combat the ever-growing American waistline.

1) Both New York and Maine have proposed taxes on sugary beverages (in New York, this tax can levy as much as $3 per case of soft drink).

2) Meanwhile, United Airlines has joined several other air-carriers by charging double for passengers who cannot fit into the normal seat. This is certainly a relief for the normal-sized folks who have sat uncomfortably in the middle seat between a pair of not-so-svelte fellow travelers.

How will the public respond to these tactics? I'm sure the latter policy will generate some consternation and perhaps even rage. A legitimate case can be made for obesity being a disease, and such a policy, while beneficial to the majority (and for the cost-cutting airlines) may be viewed as unfairly discriminating by some. However, if any of these policies give someone pause next time they try to order a cruller or a 32-oz Coca Cola, consider them successful.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

'Twas the night before teabagging...

Brilliant stuff from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:



More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.

More Conservative Stupidity

Idiots.

I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.

What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.

Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.

One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.

Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?

Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?

Monday, April 13, 2009

Recession-Busters

Rather than laying off employees, a New York law firm is paying associates to take some time off, while Europe is encouraging many workers to take vacations.

I also encourage you all to check out the Ed Schultz Show's Recession Busters webpage, where the popular liberal talk-show host attempts to provide his own economic stimulus solution.

Are we finally seeing some 21st century solutions to the world-wide economic downturn?

Friday, March 20, 2009

Is the NFL recession proof?

Here's a prediction: while you may hear many MLB and NBA teams lose money in 2009 and over the next few years, most NFL teams will remain profitable and recession-proof, in spite of selling increasingly more expensive tickets and merchandise.

The reason? The NFL has taken full advantage of one of the most basic economic principles: scarcity. They're mostly withholding one of the most popular entertainment products in America, and all indications are people want more. The MLB gives you 162 games, the NBA gives you 82; the NFL gives you a mere 16. On top of this, the NFL network, now broadcasting several games a year, is largely unavailable to American audiences, as is the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. You want more football, but you mostly can't get it.

This demand is clearly borne out in the ratings, and the NFL should remain tremendously profitable as long as it continues to subscribe to this ideology. Whether or not they should sell such highly-priced tickets while accepting huge sums of public financing for their stadiums is another issue, and one I'll deal with in a later post.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Who Decided the Definition of Life?

In the wake of President Obama lifting the Bush administration's bans on stem cell research, the ethics of "destroying life" to save lives has been discussed ad nauseum. Typical of the rhetoric being produced is this article by the Tribune's John Kass. After comparing the use of embryos to help treat degenerative diseases to a dying man, Kass closes with an open ended remark: "And what happens to us, as we take other lives, in order to live?"

I think the most pertinent issue here is what our operating definition of life is. Clearly, what Kass and many theologians and political conservatives refer to is human life. At the same time, we're discussing the ethics of scientific research, and in its most reduced form, all life is sustained by the metabolic processes of the living cell. From a scientist's perspective, life is defined by the ability of the cell to efficiently sustain these functions.

However, if this is our operating definition, then what we take as life, and the protections we offer it, has to be extended much further than human life. In terms of the cell, the difference between human cells and those of animals, plants, bacteria, and other organisms is not much more than variations in genetic and protein content. And yet, we don't have much of a problem destroying bacterial, yeast, plant, and animal life for the purpose of scientific research. Our understanding of life would not have been made possible without these experiments, and so we tolerate some destruction for our ultimate benefit.

What, then, makes human life different from other life? Almost all religions have a concept of soul, which is the standard in differentiating humans from everything else. This is usually what the counter arguments to stem cell research, and the sanctity of human life, refers to. And yet, in a secular society, this isn't an acceptable operating standard. Not all religions limit the concept of soul to humans only; in Hinduism, essentially every organism, from the merest Protista to the most complex animal, contains some sort of soul. On the other hand, atheists deny such a concept entirely. It would be un-Constitutional to use one soul standard over another in the United States.

Given that, our official definition for life should more closely resemble the scientific one. Stem cell opponents will argue this will lead to all sorts of human experimentation and human cloning, the sort of behavior we associate with science-fiction stories. I don't buy this. Humans appear to have built-in moral sensors, and appear to find reprehensible any experimentation involving a human well-developed enough to resemble one of our species (there are exceptions to this, and it is that minority that has helped create this debate). With stem cells, we are utilizing a mass of cells that represents about 4-5 days of growth post-fertilization. The mass can hardly be differentiated from a colony of bacterial cells, and yet contains the potential to improve the quality of life of many fully-formed human beings.

We tolerate the destruction of life continuously to benefit our species. Is this sacrifice not worth the outcome? Don't take my word for it; next time you meet a sufferer of diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, or Parkinson's, ask them how they would enjoy a life without these debilitating afflictions.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Sports and Religion

When I first decided to blog, I resolved not to be merely reactionary, which is the modus operandi for most bloggers. My feeling is those blogs that can actually offer something new and refreshing, whether that be a product or an opinion, were those that would add the most value for consumers in this Internet Age. This is an exceptionally cynical approach and, rather than embracing it, I would encourage the rest of you to continue doing something for yourself (as most blogs and networks like facebook do).

Either way, I hope to offer something new here all the time, and I've yet to do so. The title of this post is hardly indicative of that; the role of religion in sports has been discussed ad nauseum. But that's not the direction I'm going in here.

The concept of sports fanatic is a fairly new one. In the 20th century, being a sports fanatic became an acceptable thing to be. A person can obsess over sports; it can be his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your favorite team and player and proceeding to act like a gibbering idiot at sporting events is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same feelings for that team or player. Large gatherings of 10,000+ people who share these emotions occur frequently and are socially-embraced events.

Conversely, it is quite acceptable to openly despise those who passionately follow other, opposing teams. Watching your team triumph over another on the field, diamond, pitch, or court vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of that outcome, and enables you to continue to be a jerk to those who supported the other side On the other hand, watching your team lose to the other can be a humbling, even humiliating experience (particularly when copious amounts of alcohol and testosterone are involved). Prolonged losing can lead a fan to openly question his or her own faith, and some may even jump the bandwagon (or convert) to a "winning" side.

The concept of religious fanatic... er, excuse me, devout follower is quite an older concept, perhaps 5000+ years in age. I believe the dawn of modern religion occurred when the first caveman clubbed his caveman brother on the head with a primitive mace, causing the caveman brother (not brotha, that would have been a hate crime) to see stars; this caused him to believe he was perceiving the divine, and eureka, you had religion. Quite possibly a similar event occurred repeatedly throughout history in various forms, creating the dawn of every major and minor theology known to man.

In any event, the concept of being a fervent follower of religion has been quite an acceptable thing to be for many thousands of years. A person can obsess over religion; it can become his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your religion (skullcap, burka, robes, or nothing) and titillating yourself into a manic rage at your local church/temple/mosque is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same fervent emotions for that deity/idol/inanimate object. Large gatherings of these people occur frequently at churches, temples, and in front of rocks and are socially-embraced.

It is also quite acceptable to openly despise those who follow other deities/idols/inanimate objects. Although no physical evidence exists to support any philosophy, verbalized "pimp slaps" of one faith against others vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of being "saved" upon your death (after all, the Earth is a pretty shitty place, what with all these "other" religions and all), and enables you to continue to condemn followers of all other religions to hell. On the other hand, watching another religion triumph over yours can be a humiliating, even beheading experience (just ask the Jews circa 600 AD). Prolonged losing can lead a devotee to question his or her own faith, either on his or her own or by the sword of an opposing devotee, and some may even "convert" (or jump the bandwagon) to a "winning" deity, or risk losing their heads (or even private parts; of course, converting to a religion can also lead to loss of portions of private parts, so you're kinda screwed either way).

This provides with an interesting hypothesis about our species' behavior. The same sort of emotions govern both sports fanaticism and religious fervor, and similar physical outcomes can be achieved via both obsessions. The implication is that humans are inherently obsessive as well as insecure, and require some sort of following to be able to function normally. In an era where religious fervor has faded somewhat, it would seem sports fanaticism has stepped in to fill the void (or are the two related? Hmmm. Perhaps that is why the NFL plays its games on Sunday). Of course, sports is an easy example; people around the world have a variety of obsessions, and the concept could easily be extended to, say, pop music, culture, and political ideology (which could explain the popularity of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Rush Limbaugh). Either way, its not an encouraging sign for our civilization. The solution? I recommend Xanax.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Excrement from the Right

Charles Krauthammer, come on down! Your columns continue to provide me with blog-fodder. His latest piece, "Obama's Science Fiction", is in tone more reasonable than his previous swill, but no better in content (except to fertilize my lawn with, perhaps). I didn't want to be merely reactionary in this space, but the recent spate of conservative bilge has prompted my hand.

Krauthammer continues to assume scientists lack moral values. I can't credit him with authorship of this; I've heard these arguments from the right for years, and Bush made it part of his public policy. I find the following statement particularly vapid.

"Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible."

Actually, scientists agonize over ethical decisions all the time. In fact, it's a fairly significant component of all grant applications, which provide the lifeblood of scientific research (that's money). However, this is the usual argument from conservatives, that morality and science are mutually exclusive. While oversight of all major decisions is important, and I think ethical review boards have a lot of value, the implication that people intelligent enough to author such research lack the same brain power to consider ethical implications is hogwash. Of course, there is always a small minority that ruins things for the rest of us, although the South Korean researcher a few years ago who claimed to have cloned humans successfully was proven to have made a fake claim.

It's also worth mentioning the Obama plan doesn't allow federal funding for unfettered stem cell research. Government funds cannot go to expanding the number of stem cell lines; rather, they can go towards experiments involving lines that have been obtained from privately-funded research. This was what was banned by Bush, and was effectively the United States' stem cell policy under Clinton.

The impression one gets from reading Krauthammer is that he opines that Bush's arguments (if they can be justified as such) were substantive and "morally serious" while Obama's are flippant. If that's indeed the case, perhaps the Post should consider a stricter drug-testing policy for its employees.

Not quite Stupidity 101...

...but I'm sure you didn't take these courses while at school. And finally after all these years, I can prove Underwater Basket Weaving is a course.

Stewart vs. Cramer

John Stewart's evisceration of CNBC's Jim Cramer is great entertainment, and fulfills the one component of television news commentary that is missing these days: accountability. Here is the interview, broken into 3 parts.



Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Apparently, science is amoral...

...Or, at least, scientists are, or so claims a Slate columnist.

The whole premise of the article (comparing George Bush's use of torture to Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research) is a joke. In particular, I found this paragraph particularly vile.

"The same Bush-Rove tactics are being used today in the stem-cell fight. But they're not coming from the right. They're coming from the left. Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we're in a life-and-death struggle—in this case, a scientific struggle—anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible. The war on disease is like the war on terror: Either you're with science, or you're against it."

This is fairly typical conservative spin. It represents all that is wrong with right wing of America: they'll defend you until you're born, and then you're on your own. In reality, we should be doing all we can to fight debilitating degenerative diseases. Lifting the bans on expanding the lines of available stem cells is a critical first step, but we still have a long way to go.

Embryonic stem cells are those that divide, differentiate, and specialize into all of the cells in our bodies. The brilliance of it comes from the fact that these cells are all genetically the same, and as such receive or produce some signals that cause them to become all of the various tissue types (brain, bone, skin, liver, heart, lung, etc.) in our body. Significant challenges remain to actually getting these cells to divide into particular tissue types, and then finding ways to incorporate them into the bodies of those suffering from degenerative diseases. Should we ever overcome these challenges, we may be able to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's, and MS (just to name a few).

Is this not worth the commitment to the research? The moral argument really doesn't hold here. The embryos are not derived from the eggs in a woman's body that do eventually become a person. Rather, they are derived from in vitro fertilization from eggs given by a donor's informed consent. These cells, obtained after 4-5 days of growth, are developed in a specialized in vitro fertilization clinic; bottom line, these cells are never meant to be people, and are never going to be.

And yet, they consist of the means to cure these debilitating diseases, diseases which cost people their quality of life and certainly have a great social and economic burden to all of us (this impact would make a great follow-up study). This really isn't a question of "Are you with us or against us?" Science will always continue to evolve and improve its methods; if one technique doesn't succeed or isn't allowed, others will be explored (as they have been). The primary objection to this one isn't valid, and kudos to President Obama for recognizing it, and not governing by religious ideology.

Friday, March 06, 2009

More Conservative Bilge...

Apparently I am somewhat of a masochist, because I continue to subject myself to the excrement of right-wing shill Charles Krauthammer.

Among the many objectionable statements Krauthammer ejaculates in this swill of an article, a few stood out as particularly retched.

Chiding Obama for lecturing on not finding energy alternatives: "We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?)..."

- Every honest expert has declared neither of those represents a short-term or long-term solution to the energy demands of our civilization.

Apparently, one of the problems of our financial crisis is an increasingly educated population: "Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe."

- Wow. Krauthammer appears to have a major problem with access to education in general, admonishing Obama for wishing to provide "universal access to college". Perhaps he would prefer if people remained dumb; they might find his columns insightful, then.

Finally, he reverts to the McCain-Palin (and now, Jindal) tactic of accusing Obama and Co. of fear-mongering, of taking advantage politically of the tenuous economic climate to forward his own socialist agenda.

"Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society".

Please. After Bush and Cheney stood idly by while the specter of a recession loomed, and refused to acknowledge this impending economic doom, we finally have an administration offering solutions to the ills that plague America post-Bush. Granted the solutions aren't perfect: the stimulus bills are peppered with a variety of earmark and congressional pork. Folks, that is simply politics as it is played all across the world, and no bill will pass in Congress without some sort of political favors. Indeed, if the Republicans were not so steadfastly ideological, and did not continue to appease their radical right-wing ultra-conservative constitutents, it is likely the bill would be less bad and potentially more useful. Universal access to education and health-care should not be viewed as privelege; they are fundamental human rights, and in every developed society (except one) they are treated as such.

"The Great Non Sequitur" blares as the title of the article. Who knew it refered to the writer, and not the subject?

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

As usual...

...Hitch nails it.

The U.N. resolution to prevent defamation against religions - mainly, Islam - is a joke. Cartoons drawn in Denmark or Teddy Bears named Mohammad should not offend people of "faith" - the absolutist claims of all religions rest on the rather shaky ground of the so-called unshakeable faith of its followers, and we should all not be held to such a demand. Neither is it within the jurisdiction of any governing body to protect against these ridiculous claims (not that the U.N. is a governing body, either).

The first two paragraphs from his piece sum up all that is preposterous with Islam (and all religions, really).

"The Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being. But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God's word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of "the recitation," or Quran. If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such a claim, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself."

The last sentence in particular nails the essence of the problem: often people wish to separate the religion from the people who follow it, but that is like putting the cart before the horse. Ultimately, a religion cannot exist without its followers, because it is man-made. Until we all come to accept this prerequisite as valid for all religions, such absolutist claims (and the protections offered to defend it) will continue to be perpetrated.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

What a Joke...

...the Republican Party has become. Or at least, the radical right wing, becoming increasingly synonymous with the GOP, has elucidated for the rest of us just how out of touch and desperate they have become. This week offered several revelations.

1) The latest has to be this Alan Keyes' interview.

2) Increasingly, accepting the stimulus package money has become political, with a spate of Republican governors threatening to refuse the funds. The most interesting is Bobby Jindal, whose state is facing a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit, and who has given hints that he will turn down $3.8 billion dollars in federal funds offered as part of the new stimulus package. One could argue this is putting conservative ideology over the best interests of the state (although Charlie Crist, increasingly unpopular with the national GOP, will accept the funds). More likely, this is a clear revelation that Jindal is putting his 2012 political interests over those of his state, which is disappointing. Jindal has always appeared to be a smart, practical man, but it now seems the most high profile Indian in American politics is not above the conservative ideological fray. He's had a pretty bizarre week that includes, besides his irrelevant response to Obama's Congressional Address, his story about participating in the exorcism of a college classmate. If this is the best the Republicans have to offer in 2012, then the Democrats should enjoy a healthy majority for several more years to come.

3) I wanted to post more links, but the NYTimes' Frank Rich has penned something far more informative, so check it out.

4) I am wholly unimpressed with the U.N.'s latest campaign, and so should all of you who value freedom of speech. This isn't directly related to the week that was GOP-insanity, but it's an interesting issue nonetheless, and I sincerely hope religious zealots will one day learn to ignore what other people are saying about their religions (if you have faith, it really shouldn't matter to you when I make jokes like this:

Q: How can you recognize a well-balanced Muslim?
A: He's got chips on both shoulders.

Haha - at this point you Muslims should put away your machetes and not threaten to open up a can of Fatwa on my ass). It's funny how people of "faith" always feel threatened by those with "opposing" messages (that whole sentence is a joke). This is probably because the relevance of these religions rests on trying to correlate religion with morality, a concept that completely underestimates the ability of humans to recognize fundamental distinctions between right and wrong. The simplest example of this? If you've ever heard a child exclaim "That's not fair!", you are witnessing the most basic assessment of right from wrong, an assertion from a source that lacks an academic understanding of religious philosophy, yet is able make such a judgement nonetheless. Ultimately, religion (and ridiculous campaigns like the UN's to defend it from "profanity") undermines human intelligence and its capacity to learn and grow as it struggles to stay relevant in this information age.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Un-intelligible Design

Intelligent design proponents have long argued that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

If that is indeed the case, what a cluttered mind that cause must have.

When the human genome project was completed a few years ago, one of its most stunning revelations was just how few genes we had, roughly 30000 (as opposed to 100000, a number fitting a seemingly complex organism such as ourselves). To put this into some context, the roundworm, Caenorhabditis elegans, a popular model organism for biological studies (particularly development), has about 20000 genes. Drosophila, the fruit fly used widely in genetic studies, has about 16000 genes.

More interestingly, the coding regions of our DNA (the genes that code for the proteins and RNA that are the business end of genetics) make up around 1.5-2% of our entire genome. So what about the rest of our DNA?

Much of the remaining 98-99% of "non-coding" sequences consists of repeated sequences and redundancies. Most fascinatingly, a large chunk of the genome contains pseudogenes - dead copies of genes we don't use. On the face of it, this appears to be a remarkably inefficient way of organizing - or creating, if you will - the portion of the cells that is mostly responsible for who and what we are. If some entity was in charge of putting all this together, then it did a stunningly poor job.

Really, what our understanding of the genome, post-Human Genome Project, provides for us is perhaps our most relevant and comprehensive historical document. Dead copies of genes aren't there because a creator thought it would be fun; they are once-functioning remnants of evolution that allow us to trace our journey along this pathway. By studying them and comparing them with other organisms, we may be able to improve our understanding of evolutionary relationships.

This is essentially the next major challenge following the completion of the human genomic sequence. By a process called gene annotation, we can attach relevant biological information to these genes. Potentially, by better understanding pseudogenes, we may be able to reconstruct, from a genetic point of view, how we arrived at the point we did. It will provide a fascinating look at the molecular basis, and consequences of, natural selection.

The best comparison for this process may be the evolution of Microsoft Windows. Since it was initially produced in the early to mid-1980s, the Windows' code has been added to and updated, producing a behemoth that perhaps no one but the most hardcore techie geeks could appreciate. By and large, many of the problems and complaints people have with Windows is this architecture, which has led to a cluttered and (seemingly) poorly organized code. And yet, the operating system survives and thrives, problems and all (perhaps due to good marketing, but hey, that's how survival of the fittest works). And while the cluttered code has produced the best-selling operating system on the planet, I'm sure anyone would deign to call it intelligently designed.

I've found the simplest explanation is generally the best one, for many things. Rather than believe a creator has produced a genome that is nearly 99% non-coding, and significantly redundant, it simply makes more sense that our genetic code has evolved and improved by natural means over millions of years. Of course, it is perhaps with chagrin that some folks must accept being evolutionarily linked to chimpanzees and pigs. However, we've just come off of eight years of being led by George Bush; if anything, it is the the chimpanzees that should be upset by the comparison.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Allow myself to introduce....uhh...myself...

We take ourselves way too seriously.

As a scientist, I one day hope to isolate the genes responsible for making man feel he is the epitome of the universe. And then I will delete them.

Let's face it, we're really not that important. As Douglas Adams once pointed out, if you took the population of organisms in the universe and divided it by the area, you'd get basically zero. We don't even register. And yet, people somehow gain the sense that they are the center of the known universe. Clearly, there are some genes perpetrating a clever biochemical joke here, and I aim to expose this one day. In the meanwhile, I will settle for defeating the physical manifestation of this genetic pathway.

So as the title suggests, I hope to enlighten you, the captivated reader with your sponge-like brain, waiting to soak up information from a learned individual such as myself. Specifically, I'd like to focus on the sciences, and make them more accessible to you, the masses. However, no topic is off-limits, and I will inject my occasionally caustic interjections into my commentary. If I offend in the process, well then, that's kind of the point. For example:

Q: What's the difference between cowboy hats and tampons?
A: Cowboy hats are for ass holes.

This is the sort of enlightening information I wish to provide, and in the manner I wish to present it. No doubt, even now you say to yourself what an eye-opening observation that was, and how much better your life is now that you know it (especially if you are the sort of asshole who wears cowboy hats). So tune in regularly (or irregularly, in this case - I'm not very organized) and watch your IQ increase - or your money back!