Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's providence he was catched
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holla boys, holla boys, let the bells ring.
Holla boys, holla boys, God save the King!
And what should we do with him? Burn him!
Guy Fawkes Day, commemorated on - appropriately - November 5th, celebrates the downfall of the Gunpowder Plot, led by Fawkes and members of a Catholic conspiracy to bring down the Houses of Parliament in London on 11/05/1605.
I learned the poem above when I was much younger, before it was given a storyline for my generation in the movie "V for Vendetta." And even though I don't celebrate with festivities like in England and many of the former British commonwealths, I still like to remember the story of the Plot and this poem.
For most of the rest of the world, Guy Fawkes Day slips by unnoticed as what is now called Bonfire Day in Labrador, British Columbia, and Newfoundland in Canada. New Zealand and South Africa commemorate the day with fireworks shows, while Australia stopped its celebrations of Nov. 5th due to the banning of the public use of fireworks. In Britain, where the largest celebrations occur, people burn effigies of Fawkes and build bonfires which they cook in, not dissimilar to the American Fourth of July and our traditions of fireworks and backyard barbeques.
So my friends, if even for just a moment, remember, remember the Fifth of November - if nothing else, it marks one of the first times a major terrorist plot was thwarted by a government... 404 years ago today.
05 November 2009
04 November 2009
The Quarter-Term Elections
For those of you who don't follow politics, as I'm sure many of you do not, yesterday was Election Day for the mid-midterm elections and special elections from around the country. There were a few interesting races, made even more interesting after the votes were tallied.
In Virginia, Bob McDonnell (R) beat R. Creigh Deeds, a Democrat, by a margin of 18% to become the first Republican governor of that state in eight years. In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent Governor Jon Corzine by 5% to take that state's top job.
These two races matter mostly because they seem to be indicative of not only the political sentiments in the New England area, but also because they are a sort of referendum of the job President Obama is doing. Of course, it's very difficult to say one way or another whether this is a microcosm of the way the whole country feels, given that it's a political off-year, and the sample size represents only two out of 100 states, but the very fact that two Republicans defeated two Democrats - one an incumbent governor - in typically-blue New England in races for which the President made robo-calls and campaigned in both states on behalf of the Democrats shows just how weakened the President's power has become in recent days. Given that Obama decisively won both states and split Independent voters in 2008, the dramatic switch to right-leaning Independent voting patterns is telling. It will be very interesting to see how the President responds in the next year leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, and whether that provides a clearer picture of the political spectrum of the American voter.
Other important races around the country did get shunted to the side in the media reporting of the two gubernatorial races. Here's a breakdown:
NY-23 Congressional Race: This one was particularly interesting because the Republican candidate in the race (Dierdre Scozzafava) dropped out just a few days ago due to wilting support, and supported the DEMOCRATIC candidate over the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. If I'm correct, this represents the first true showing of the schism between the libertarian-leaning GOP and the "moderate" GOP. The Tea Party-type conservative members, who are really much closer to anarchists than conservatives, have been stirring the political pot lately in response to the socialist tendencies of the current Congress and White House. This makes sense: when one party goes to an extreme, the other must become more extremist to balance it out. The GOP started it with the neoconservative ideology of President George W. Bush in 2000, and the country as a whole after 2004 pushed back so hard that it made it possible for an ultra-liberal extremist like Barack Obama (or even Hillary Clinton, had she won the nomination) to beat out another neoconservative like John McCain. In response, ultra-conservative groups and candidates have been springing up to counteract that shift in ideology. Strangely, perhaps even ironically, it's probably going to take a revolution, as the ultra-conservatives like the Ron Paul Revolutionists and the Tea Party activists suggest, to bring the country back to the middle.
NYC Mayor: No big surprise, Michael Bloomberg won another term as Mayor, easily defeating William Thompson by 50,000 votes.
CA-10 Congressional: Another big surprise - Democrat John Garamendi won the seat 53%-42% over Republican David Harmer.
Maine Gay Marriage Repeal: Voters in Maine agreed to reject the existing law that allows same-sex couples to marry in the state, and allows religious groups and individuals to refuse to marry same-sex couples if they choose. It's a setback for gay-rights activists, but with the trend of the country to be more accepting of gay issues, I would imagine this repeal will eventually be repealed itself in the near future.
Maine Medical Marijuana: Voters approved a measure to expand medical marijuana usage and coverage to more treatment plans, and to create a regulatory system to oversee distribution.
Washington Domestic Partnerships: With 51% of precincts reporting as of this writing, the vote stands at 51%-49% in favor of allowing domestic partnerships with all the rights and responsbilities of marriage, without calling their living arrangement a marriage.
Here in Arizona, I cast my ballot on exactly one question: extending an already-existing tax of $0.79 per $100.00 on property to continue to fund the Mesa Unified School District #4. I parked, drew my line, got my sticker, and went home. Seriously, voting isn't supposed to be that simple! How did I vote on the tax extension? I'm not telling, but whether I voted for it or against it, it did pass by a considerable margin, so property owners, be prepared to pay the same amount in MUSD taxes as you have been for the last decade.
In Virginia, Bob McDonnell (R) beat R. Creigh Deeds, a Democrat, by a margin of 18% to become the first Republican governor of that state in eight years. In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent Governor Jon Corzine by 5% to take that state's top job.
These two races matter mostly because they seem to be indicative of not only the political sentiments in the New England area, but also because they are a sort of referendum of the job President Obama is doing. Of course, it's very difficult to say one way or another whether this is a microcosm of the way the whole country feels, given that it's a political off-year, and the sample size represents only two out of 100 states, but the very fact that two Republicans defeated two Democrats - one an incumbent governor - in typically-blue New England in races for which the President made robo-calls and campaigned in both states on behalf of the Democrats shows just how weakened the President's power has become in recent days. Given that Obama decisively won both states and split Independent voters in 2008, the dramatic switch to right-leaning Independent voting patterns is telling. It will be very interesting to see how the President responds in the next year leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, and whether that provides a clearer picture of the political spectrum of the American voter.
Other important races around the country did get shunted to the side in the media reporting of the two gubernatorial races. Here's a breakdown:
NY-23 Congressional Race: This one was particularly interesting because the Republican candidate in the race (Dierdre Scozzafava) dropped out just a few days ago due to wilting support, and supported the DEMOCRATIC candidate over the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. If I'm correct, this represents the first true showing of the schism between the libertarian-leaning GOP and the "moderate" GOP. The Tea Party-type conservative members, who are really much closer to anarchists than conservatives, have been stirring the political pot lately in response to the socialist tendencies of the current Congress and White House. This makes sense: when one party goes to an extreme, the other must become more extremist to balance it out. The GOP started it with the neoconservative ideology of President George W. Bush in 2000, and the country as a whole after 2004 pushed back so hard that it made it possible for an ultra-liberal extremist like Barack Obama (or even Hillary Clinton, had she won the nomination) to beat out another neoconservative like John McCain. In response, ultra-conservative groups and candidates have been springing up to counteract that shift in ideology. Strangely, perhaps even ironically, it's probably going to take a revolution, as the ultra-conservatives like the Ron Paul Revolutionists and the Tea Party activists suggest, to bring the country back to the middle.
NYC Mayor: No big surprise, Michael Bloomberg won another term as Mayor, easily defeating William Thompson by 50,000 votes.
CA-10 Congressional: Another big surprise - Democrat John Garamendi won the seat 53%-42% over Republican David Harmer.
Maine Gay Marriage Repeal: Voters in Maine agreed to reject the existing law that allows same-sex couples to marry in the state, and allows religious groups and individuals to refuse to marry same-sex couples if they choose. It's a setback for gay-rights activists, but with the trend of the country to be more accepting of gay issues, I would imagine this repeal will eventually be repealed itself in the near future.
Maine Medical Marijuana: Voters approved a measure to expand medical marijuana usage and coverage to more treatment plans, and to create a regulatory system to oversee distribution.
Washington Domestic Partnerships: With 51% of precincts reporting as of this writing, the vote stands at 51%-49% in favor of allowing domestic partnerships with all the rights and responsbilities of marriage, without calling their living arrangement a marriage.
Here in Arizona, I cast my ballot on exactly one question: extending an already-existing tax of $0.79 per $100.00 on property to continue to fund the Mesa Unified School District #4. I parked, drew my line, got my sticker, and went home. Seriously, voting isn't supposed to be that simple! How did I vote on the tax extension? I'm not telling, but whether I voted for it or against it, it did pass by a considerable margin, so property owners, be prepared to pay the same amount in MUSD taxes as you have been for the last decade.
01 November 2009
Sudoku Math
I enjoy puzzles. I always have. Crosswords, logic puzzles, cryptograms, and number puzzles. That said, the Japanese "sudoku" puzzle is actually a fairly recent source of enjoyment for me. I never learned about them when growing up, and only did my first one while I was still in college.
So today, while I was working on a sudoku puzzle, I started to wonder how many different combinations of those 81 digits there could possibly be. Now, I'm no mathematician, but others are, and a quick Google search gave me my answer: there are 6,670,903,752,021,072,936,960 possible LEGAL sudoku number puzzle combinations.
Or in word form: six sextillion, six hundred seventy quintillion, nine hundred three quadrillion, seven hundred fifty-two trillion, twenty-one billion, seventy-two million, nine hundred thirty-six thousand, nine hundred sixty. That is (really roughly) 6.67 x 10^21 puzzles. That's about three times more puzzle combinations than there are atoms in a standard U.S. penny. It's also about 300 times more puzzles than there are red blood cells in the adult human body. And it's about 8,130,000,000 times the amount of U.S. dollars in circulation around the world as of 2007.
A guy by the name of Bertram Felgenhauer and his partner Frazer Jarvis came up with the calculation for this number back in 2005: (2^15)(3^8)(5^7)(27,204,267,971) = (9!)(72^2)(2^7)(27,204,267,971) = 6.67*10^21 puzzles.
However, the number of essentially different puzzles, meaning puzzles which aren't so close to being alike that all you'd have to do is swap a couple numbers and it's pretty much the same for everything else was calculated to be a mere 5,472,730,538 puzzles by Mr. Jarvis and his partner Ed Russell.
Why am I posting this information? Didn't I know it would make most people have a headache by the time they finished reading? Yes. Absolutely. I just found it interesting and wanted to write. So there. Point of the post: go do a sudoku puzzle with this new perspective on just how many combinations there could possibly be to fit those numbers into there. It'll blow your mind (again)!
So today, while I was working on a sudoku puzzle, I started to wonder how many different combinations of those 81 digits there could possibly be. Now, I'm no mathematician, but others are, and a quick Google search gave me my answer: there are 6,670,903,752,021,072,936,960 possible LEGAL sudoku number puzzle combinations.
Or in word form: six sextillion, six hundred seventy quintillion, nine hundred three quadrillion, seven hundred fifty-two trillion, twenty-one billion, seventy-two million, nine hundred thirty-six thousand, nine hundred sixty. That is (really roughly) 6.67 x 10^21 puzzles. That's about three times more puzzle combinations than there are atoms in a standard U.S. penny. It's also about 300 times more puzzles than there are red blood cells in the adult human body. And it's about 8,130,000,000 times the amount of U.S. dollars in circulation around the world as of 2007.
A guy by the name of Bertram Felgenhauer and his partner Frazer Jarvis came up with the calculation for this number back in 2005: (2^15)(3^8)(5^7)(27,204,267,971) = (9!)(72^2)(2^7)(27,204,267,971) = 6.67*10^21 puzzles.
However, the number of essentially different puzzles, meaning puzzles which aren't so close to being alike that all you'd have to do is swap a couple numbers and it's pretty much the same for everything else was calculated to be a mere 5,472,730,538 puzzles by Mr. Jarvis and his partner Ed Russell.
Why am I posting this information? Didn't I know it would make most people have a headache by the time they finished reading? Yes. Absolutely. I just found it interesting and wanted to write. So there. Point of the post: go do a sudoku puzzle with this new perspective on just how many combinations there could possibly be to fit those numbers into there. It'll blow your mind (again)!
30 October 2009
Happy Halloween!
Happy Halloween, my friendly ghosts and ghouls! I hope your day is filled with plenty of fun, frights, family, and of course, sugary sweets. After all, this is basically the only day of the year besides Thanksgiving when gorging yourself on a particular food item is not only allowed, but encouraged. I myself will be digging into a bag of chocolate-covered pretzels tomorrow night while handing out candy to trick-or-treaters.
Sadly, my family typically does not get into the Halloween spirit. We don't dress up (though, I probably would if I had a reason... dressing up is no fun if you're simply going to sit at home), we don't decorate (I carved a pumpkin, but the rest of the house is barren), and we don't have any fun with it. For us, it's yet another excuse to eat junk food. Sad but true.
To be fair, when we were all younger, we did do the costumed, trick-or-treat, candy thing. I remember one year I was a weatherman who'd been hit by lightning... hair standing up, "burn" marks, the whole nine yards. I was also a black hole back in my astronomy phase as a little kid, but I don't remember much of that one. But now that we're all grown up, we only celebrate the Big Four Holidays: Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, and New Year's (with 4th of July being a semi-annual reason to stay up late and watch fireworks).
When I get my own place, I vow never to go a year without decorations of some kind for all the major holidays. I mean, shouldn't there be like a "Halloween Carol" movie for those Scrooges out there who dislike All Hallow's Eve? It's the one time a year you get to get away from yourself and be something or someone you aren't! Oh well, there's always next year.
As an aside, those of you who are actually interested in my crusade to keep funding for the NSF's political science department: no new news on the amendment's passage or failure. There's been no action on it since it was introduced on the Senate floor on Oct. 13. Updates remain forthcoming.
Sadly, my family typically does not get into the Halloween spirit. We don't dress up (though, I probably would if I had a reason... dressing up is no fun if you're simply going to sit at home), we don't decorate (I carved a pumpkin, but the rest of the house is barren), and we don't have any fun with it. For us, it's yet another excuse to eat junk food. Sad but true.
To be fair, when we were all younger, we did do the costumed, trick-or-treat, candy thing. I remember one year I was a weatherman who'd been hit by lightning... hair standing up, "burn" marks, the whole nine yards. I was also a black hole back in my astronomy phase as a little kid, but I don't remember much of that one. But now that we're all grown up, we only celebrate the Big Four Holidays: Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, and New Year's (with 4th of July being a semi-annual reason to stay up late and watch fireworks).
When I get my own place, I vow never to go a year without decorations of some kind for all the major holidays. I mean, shouldn't there be like a "Halloween Carol" movie for those Scrooges out there who dislike All Hallow's Eve? It's the one time a year you get to get away from yourself and be something or someone you aren't! Oh well, there's always next year.
As an aside, those of you who are actually interested in my crusade to keep funding for the NSF's political science department: no new news on the amendment's passage or failure. There's been no action on it since it was introduced on the Senate floor on Oct. 13. Updates remain forthcoming.
27 October 2009
My DBacks Pumpkin Carving Contest Entry
The Diamondbacks are holding a pumpkin carving contest, with the prize for the winner being a Brandon Webb autographed jersey. Here's a photo of the entry I submitted:
23 October 2009
Updates From the Floor
First off, thank you to all of you who read my blog posting about Sen. Coburn's amendment to cut political science funding from the National Science Foundation, and a bigger thank you to those of you who called your respective senators and asked them to vote it down (I know at least two people who mentioned to me that they called). You do your country a service by being active.
As far as an update on the amendment itself, I was hoping that it would come to a vote this week, but that didn't happen. Due to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote on the appropriations bill (HR 2847), the vote probably won't happen until next week. Good news for those of you who read this and still want to call your senators - you have time. To help in this endeavor, here is a very cool website I found with contact information for everyone in Congress (websites, emails, and fax numbers). To find a number, click on the Senator's name and check out his or her contact page. The Complete List of Email Addresses and Fax Numbers for the U.S. Congress and Governors.
In other news, AKA baseball, barring a miracle comeback from the Angels tomorrow night, it appears that the World Series will feature one of those two teams taking on the defending World Champion Philadelphia Phillies. This means my predictions of a Cardinals-Red Sox series and a corresponding Cardinals victory were completely destroyed. In fact, of all my predictions, I only got two right this postseason: the Phillies beat the Rockies. In all the other series, I incorrectly predicted the Cardinals, Red Sox, and Twins to win in the Division Series games. Bummer. Glad I didn't put any money on my predictions!
Tomorrow is the 7th anniversary celebration of Hot Corner Sports Cards, out in Mesa, Arizona, where I go occasionally to pick up a pack of cards or some supplies to (finally) organize my card collection, which used to be sitting in a shoebox in my closet; it now resides in 3 big 3" three-ring binders and two 1" three-ring binders. My goal is to start finishing some of the sets I really like, such as the 2009 Allen and Ginters cards, 2002 Donruss Studio, and 2001 Pacific (all baseball). The Allen and Ginter cards are extra-special because of a couple bonuses I rather enjoy. First, there is a parallel insert card set of "code cards." These 100 cards feature a special border and symbols which are supposed to be used to decode a secret message. You then contact the Topps company with the message, and if you are the first to decode it, you win a special set of all the A&G autographed cards in this year's set. Now, the winner's already been determined, but I want to see if I can collect all 100 cards and figure it out for myself without looking at the answer (which is posted online, if you want to search for it). The other thing I like about the A&G set is its inclusion of parallel mini cards. They come in a few types: regular minis, minis with two different types of backs, black bordered minis, and minis without numbers. There are 350 of each type, which gives a collector like me 1,750 cards to go after. Add in the 350 base cards, 100 parallel cards, a few other special insert minis, relic cards, and autographs, and I'm looking at somewhere around 3,700 cards total I can try and go for. It's certainly going to be a project!
Aside from this, the job hunt continues. I applied for holiday work at Barnes and Noble Bookstore, so we'll see if anything comes of that. I know I got a good review from one person there, who said she was going to "put a sticky note" on my resume that I was a higher-than-average candidate. We shall see.
I will add more updates on various things as I get them, as well as another political post in the next couple days. I had a fun conversation with Ryan regarding faculty and education policy that I want to write about. So look for that, and have a good week!
As far as an update on the amendment itself, I was hoping that it would come to a vote this week, but that didn't happen. Due to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote on the appropriations bill (HR 2847), the vote probably won't happen until next week. Good news for those of you who read this and still want to call your senators - you have time. To help in this endeavor, here is a very cool website I found with contact information for everyone in Congress (websites, emails, and fax numbers). To find a number, click on the Senator's name and check out his or her contact page. The Complete List of Email Addresses and Fax Numbers for the U.S. Congress and Governors.
In other news, AKA baseball, barring a miracle comeback from the Angels tomorrow night, it appears that the World Series will feature one of those two teams taking on the defending World Champion Philadelphia Phillies. This means my predictions of a Cardinals-Red Sox series and a corresponding Cardinals victory were completely destroyed. In fact, of all my predictions, I only got two right this postseason: the Phillies beat the Rockies. In all the other series, I incorrectly predicted the Cardinals, Red Sox, and Twins to win in the Division Series games. Bummer. Glad I didn't put any money on my predictions!
Tomorrow is the 7th anniversary celebration of Hot Corner Sports Cards, out in Mesa, Arizona, where I go occasionally to pick up a pack of cards or some supplies to (finally) organize my card collection, which used to be sitting in a shoebox in my closet; it now resides in 3 big 3" three-ring binders and two 1" three-ring binders. My goal is to start finishing some of the sets I really like, such as the 2009 Allen and Ginters cards, 2002 Donruss Studio, and 2001 Pacific (all baseball). The Allen and Ginter cards are extra-special because of a couple bonuses I rather enjoy. First, there is a parallel insert card set of "code cards." These 100 cards feature a special border and symbols which are supposed to be used to decode a secret message. You then contact the Topps company with the message, and if you are the first to decode it, you win a special set of all the A&G autographed cards in this year's set. Now, the winner's already been determined, but I want to see if I can collect all 100 cards and figure it out for myself without looking at the answer (which is posted online, if you want to search for it). The other thing I like about the A&G set is its inclusion of parallel mini cards. They come in a few types: regular minis, minis with two different types of backs, black bordered minis, and minis without numbers. There are 350 of each type, which gives a collector like me 1,750 cards to go after. Add in the 350 base cards, 100 parallel cards, a few other special insert minis, relic cards, and autographs, and I'm looking at somewhere around 3,700 cards total I can try and go for. It's certainly going to be a project!
Aside from this, the job hunt continues. I applied for holiday work at Barnes and Noble Bookstore, so we'll see if anything comes of that. I know I got a good review from one person there, who said she was going to "put a sticky note" on my resume that I was a higher-than-average candidate. We shall see.
I will add more updates on various things as I get them, as well as another political post in the next couple days. I had a fun conversation with Ryan regarding faculty and education policy that I want to write about. So look for that, and have a good week!
12 October 2009
Is Political Science A Science?
Last week, I read an interesting article from The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "Senator Proposes an End to Federal Support for Political Science." In it, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was reported as having submitted an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Justice, Commerce, Science, and Related Agencies for FY2010 (H.R. 2847 - link goes to the Library of Congress search page. Search for HR 2847). This amendment, S.A. 2631, says:
When I called, she answered, and I introduced myself and said I had just read the Chronicle news story, and wanted more information about why the Senator was so keen on stopping political science research in the National Science Foundation. Instead of sidestepping me, since I wasn't a constituent of Sen. Coburn (as I've seen happen many times before), Ms. Pineda took almost 40 minutes out of her schedule to talk with me and help me understand the Senator's point of view on the issue. I was impressed, to say the least.
Here's the argument according to Ms. Pineda on behalf of Sen. Coburn: political science, as it stands, is not a hard science. It does not bring about breakthroughs and developments which can help humanity - as sciences like chemistry, biology, engineering, etc can (she called them "transformative results") - and it creates very few, if any, jobs in the national job market. Political science, as a social science, has trouble even producing fact from theories, since it cannot demonstrably prove any of its conjectures.
Ms. Pineda also provided me with a copy of the research that the Senator's office had done in support of their claim. On the one hand, NSF-"hard"-science projects certainly do produce transformative results: biofuels research, medical engineering for disabled persons, a microchip-sized fan for laptop computers which helps with cooling the system more efficiently, and "fiber-reinforced concrete" which has the ability to bend without cracking or breaking to a certain point and is 40% lighter in weight. On the other side of the coin, the NSF programs in political science that they listed included answering the question "why do political candidates make vague statements, and what are the consequences?" NSF also held a conference in the effects of YouTube on the 2008 election cycle, research by universities studying why white middle-class voters vote Republican, and the production of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" for coverage of the 2008 Republican and Democratic National Conventions.
On the surface, it certainly seems like a lopsided use of taxpayer dollars. But the real thing that struck me in the Senator's research was a line which read, "The National Science Foundation has misspent tens of millions of dollars examining political science issues which in reality have little, if anything, to do with science."
I started to wonder, what constitutes "science?" According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997), "science n. 1. an area of knowledge that is an object of study." (#2 deals with "natural science" which in my mind is a substrate of science itself and not a definition of just the word science.) The word hails from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge," and according to a variety of internet definitions, refers best to the system of practices which result in the production of a prediction or a predictable outcome for an event. In contemporary form, science is defined by the use of the scientific method, the process of developing a theory, testing that theory, observing and then analyzing results for any given event.
Obviously, we all associate science as dealing with subjects like chemistry (soda pop, anyone?), biology (cancer research), physics (Isaac Newton), and applied sciences such as engineering or health science. We even recognize to some extent "formal science" in the field of mathematics, even though mathematics does not conform to the scientific method. Why not political science - or social sciences as a whole?
I believe that political science research can produce transformative results in society, even though those may not be monetary or tangible or affecting the creation of jobs. NSF-sponsored research on the continuing trends of globalization, for example, with respect to developing societies, when given the weight of validity equal to other observed and verifiable events as a science, may in turn help us preserve cultures and histories which would otherwise be lost to oblivion as a result of rapid forced modernization. Studying how people react in times of crisis could help our leaders produce better responsiveness and readiness plans for a major disaster. Here in Arizona, studying the aftereffects of propositions like Clean Elections Law could help us develop a better system for ensuring fairness in campaign elections reform (this one is actually ongoing, by the way).
Do these studies create jobs? No. Do they produce some tangible good that you can go out and buy? No. Are they any less important to study than the projects in the "hard" sciences? No. And here's the important question: could an entity not backed by government funding adequately carry out research like this? My answer is probably not.
This brings me to my final point. One thing in both the research provided by Sen. Coburn's office and in my conversation with Ms. Pineda that I found some fault in was the argument that any number of smaller, non-governmental entities could carry out research like this. For example, the Coburn research says "The [American National Studies grant] is to 'inform explanations of election outcomes.' The University of Michigan may have some interesting theories about recent elections, but Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions."
While it is true that major news networks and a wide number of internet spectators (yours truly being in a position through this blog to provide a qualified comment) do help with political research and commentary, for the most part those entities provide opinion analysis and a few major statistics for the benefit of the current television audience that day. It's a one-and-done conversation between talking heads about the highlights of white or black or Hispanic voters in rural California that isn't comprehended, much less a matter of concern, for a television audience with an attention span numbering in the tens of seconds. Why else would TV news have a flashy graphic every 30 seconds?
This is not research. This is not an acceptable form of applying scientific principles to observed events in order to try to predict the outcome. And it certainly is not something that can be peer reviewed, thought out, and rationalized in a manner which befits the scientific community.
Science is an area of knowledge that is the object of study. That includes social sciences just as much as hard sciences, and political research deserves the backing grants and funding from the government just as much as anything else the NSF researches. As for the argument that political science studies some things which may seem like a waste of money or tries to answer questions that a private survey corporation can do just as easily, well, the annual appropriations bills for the United States currently contain so much money for pork projects that it's not even funny, including millions of dollars for scientific projects such as "$4,545,000 for wood utilization research in 10 states by 19 senators and 10 representatives (engineering)," "$1,791,000 by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) for swine odor and manure management research in Ames (chemistry)," and "$150,000 by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), then-Rep. Thomas Allen (D-Maine), and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) for the Maine Department of Natural Resources to conduct lobster research (I'll call this one biology)." These examples are from Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book 2009.
I urge the Senators from Arizona and across the nation to vote no this week (as I believe that is when it comes for a vote) on SA 2631, amending HR 2847.
SA 2631. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2847, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:This got me thinking, since as a political science major at college this was, and still is, very important to me. So, being a good little politico, I called up Senator Coburn's Washington, DC office. I wasn't really expecting anything. Just to maybe talk to one of the Senator's interns, have my comments taken down, and then go about my business and call Senators Kyl and McCain to also voice my opinion. Instead, I got to talk with one of the Senator's staff members, Charlotte Pineda.
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation.
When I called, she answered, and I introduced myself and said I had just read the Chronicle news story, and wanted more information about why the Senator was so keen on stopping political science research in the National Science Foundation. Instead of sidestepping me, since I wasn't a constituent of Sen. Coburn (as I've seen happen many times before), Ms. Pineda took almost 40 minutes out of her schedule to talk with me and help me understand the Senator's point of view on the issue. I was impressed, to say the least.
Here's the argument according to Ms. Pineda on behalf of Sen. Coburn: political science, as it stands, is not a hard science. It does not bring about breakthroughs and developments which can help humanity - as sciences like chemistry, biology, engineering, etc can (she called them "transformative results") - and it creates very few, if any, jobs in the national job market. Political science, as a social science, has trouble even producing fact from theories, since it cannot demonstrably prove any of its conjectures.
Ms. Pineda also provided me with a copy of the research that the Senator's office had done in support of their claim. On the one hand, NSF-"hard"-science projects certainly do produce transformative results: biofuels research, medical engineering for disabled persons, a microchip-sized fan for laptop computers which helps with cooling the system more efficiently, and "fiber-reinforced concrete" which has the ability to bend without cracking or breaking to a certain point and is 40% lighter in weight. On the other side of the coin, the NSF programs in political science that they listed included answering the question "why do political candidates make vague statements, and what are the consequences?" NSF also held a conference in the effects of YouTube on the 2008 election cycle, research by universities studying why white middle-class voters vote Republican, and the production of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" for coverage of the 2008 Republican and Democratic National Conventions.
On the surface, it certainly seems like a lopsided use of taxpayer dollars. But the real thing that struck me in the Senator's research was a line which read, "The National Science Foundation has misspent tens of millions of dollars examining political science issues which in reality have little, if anything, to do with science."
I started to wonder, what constitutes "science?" According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997), "science n. 1. an area of knowledge that is an object of study." (#2 deals with "natural science" which in my mind is a substrate of science itself and not a definition of just the word science.) The word hails from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge," and according to a variety of internet definitions, refers best to the system of practices which result in the production of a prediction or a predictable outcome for an event. In contemporary form, science is defined by the use of the scientific method, the process of developing a theory, testing that theory, observing and then analyzing results for any given event.
Obviously, we all associate science as dealing with subjects like chemistry (soda pop, anyone?), biology (cancer research), physics (Isaac Newton), and applied sciences such as engineering or health science. We even recognize to some extent "formal science" in the field of mathematics, even though mathematics does not conform to the scientific method. Why not political science - or social sciences as a whole?
I believe that political science research can produce transformative results in society, even though those may not be monetary or tangible or affecting the creation of jobs. NSF-sponsored research on the continuing trends of globalization, for example, with respect to developing societies, when given the weight of validity equal to other observed and verifiable events as a science, may in turn help us preserve cultures and histories which would otherwise be lost to oblivion as a result of rapid forced modernization. Studying how people react in times of crisis could help our leaders produce better responsiveness and readiness plans for a major disaster. Here in Arizona, studying the aftereffects of propositions like Clean Elections Law could help us develop a better system for ensuring fairness in campaign elections reform (this one is actually ongoing, by the way).
Do these studies create jobs? No. Do they produce some tangible good that you can go out and buy? No. Are they any less important to study than the projects in the "hard" sciences? No. And here's the important question: could an entity not backed by government funding adequately carry out research like this? My answer is probably not.
This brings me to my final point. One thing in both the research provided by Sen. Coburn's office and in my conversation with Ms. Pineda that I found some fault in was the argument that any number of smaller, non-governmental entities could carry out research like this. For example, the Coburn research says "The [American National Studies grant] is to 'inform explanations of election outcomes.' The University of Michigan may have some interesting theories about recent elections, but Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions."
While it is true that major news networks and a wide number of internet spectators (yours truly being in a position through this blog to provide a qualified comment) do help with political research and commentary, for the most part those entities provide opinion analysis and a few major statistics for the benefit of the current television audience that day. It's a one-and-done conversation between talking heads about the highlights of white or black or Hispanic voters in rural California that isn't comprehended, much less a matter of concern, for a television audience with an attention span numbering in the tens of seconds. Why else would TV news have a flashy graphic every 30 seconds?
This is not research. This is not an acceptable form of applying scientific principles to observed events in order to try to predict the outcome. And it certainly is not something that can be peer reviewed, thought out, and rationalized in a manner which befits the scientific community.
Science is an area of knowledge that is the object of study. That includes social sciences just as much as hard sciences, and political research deserves the backing grants and funding from the government just as much as anything else the NSF researches. As for the argument that political science studies some things which may seem like a waste of money or tries to answer questions that a private survey corporation can do just as easily, well, the annual appropriations bills for the United States currently contain so much money for pork projects that it's not even funny, including millions of dollars for scientific projects such as "$4,545,000 for wood utilization research in 10 states by 19 senators and 10 representatives (engineering)," "$1,791,000 by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) for swine odor and manure management research in Ames (chemistry)," and "$150,000 by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), then-Rep. Thomas Allen (D-Maine), and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) for the Maine Department of Natural Resources to conduct lobster research (I'll call this one biology)." These examples are from Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book 2009.
I urge the Senators from Arizona and across the nation to vote no this week (as I believe that is when it comes for a vote) on SA 2631, amending HR 2847.
04 October 2009
Postseason Prediction Updates
If you read my prior post on the postseason races and compared them to the matchups, you will see that I was expecting the Cardinals and Phillies to be playing the opposite teams in their series. However, the Phillies ended up with a better record than the Cardinals, and therefore I must update my predictions.
NLDS A: Rockies vs. Phillies
Prediction: Phillies in 3 games.
NLDS B: Cardinals vs. Dodgers
Prediction: Cardinals in 4 games.
ALDS A: Red Sox vs. Angels
Prediction: Red Sox in 5 games.
ALDS B: Twins OR Tigers vs. Yankees
If Twins, then: Twins in 5 games.
If Tigers, then: Yankees in 3 games.
NLCS: Cardinals vs. Phillies
Prediction: Cardinals in 5 games.
ALCS: Red Sox vs. Yankees OR Twins vs. Red Sox
If the former is true, then: Red Sox in 7 games.
If the latter is true, then: Red Sox in 5 games.
World Series: Cardinals vs. Red Sox
Prediction: Cardinals in 6 games.
NLDS A: Rockies vs. Phillies
Prediction: Phillies in 3 games.
NLDS B: Cardinals vs. Dodgers
Prediction: Cardinals in 4 games.
ALDS A: Red Sox vs. Angels
Prediction: Red Sox in 5 games.
ALDS B: Twins OR Tigers vs. Yankees
If Twins, then: Twins in 5 games.
If Tigers, then: Yankees in 3 games.
NLCS: Cardinals vs. Phillies
Prediction: Cardinals in 5 games.
ALCS: Red Sox vs. Yankees OR Twins vs. Red Sox
If the former is true, then: Red Sox in 7 games.
If the latter is true, then: Red Sox in 5 games.
World Series: Cardinals vs. Red Sox
Prediction: Cardinals in 6 games.
03 October 2009
Happy October!
We survived another Arizona summertime, folks! Over 110 days of triple-digit heat, and what I believe is the 10th driest summer on Arizona recordbooks, since our monsoons never really kicked in. Actually, I don't think we even got one good dust storm the whole summer.
October means new beginnings for a lot of things for me: I get to start hiking again around some of the trails here in Mesa. Now that the weather is cooler, relatively speaking, I won't feel like dying after walking a few feet out of my car, and I won't consider myself inside an oven when I get into a vehicle.
October also means postseason baseball. Even though my Diamondbacks sucked big time this year, I will still enjoy watching the Rockies and Cardinals try to claim the World Series trophy for their own. If you're watching it, the Rockies can actually still win the NL West by beating the Dodgers today and tomorrow... it's intense!
And October means I get to start my door-to-door job hunting again. I consider it too hot to drive around and job hunt on the streets around retail establishments during the summer months, so the cooler weather means I have to get back to work in that department. For the past three to four months, I've been one of the 17% of unemployed job seekers that has stopped looking almost completely because of the lack of jobs out there. I need to find my motivation and get going again.
Finally, October also means the start of what I consider "Holiday Row." I have my sister's birthday here in just a couple days, then mom's mid-month, followed by Halloween, Election Day, Veteran's Day, my brother's birthday, Thanksgiving, my birthday, Dutch Christmas, Christmas, and New Year's. Lots of planning to do now!
October means new beginnings for a lot of things for me: I get to start hiking again around some of the trails here in Mesa. Now that the weather is cooler, relatively speaking, I won't feel like dying after walking a few feet out of my car, and I won't consider myself inside an oven when I get into a vehicle.
October also means postseason baseball. Even though my Diamondbacks sucked big time this year, I will still enjoy watching the Rockies and Cardinals try to claim the World Series trophy for their own. If you're watching it, the Rockies can actually still win the NL West by beating the Dodgers today and tomorrow... it's intense!
And October means I get to start my door-to-door job hunting again. I consider it too hot to drive around and job hunt on the streets around retail establishments during the summer months, so the cooler weather means I have to get back to work in that department. For the past three to four months, I've been one of the 17% of unemployed job seekers that has stopped looking almost completely because of the lack of jobs out there. I need to find my motivation and get going again.
Finally, October also means the start of what I consider "Holiday Row." I have my sister's birthday here in just a couple days, then mom's mid-month, followed by Halloween, Election Day, Veteran's Day, my brother's birthday, Thanksgiving, my birthday, Dutch Christmas, Christmas, and New Year's. Lots of planning to do now!
29 September 2009
Padres-Diamondbacks Fandemonium Game 9-26-09
Last weekend marked the end of the Arizona Diamondbacks home season at Chase Field, and I was there on Saturday to celebrate the teams successes and lament their failures (let's not kid ourselves, there were many) with the other fans during "Fandemonium" festivities. But I was also on a mission. I had received a ball from reliever Blaine Boyer at a previous game, and I had failed to get Miguel Montero's signature then. So my goal for the game was to get one big-name D-Backs player to give me their autograph.
First, though, I had business to take care of. I got to the ballpark early as I usually do for batting practice, and I got my fifth bobblehead of the year - Mark Reynolds (#27, 3B). I raced into the stadium right around the end of Diamondbacks batting practice, and I tried to get another ball from a player. Unfortunately, not many were being hit to my section of the field, so no luck. After BP concluded, most of the time, a few players will sign autographs down the left-field line, but that night it was Clay Zavada and Esmerling Vasquez, both of whom had already autographed balls/ticket stubs for my in the past.
Instead, I stuck to my guns and tried for more tossups/homers from the visiting Padres players. I actually had a really close play on TWO balls, a homer and a bouncer over the wall. Sadly, both were just out of reach (unless I wanted to jump on the guys standing next to me), so I came up empty-handed. I was also hoping that reliever Aaron Poreda would throw a ball in my direction. He did end up tossing a bunch of balls into the stands, and it was really fun to watch him go all-out to try to snag some of the long fly balls in left field, but alas, he really didn't throw anything near me.
So, 0-for-1,000,000 during BP, I decided my best option was to take a break and go get my Augie Ojeda bobblehead from the Picnic Pavillion in left. Augie's bobblehead was supposed to be given out on Sept. 26th, but it was moved up to Sept. 10th in place of the Tony Pena bobblehead, since Tony had been traded to the White Sox. Unfortunately, the bobblehead company was unable to ship the figures in time for the game, so vouchers were given out to the 25,000 fans who were supposed to get one, and they were finally available Sept. 26th. Two bobbleheads, one day... very cool!
After collecting my bobblehead, I wandered around the stadium, bought a couple scratch-off tickets from the vendors for the "Shirts Off Our D-Backs" promotion ($5 for three chances to win a game-used shirt from a DBacks player following Sunday's game). I didn't win a shirt, but I did win two free bleacher tickets to a 2010 home game... so it was cool! I kept wandering, a full lap around the concourse, and made it back to my section in time for the National Anthem and opening accoutrements, when I then saw a couple fellow DBacks fan friends of mine, April, Anya, and Julie, who were sitting in my section just a couple rows back. I went to chat with them, and stayed the whole time in that area.
The game itself was a doozy! The snakes scored three runs in the first inning, and Dan Haren kept the Pads at zero until the 5th, when they scored 5 runs. We snagged one back in the 6th, making it 5-4, but honestly, it wasn't looking good. We hit a couple batters, and things looked like they'd fall apart.... until the 8th inning. A walk, a hit batter, and a single loaded the bases for Chad Tracy, who blasted the Diamondbacks' third grand slam of the season into the pool area in right field (the prior two GS hitters were Chris Snyder on May 16th and Justin Upton on June 2nd). There was much celebration.
So finally, the game ended, my season of attending big league baseball games ended, and I still hadn't gotten my autograph. Humbug. But wait! I got a hot tip and an invitation from my friends to go join them at the players' stadium exit/entrance to see if anyone would stop to sign an autograph from their cars, and lo and behold, two did: Justin Upton and...
[Bottom row:] Justin Upton, Stephen Drew, Chris Snyder, Mark Reynolds, Augie Ojeda. [Middle row:] Brandon Webb, Conor Jackson, Chris Young. [Top row:] Luis Gonzalez figurine, D. Baxter soap dispenser figurine.
Can't wait for more baseball next year, though I will continue blogging about the postseason and about Arizona Fall League baseball until then!
First, though, I had business to take care of. I got to the ballpark early as I usually do for batting practice, and I got my fifth bobblehead of the year - Mark Reynolds (#27, 3B). I raced into the stadium right around the end of Diamondbacks batting practice, and I tried to get another ball from a player. Unfortunately, not many were being hit to my section of the field, so no luck. After BP concluded, most of the time, a few players will sign autographs down the left-field line, but that night it was Clay Zavada and Esmerling Vasquez, both of whom had already autographed balls/ticket stubs for my in the past.
Instead, I stuck to my guns and tried for more tossups/homers from the visiting Padres players. I actually had a really close play on TWO balls, a homer and a bouncer over the wall. Sadly, both were just out of reach (unless I wanted to jump on the guys standing next to me), so I came up empty-handed. I was also hoping that reliever Aaron Poreda would throw a ball in my direction. He did end up tossing a bunch of balls into the stands, and it was really fun to watch him go all-out to try to snag some of the long fly balls in left field, but alas, he really didn't throw anything near me.
So, 0-for-1,000,000 during BP, I decided my best option was to take a break and go get my Augie Ojeda bobblehead from the Picnic Pavillion in left. Augie's bobblehead was supposed to be given out on Sept. 26th, but it was moved up to Sept. 10th in place of the Tony Pena bobblehead, since Tony had been traded to the White Sox. Unfortunately, the bobblehead company was unable to ship the figures in time for the game, so vouchers were given out to the 25,000 fans who were supposed to get one, and they were finally available Sept. 26th. Two bobbleheads, one day... very cool!
After collecting my bobblehead, I wandered around the stadium, bought a couple scratch-off tickets from the vendors for the "Shirts Off Our D-Backs" promotion ($5 for three chances to win a game-used shirt from a DBacks player following Sunday's game). I didn't win a shirt, but I did win two free bleacher tickets to a 2010 home game... so it was cool! I kept wandering, a full lap around the concourse, and made it back to my section in time for the National Anthem and opening accoutrements, when I then saw a couple fellow DBacks fan friends of mine, April, Anya, and Julie, who were sitting in my section just a couple rows back. I went to chat with them, and stayed the whole time in that area.
The game itself was a doozy! The snakes scored three runs in the first inning, and Dan Haren kept the Pads at zero until the 5th, when they scored 5 runs. We snagged one back in the 6th, making it 5-4, but honestly, it wasn't looking good. We hit a couple batters, and things looked like they'd fall apart.... until the 8th inning. A walk, a hit batter, and a single loaded the bases for Chad Tracy, who blasted the Diamondbacks' third grand slam of the season into the pool area in right field (the prior two GS hitters were Chris Snyder on May 16th and Justin Upton on June 2nd). There was much celebration.
So finally, the game ended, my season of attending big league baseball games ended, and I still hadn't gotten my autograph. Humbug. But wait! I got a hot tip and an invitation from my friends to go join them at the players' stadium exit/entrance to see if anyone would stop to sign an autograph from their cars, and lo and behold, two did: Justin Upton and...
Mark Reynolds! YES! A star player from my final game of the year, on his bobblehead day! It totally made my night of effort all worthwhile! That brought my autograph collection to 8:
From bottom to top, left to right: [bottom row:] a Cubs minor league player from 1999 I'm still trying to ID, a commemorative ball from a D-Backs-Rockies game earlier this year, Glenn Sherlock (bullpen coach), [middle row:] Mark Grace (1B), Tom "Flash" Gordon (RP), Clay Zavada (RP), [top row:] Stephen Drew (SS, from Foz Sports AZ), Dan Haren (SP, from Fox Sports AZ), and Mark Reynolds (3B)! I also have a good-sized collection of bobbleheads and DBacks figures going:
Can't wait for more baseball next year, though I will continue blogging about the postseason and about Arizona Fall League baseball until then!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
