This sort of scenario falls easily into the realm of “doom and gloomer” crackpots. (Ed Dames even has a Video The Killshot.)   But Scientists are warning that this particular solar cycle, and our dependence on electronics, could be catastrophic.  This article describes things in economic terms, but imagine the potential harm that can result in $2,000 BILLION in losses.

According to this story, we were visited by another flare, but luckily it was weak in comparison.  I include an excerpt below, but recommend you read the full article.

From the article:

The sun is waking up from a long quiet spell. Last week it sent out the strongest flare for four years – and scientists are warning that earth should prepare for an intense electromagnetic storm that, in the worst case, could be a “global Katrina” costing the world economy $2,000bn.

Senior officials responsible for policy on solar storms – also known as space weather – in the US, UK and Sweden urged more preparedness at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington.

…

In terms of terrestrial vulnerability, the biggest change since the 2000 peak is that the world has become more dependent on global positioning system satellites – and not just for navigation. The world’s mobile phone networks depend on ultra-precise GPS time signals for their co-ordination.

Enjoy.

While this research had been dismissed by many (including my Daughter’s petrogeology professor) the work continues.  In a recent article in Science Daily titled “Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find” the argument is once again made.  Reading from the article:

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

Some of this is rather disconcerting.  For those that abhor the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) the thought that we might someday run out of petroleum was at least some small solace. Alas, we apparently now won’t.

One of the more interesting points about their research is that they believe they can now more precisely pinpoint where to find petroleum deposits based not on where they believe dinosaurs and other prehistoric life existed but rather based on the geologic fissures.  Using this approach they believe they can improve the accuracy of drilling from 20 to 70%.

I do  have one small gripe: I don’t think they can say (as they do in the article) that the findings are revolutionary.  The findings support theories that have been around for quite a while.  Perhaps these finding will have the effect of moving abiogenesis from being the “Rodney Dangerfield” of geologic science, and start to get real “Respect.”

A “Tipping Point” perhaps?

nb: I find this arena to be quite interesting from a “philosophy of science” perspective, as the “conventional” science has long dismissed this alternative view as “crack-pot” science.  Much of our understanding of energy consumption has been based on this being a “non-renewable” resource.  Perhaps that assumption is mistaken? Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift “in the wild?”

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to theformation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

The theory thus challenges the view that petroleum products are “fossil fuels” created over millions of years by the decaying of dinosaurs and ancient pre-historic plant life. It argues that petroleum may be a renewable resource that flows up from the magma. In fact, it is a theory that has had a recent resurgence to popularity with the release of the book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” by Thomas Gold.

Why do I bring this up? First, my daughter is a geology major, and so I have renewed interest in all things “rock.” Even more recently, I have been reading the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” in which the author, Pollan, constantly refers to the use of “fossil fuels” in the production of food. It struck me, after reading this over, and over again, that he has “bought in” to the traditional view completely. He rarely if ever refers to this as “petroleum products.” I have since noticed that the use of the term “fossil fuel” is quite prevalent in the media–far more so than the non-value statement petroleum.

I am sure this seems silly, but to me it is significant. By labeling this “fossil fuel” rather than “petroleum products” the authors are passing scientific judgment–that this is the way the oil is created. Not simply what type of product it is. It appears to me that by using “fossil fuel” as a phrase, people are trying to convey far more than simply a discussion about the pre-historic source of our fuel.

Now when would fossil fuel be a more appropriate word to use? When discussing coal, for instance.

I am not convinced that oil is produced through abiogenic processes, but I am convinced that there is still healthy debate concerning the topic.

Faithful readers may remember my post about the Russian News Agency incorrectly referring to the “Dark Side of the Moon.” (No, not the music…)  Well, here is another apparently common mis-perception.  I say common because I have been told the local TV media made the same mistake.

So, dear readers… send me an email telling me what YOU think is wrong with this picture! (I really need to come up with a prize for this–guest spot on the next “Brothers” podcast perhaps?)

1. “Did it suddenly appear?” A very good question. Actually I have been staring at it for a while, and wasn’t sure I wanted to say anything about it. Hey, you see a religious figure in your bathroom floor, people think you are nuts! But we were just chatting in the car, and I brought it up… and as I said, my son finished the sentence!
2. Was it just an inexplicable urge to study the floor?” Well, sometimes one gets bored sitting there… ya know?
3. “How do I know what Jesus looked/looks like?” From the documentary photographs and contemporary parchment etchings, of course.
4. “He looks more like…” (Jerry Garcia, later Jim Morrison, even this lowly correspondent.) Perhaps. And perhaps JG, JM and I are simply blessed with a divine countenance.
5. “How many people have you shown this to?” Well, until today, I haven’t SHOWN it to anyone. Those who have used the bathroom have all had opportunity to view Him, but apparently He reveals Himself only to those whom He chooses.
6. “Who installed the flooring? What is their religious affiliation?” The floor was installed when the house was constructed nearly 4 years ago. I have no idea what their religious affiliation is. One could speculate catholic for various reasons.
7. “Do we use any special cleaning materials when cleaning the floor?” Actually, we use normal water on a damp cloth. I suppose, given this highly religious event, it may well transform into Holy Water on contact. Perhaps I should squeeze out the cloth and sell small vials of the “Juice?” I have received a recommendation to start using frankincense and myrrh.

Send your questions my way! I will certainly answer them for you! And share the news with your friends and family! I am sure they would welcome the blessing received from this manifestation.

“When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you’ll never forget it.” Carl Sagan

Quoted from my Brother’s site:

Two Bradys, Two Brothers, Two Doctorates, and at least Two Views.

We discuss our different set ups, Windows for Steve (XP) and Mac OSX for Chris. I followed the directions found here.
More topics covered:

• Honda Civic Hybrid – See Steve’s blog entry and why Steve is now a Conservative environmentalist. (And what that means.)
• Why some want higher taxes on gas.
• Steve’s del.icio.us tags. Including “Cats kill birds, not windmills.“
• Environmental issues in general.
• iPhone (again).
• Cole’s Blog (”Who the Hell is He?” wanting internet transparency) and Being a Digital Native
• Rathole: Dad’s idea that our brains process in binary.

And we reached the end of GarageBand’s recording capacity.

So there you have it. Enjoy.

Oh–if you are a listener, please, write or comment and let us know. Obviously we talk, but it’s nice to know if we make a sound. (you know… tree… .forest… fall…)

In MY mind it’s not too bizarre that a “fictional band” is “reuniting” to fight a fictional problem.

All kidding aside, I am not a “disbeliever” in climate change. I do remain unconvinced that mankind is responsible for it. More to follow later, when I put together a podcast highlight how the “fake” 90% probability figure was created for the IPCC report.

I am not sure if this approach actually lends credibility to the argument that climate change is a man-made. When you read the story, the band continues to spoof on any number of subjects. Quoting:

In the new film, Reiner, reprising his role, takes credit for coining the term “global warming.” The band members discuss their long history of charity work, such as campaigns to help ferrets — by raising money to feed them Caesar salad — and to help people with high insteps.

As I see this, they are comparing Climate Change to ferrets, Caesar salad and high insteps. Hmmm. Perhaps Reiner is also not “a believer.”

I couldn’t help but chuckle when I saw these two news stories, as the top two stories on the “I, Ramble” site.

Now, the placement of the ads is not controlled by the owner of the blog or website, so this is purely coincidental–at least at how it happens to display on the blog.

In a story, titled “Russia to join U.S. lunar exploration program if funded” the author of the story writes “The permanently sunlit half of the Moon opens up good opportunities for electricity generation, and comet ice deposited in craters can be converted into breathable air, drinking water and even liquid rocket propellants.” So what’s the problem with the science here? What had me checking my facts?

I think I will take advantage of the “read more” feature here, and tell you what is “wrong” if you click through! Check and see if you are right! As I read it, I was thinking “hmmm… I don’t think there is a ‘half’ of the Moon that is always sunlit.” So I checked, and the source I found, http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae515.cfm confirmed what I suspected, there is something special about a “half” of the Moon, but it’s not that it is always sunlit. One side of the moon always faces the Earth, because the Moon’s rotation about it’s axis equals the timing of it’s orbit around the Earth. Of course, as you think about this, if we are always seeing the same side of the moon, and the moon goes through “phases” (New, waxing, Full, and Waning) then certainly that side of the moon is not “always” sunlit. In fact, this actually presents a significant challenge to our future missions to the moon, because our astronauts (and now possibly cosmonauts) will spend approximately 14 days in the freezing “night” of the moon.

So how did they get this wrong? Well perhaps they are Pink Floyd fans. I am sure everyone knows their song “Dark Side of the Moon.” Well, that get’s addressed on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy site. He concludes ” The Pink Floyd album may be one of the best selling albums of all time, but astronomically it’s in eclipse.”

Side Note: Apparently the Pink Floydians had a NASA Apollo 11 film and hadn’t returned it. I wonder if the Smithsonian charges overdue fees?

I decided to weigh in with this podcast, since I had recently heard two interviews with Dr Dawkins. The first was on Science Friday on NPR. In that interview he asserts that science has all but proven that God does not exist. The other interview was on one of my other favorite podcasts, The New Scientist. His views are a bit more muted in that interview, but that whole episode was dedicated to the battle between science and religion.

I have several excerpts in this podcast from both of those shows, and share my thoughts on how assumptions shape and shade research and the conclusions that one reaches. I do recommend that you go listen to the full shows, and perhaps even subscribe to the podcasts. They are quite good!

NASA has another on-going mission—NEEMO. This mission titled “NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations” is “testing concepts for future space exploration at an underwater laboratory off the coast of Florida. “ It’s a very interesting concept. Of course, NASAWatch, the blog dedicated to holding NASA to task, is concerned that NASA is ignoring this mission that they themselves have funded.

NASAWatch does point to a link for the underwater webcams. They are interesting to watch, and the descriptions of the various camera views are even somewhat humorous.

If anyone is interested in Space Logistics, shoot me a note.

I have sat on this one for a while. Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, “Pressing the Flesh”, has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore’s latest theatrical success. One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda. Of course, this has two effects. First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event. The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state “The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore.” By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying “You’re right. We should not have said “no reputable scientist disagrees.” That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans.” )

Here’s the problem, however. There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming. But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins. They aren’t saying that there isn’t climate change, and they aren’t saying that it might be a warming trend. They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can “stop” the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change. In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area.

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal. In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over. He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the “non-scientists” as they seek to achieve policy. What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason. Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let’s reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

An excerpt:

LiveScience.com – The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil: “The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the ‘biogenic theory’ of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

In the 1950′s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called ‘abiogenic’ petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.”

So here we have competing ideas–a diversity in ideas that now can be put forward, challenged, and tested. Which is the conservative one, and which the liberal? Well, while one might actually be able to be labeled conservative (the older theory having the upper hand) neither theory is inherently “political.”

So let’s encourage diversity, let’s embrace diversity. But let’s do it as appropriate for our disciplines. Let’s follow accepted, rigorous methodologies, and let’s all work to expand our minds, and contribute to the body of knowledge, rather than close doors, close minds, and protect our limited views of the world.

The Prof

This is perhaps one of the more interesting explanations of a miracle. for years many of us have joked while walking across a frozen lake that we were walking on water.

Let’s, for a second, assume that is correct. There are still a couple questions: How was he able to walk “to” the boat? Was it an ice “path?” Did the wind blow him there? Didn’t the fishermen see this strange thing called ice?

And of course, how was Peter able to walk for a little while, and then not? Did he not notice the ice?

The prof

This would be funny, were it not a real story. Hmmm… chemicals, naturally occuring in the process of cooking foods, to be banned by California.

My favorite quote?
“Acrylamide is present in food as a natural byproduct of the cooking process. Because it occurs when natural constituents of foods are cooked or heated, it has been present in the food supply and safely consumed since human beings discovered that cooked food tastes good and is often safer than the raw form. ”

Makes one wonder if there might really BE a hidden agenda. Note that the chemical occurs, not just in meats (so it’s not a Vegan thing…) but in all foods.

Sometimes I wish people would remember that life really is terminal. If you know you will die sometime, why must “they” make it so miserable here while we live?

Many of you may remember my writing about Science and assumptions This article does a good job of talking about the assumptions that Science makes–and often must make. As the article points out “‘What science is is settled methodologically,’ says Prof. Forrest. ‘It’s not that science rules out the supernatural as a precondition. But scientists want to apprehend the world, and there is no procedure for studying the supernatural. God is not a controlled variable.’”

Yup–they can’t have as assumption that God did it. But as the article points out, science gets in trouble when it argues that one must choose between God and Scientific truth. As this article points out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Oh–and if the link has disappeared, let me know.

Students, it’s time for me to tackle research methods, and underlying assumptions. Specifically, the hubris shown by scientists when they fail to check their assumptions.

As the story linked above notes, there has been much research into “origins” in the past few years, resulting in “the journal Science on Thursday proclaimed evolution the breakthrough of 2005.” The article also points out that “Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution.” In fact, the next paragraph states that “The journal’s editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged this was a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued.”

So, let’s talk about this for a moment. All research carries into it assumptions. One assumption that scientists tell you they cannot carry into their research is the existence of a deity–or an “intelligent designer.” That makes sense, since to allow for that assumption would provide a convenient way out of any apparently unsolvable conundrum. However, this also excludes the possibility of finding what may be the actual answer. If one evaluates data, and must assume that a common creator does not exist, then one would most likely reach a conclusion of a common ancestor–evolution. On the other hand, when one looks at results, such as that noted in the article “including a study that showed a mere 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA” one who assumes a deity could argue that we have a common creator. In both cases, the assumption is that commonality relies on having some source in common, but that source cannot be a deity when viewed from the scientific perspective.

My only point is this–be honest. Scientists cannot prove God through any of their work because they have, a priori, assumed God away to allow for their work.

It is quite simply, like telling someone to walk into a room with no windows, but having light, and telling them they must assume away the existence of electricity. They will create many interesting, and perhaps plausible, explanations. They will just never be right.

Scientific history is actually replete with similar examples–examples where scientists created very elaborate theories to explain the world as they understood it, but “modern science” has since proved wrong. Remember “ether?”

I would recommend reading “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, if you want a “philosophy of science” perspective on the way scientific paradigms have shifted–and more interestingly how scientists throughout history have been dogmatic, and wrong.

Enjoy the holiday break, students!

Well, an interesting story, and one that certainly has captured my imagination.

While I have not been one normally to plead the “green” case, I have also been quite interested in ways to capture the power of nature to provide the resources that enable me to enjoy the “finer things technology offers.”

I have a lake house in the East Coast of the US, and have always thought it would be nice to shed dependence on heating oil and electricity providers.

Here is my vision. Since I have a well, and fairly steady wind, I am wanting a combination of wind and fuel cell technology. I would like the windmill to provide the basic electric power for the house, and also to provide the electricity to tear the hydrogen atoms off the oxygen atom in the water from my well. Of course, I would want to store the hydrogen as a reserve for electricity generation when the wind dies down, and perhaps even for heat.

My challenge? None of this come cheaply yet.

So homework for the class: if any of you have plans for such a set up, or know of people that would be willing to set me up as a test case (trust me–I will advertise heavily how well it works!) let me know. I am always willing to be a guinea pig!

the Prof

Did you ever find yourself wondering whether something is, or is not, satire?

I find it difficult to believe that someone thinks Bush should be doing something about the Canary Islands’ potential to devastate the East Coast. But then again, *I* still find it difficult to believe that people are blaming the Feds for the response (in New Orleans–they seem to be doing alright elsewhere) to the Hurricane and flooding. Perhaps, when people are given enough warning that a potential exists for a devastating event, the people themselves should be held responsible for not planning appropriately. If you lived in New Orleans, you have heard for years about the potential for a Hurricane filling the bowl. If you live in California, you know about the San Andreas Fault. You have made decisions to remain–and those decisions have consequences.

Apparently, Americans continue to prefer to blame others, for individually made bad decisions.

Take a day off from class…

Have you ever read a news story that just seemed, well, odd? This, to me, is one of those stories.

Perhaps I have been tainted by a book I recently read and enjoyed, titled “Freakonomics.” In that book, an economist slices data in ways that challenge the “conventional” views of the world, and shows how an understanding of data can help one make more sense of the world around us.

One of my favorite vignettes in the book is the discussion about airline vs automobile fatalities. Yes, we all “know” that it is safer to fly than to ride in a car. That’s conventional wisdom. The authors point out, however, that if you evaluate the data differently, by assessing time spent “in the seat” then it turns out to be a dead heat (no pun intended.) the number of fatalities per hour spent traveling in that mode is statistically even. Go figure.

So that leads me to this story. Here we have all the makings of bad journalism–reporting misleading facts, quoting of inflammatory language, and the obligatory “counter view” at the end of the article.

Let’s tackle the facts. In the article you will find this:

“We should have experienced a significant decline in speeding-related fatalities, given the tremendous gains in safety-belt use coupled with the increasingly safe design of vehicles,” said Lt. Col. Jim Champagne of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission and chairman of the GSHA.

That statement follows a paragraph where we are informed that “The number of speeding-related deaths is not declining” and “Speeding is a major factor in about one-third of the 42,000 traffic deaths a year in the USA.”

Hmmm… The “numbers” are not declining? Sounds like we have a problem on our hands, right? As the article points out, vehicles are far safer than ever before, and yet the “numbers” are not declining.

But wait just one minute! The article then points out that “The nation’s traffic fatality rate last year was a record low of 1.46 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.” Now we begin to see that in fact, fatalities have declined, and we are just spending more and more time on the road. It’s not that speeding is more deadly. It’s that we are spending more and more time on the road.

But wait, there’s more! The author can’t just let the record stand corrected. The author uses the word “But.” Yup, after telling the reader that the actual rate is lower the author points out “But the number of people killed in accidents each year has remained fairly constant as the number of vehicles and miles driven increased.”

So now we see that perhaps Lt Col Champagne was speaking in hyperbole when he argued against speeding. What’s worse, he called the accidents “carnage” on the highways. Inflammatory language, to be sure. Especially since, according to Dictionary.com, carnage is “Massive slaughter, as in war; a massacre.”

Bottom line? Read carefully–and look for all the details. Ask questions about the data presented. In this case, the article at least presented the death rate, and not just raw data. Imagine if the author had chosen to leave just that one bit of data out.

So the question I have is: Which do readers notice more, and why?

Class dismissed.

Okay, so first, I haven’t been here in quite a while… and now that I am blogging again, it’s about a Star wars spoof. Not only that, about an issue that, honestly, I have strong and somewhat opposing opinions.

That said–you HAVE to go see this… “Cuke Skywalker” fights against his father ‘Darth Tater” (no relation to “Tater salad” –Ron White…) Of course, Darth Tater is now “more chemical than vegetable…”

Seriously–don’t take this seriously. But enjoy the skills demonstrated.

And then, please, let me know YOUR opinions about chemicals and genetic modifications on the farm.

The Prof!

Perhaps it is time for me to return to my roots. I have spent many an hour reminiscing about my days in what was then known as “The Future Farmers of America” (now, officially known only as “The FFA”). At the time, I remember being proud to be part of a family-centric tradition. Family farmers, passing down land, and practices, from generation to generation, and instilling in each generation a love for the land and for what it can produce.

Of course, I also remember the discussions about how “corporate farming” was taking over, and driving the family farmer to extinction. If left to their own devices, the agri-business folks would control the world. I, of course, scoffed.

My how times have changed. We still have family farmers, and agribusiness has contributed greatly to their success, and their ability to produce significantly more than ever before–feeding hundreds of people per farmer, where before the average farmer would feed 25, to 75, people.

But now we face a new challenge–seed as technology.

Monsanto’s claim that saving some seed, and replanting it, is the moral equivalent of bootleg copying music, would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. Let me explain.

Stealing software, music, or movies generally requires one person making a copy, and then giving or selling it to another. Generally speaking, we have allowed (through the courts) for people to make copies for their own enjoyment and use. It’s why we have MP3 players in the first place, and why Apple is able to sell music through iTunes. People want to be able to listen to their music. But also, we understand that these items are truly technology. They are collections of machinery combined to provide a capability that didn’t exist before. essentially they are “things” that did not exist.

It seems to me that this is somehow fundamentally different. Soy Beans have always existed. Scientists have adjusted the DNA perhaps, and somehow twisted it to kep it from responding to “round up” herbicide, but it’s still “Soy beans.” Soy beans are natural, but somehow if you start with something natural, and you perform experiments on it, you gain “rights” to it that weren’t there before.

Perhaps God should consider suing Mansanto. After all–he owns the original rights, don’t you think?

Welcome back to class. I realize we have taken a rather long break for the semester, but it’s time one again to put our thinking caps on, and start analyzing the news.

So what has me jumping back into the fray? Perhaps it is the obvious lunacy of the US Court system. As the article cited above notes, the court has declared that a sticker must be removed from textbooks, as it in some way violates the (and I quote) “Ban on the separation of church and state.” Let’s forget, just for a moment, that the way the article is written makes it appear that the separation is banned. Let’s even forget for the moment that there is no actual ban in the constitution. (If you don’t believe me–go find the “separation” clause–it’s not there.) Let’s look at the sticker.

The sticker, according to the article, reads: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

So let me see–where are the issues that favor religion? What words here even HINT at the notion that one should/must believe in God (especially God in a particular way) such that one would see it as an encroachment on the separation of church and state?

Wait–it’s not there! The words as written actually encourage being open-minded, and having a critical mind. Typically those are things that we encourage in people, especially in education. We want you to be open to new ideas. We want to challenge–to question the status quo. How many times have you heard how scientific revolutions came about through paradigm shifts, driven by someone challenging the accepted concepts? In fact, isn’t that exactly what Darwin himself did?

I suspect there is something deeper, something more sinister here. Apparently the judge believes that motivation should be considered when determining if religion has played too great a role, and if your beliefs, motivated through some means of faith, drive your actions, then it cannot be allowed.

Seriously, consider this. The words just remind us that we are to remain scientific–we are to remain critical. The fact that a school board did this based on their religious convictions is enough to declare it an infringement, or breach if you will, of the barrier.

Let me leave you with this question: If Jimmy Carter’s humanitarian actions while President were grounded in his understanding of the calling he received from Christ–to care for the needy, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry–if that was driven by his religious convictions, should they have been stopped?

Are we to only allow actions motivated purely from self-thought?