Quick quiz: name one event that happened between 1400 and 1500.  Given the state of American education there is a very possible chance that you couldn’t name anything but that is a story for another day.  For now, I would say that it is relatively safe to assume that you correctly remembered that in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue and that the event you named was Columbus’s “discovery” of America.  Now a slightly harder question: name any war that happened between 1400 and 1500.  In the unlikely event you were able to name one well then congratulations, in the more likely scenario that you drew a blank (you couldn’t remember the War of the Roses?) then you are one step closer to realizing why Space Exploration is necessary.

Quick quiz:  Who were the first people to climb Mt. Everest?   Who were the first people to land on the Moon?  Who invented the Astrolabe that made Columbus’s voyage possible?  In what country is the first Democracy believed to have existed?  The answers are Sir Edmund Hilary and Tenzing Norgay, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, Hipparchus, and India.  If you were only able to answer the first two questions it is completely understandable.  You are one more step closer to realizing why Space Exploration is necessary.

Quick quiz:  Which duo explored the Louisiana Territory for President Jefferson between 1804 and 1806?  Who wrote “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, published between 1776 and 1789?  The answers to these two questions are Lewis & Clark and Edward Gibbon.  If you were unable to remember Gibbon as the answer to the second question well than you are one more step closer to realizing why Space Exploration is necessary.

I was recently asked what the most important single event of the 20^th century was.  Instantly I thought to WWII and the Holocaust, because nothing could have affected as many people as that.  I thought of the event that started it all and was about to say “Hitler invading Poland” when I thought to myself, “Surely, WWI was the most influential event.”  And so I got to thinking and was about to say “The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.”  Then the computer nerd in me woke up and screamed, “Hello!  The invention of the computer!” to which the physics nerd in me responded, “Uhh duh!  The invention of the Atomic Bomb!”  I even considered the possibility that it might be the writing of the Marshall plan for reconstruction after WWII or the destruction of the Berlin Wall signifying the end of Communism.  After mulling these options I finally said that it must have been the splitting of the atom because it lead to the invention of nuclear weapons.

I was quite happy with my answer until I was asked the first question that I asked you, “Name one event that happened between 1400 and 1500.”  I, like most others, answered Columbus’s discovery of America.  “Aha!” said the person who had originally sought my opinion.  I realized that while there were wars, inventions, and atrocities during the 15^th century, the one event that everyone remembers 500 years later was an accidental discovery.  This got me thinking about what event would be remembered 500 years from now.  While we study the American revolution, when there is no more America, all students will remember is the people who “discovered” the west.  When England is long gone, few will remember its Kings and Queens but many will remember its great citizen who conquered Everest.  And in 500 years when people look back on the 20^th century they will remember those brave men who first made it to the Moon.

Whenever the question of funding for space exploration comes up someone inevitably asks why we spend millions of dollars to explore an area with no practical application.  ‘Why should we go to Mars?  We’ve been to the Moon?  What is the benefit to the people?’ naysayers will ask.  There isn’t one.  The direct benefit to the people isn’t there, but we do it anyway.  Why, because it is what’s next.  Because we’ve conquered the lands that came before it.  The history of civilization has been a history of discovery.  Why should we explore space?  Because we can.  It is as simple as that.  In 500 or 1000 years when people look back upon our civilization our wars and our inventions will be forgotten, the 21^st century will not be remembered as the century in which a country called America invaded another one called Iraq.  It will not be remembered as the century in which terrorists killed innocent people by flying a plane into a building.  Those invents will become mere footnotes in the annals of history.

It has been almost 40 years since we reached the moon.  In that time space exploration has stagnated and eventually ground to a halt.  We have not set foot on the moon since 1972.  Sending probes into space to measure comets and photograph planets is fine, but it is time for manned space exploration to return to the forefront of our national goals.  In the 1960s America was inspired by the race to the Moon.  The American people watched in anticipation as the finest minds in the world worked to reach a place that had no practical application for the nation.  We have the capability to achieve greatness.  We can “boldly go where no man has gone before.”  It is the calling of man, to discover what lies just beyond the horizon.  We conquered the high seas and the West, we conquered the North Pole and the South Pole.  We looked upward toward the heavens and conquered the moon.  It is high time we took the next step.  We have the capability to achieve greatness and to not do so will be our biggest failure.

Quick Quiz:  How much is NASA’s yearly budget?  How much is the budget for the war in Iraq?  $16.25 billion and approximately $60 billion.

It seems these days that we always find reasons to celebrate. Well here’s one, I’ve been blogging for a month. So here’s a few reflections before I go to sleep.

A few statistics:

1. There have been 145 page views (not including my own) in total this month.

2. The most page views there have been in a day is 13.

3. There have been 2 comments left by visitors.

4. I’ve written a little less than 7000 words.

People have found their way onto my site in weird ways, this is a list of some of the most common search terms (in no particular order) people used to get to my site

1. “Colbertopoly” — for the record as of 2/29 I am the only result.
2. “leaking brain ?” — A very interesting question
3. “physics and child labour” — We all know that the reason why India has so many more physics students is because they are forced to calculate De Broglie wavelengths in a sweatshop all day.
4. “leaking from the right side of the brain” — A personal favorite, since I assume this person wanted medical attention I will say that if you are leaking from the right side of the brain, you probably don’t have much time left so you might as well read some articles here before going on to WebMD.

Writing this blog has not been easy but to all my (at most 13 on any one day) readers I say, ‘Thank You for taking the time.’

It has been said that it is easier to tear down a home than it is to build one. This point was illustrated by Alberto Gonzales today, with the protesters has his proof. Regardless of what one thinks about the former Attorney General (personally I think he abused his position of power and overly politicized a position that ought to be at most, advisory) it is was nice to actually here him speak.

I had a couple of thoughts while I heard him speak, here they are:

Hearing him speak about how his poor immigrant background and his rise to the highest position in the US Government a Latino has achieved made me realize that he had to do something right. As much as we often criticize those in our government (on both sides of the aisle) for stupidity or untrustworthiness it is always humbling to remember that for them to have gotten to the position they did, they had to do something right. Example A is George W. Bush, while some say that he achieved everything in life do to his father’s influence, we ought to remember that while George W. and Jeb were both successes in life, brother Neil Bush has largely been a failure. So logically there must be something that George W. and Jeb did right that their brother did not.

Similarly, while we criticize politicians for their mismanagement of the government, in reality we know very little as to whether the government was actually mismanaged. In Plato’s book, “Crito”, Socrates who is in prison, having been convicted of corrupting the youth and sentenced to death. In reality, very few people in Athens actually wanted Socrates dead, they hoped that he would exile himself and they would not have to deal with him anymore. So he sat in prison with the population hoping he would escape and leave their country. Crito, Socrates’ rich friend, is sitting at his bedside telling Socrates that he has bribed the guards and arranged safe passage to other city-states in Greece and abroad. He begs Socrates to escape but Socrates refuses. He tells Socrates that if Socrates is put to death people will blame him because he is rich and could have freed Socrates. People will say that he is greedy because he wouldn’t give some of his fortune to spare Socrates’ life. Socrates responds that Crito shouldn’t worry about the opinion of the uninformed masses because the only people who matter are those who know the truth, who are himself and Crito. While we often criticize the government, we are so uninformed that our criticism is often irrelevant if not downright wrong.

Speaking of which Alberto Gonzales made a good point when he responded to a question about the United States violating the Geneva Convention in our treatment of terrorists. The Geneva Convetion says that the following groups of people (among others) shall be considered soldiers and therefore can be considered prisoners of war if captured:

-Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

- Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

-Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Anyone who fulfills one of these requirements has the rights accorded to soldiers under the Geneva convention. Since terrorists are not members of an armed force that has a “fixed distinctive sign,” nor do they carry “arms openly,” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” The laws and customs of war explicity prohibit the purposeful killing of civilians. Since these rules are violated, terrorists technically don’t get Geneva convention rights. But even if you do think that terrorists deserve Geneva Convention rights, among other stipulations the Geneva Convention says:

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter.

So detaining terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is technically legal. I’m not saying I support the torture of detainees, I am very much against it. But to those people who put up signs and argue about the law, it would be nice if they got the facts right.

Finally, I commend the protesters for doing a good job today. They made their point without resorting to violence or smear tactics. The protesters who wore orange jumpsuits (prisoner outfits) and watched Alberto Gonzales speak were generally respectful and allowed him to say what he had to say.

As for the disgraceful, unfortunately there were a incredibly annoying people at the speech. To those few people who stood up in the middle of Gonzales’s speech and yelled things like “Torture” and “Perjury” before walking out of the speech I just have one thing to say, “Immature”. We are college students and therefore, I hope, capable of using logic to make a point.

One last thought. The one major point I on which I agreed with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was on his call to public service. It is, in my opinion, a noble act to serve one’s country and should be undertaken by more citizens. Besides, as George Carlin once said, If everyone always complains about corrupt politicians, where are all the honest citizens ready to take their place?

Children are the most unrepresented group in America. It is not surprising that this occurs, after all, children cannot vote. The fact that children cannot vote is a logical idea in a democracy. Representative democracy requires a citizenry that can make an informed decision about a candidate and young children simply cannot do this. It would be illogical to have mothers go into a polling place and cast a vote not only for themselves but also for their child. So what then am I actually proposing? It is my opinion that the voting age should be lowered to 16. This proposition is not new, it has been brought forth in several states such as Washington and California and has been enacted in several countries such as Austria and Brazil.

Suffrage has always been an incremental process. In ancient Greece is was all adult, non-enslaved males; in the United Kingdom it was all titled, white, adult, male, land owners; in the 13 colonies it was all adult, white, male landowners; eventually it was all adult, white, males; then all adult males, and finally all adults. In America adult was defined as 21 until the Twenty-Sixth Amendment when it was lowered to all citizens over 18 and up. These changes came about due to increasingly more progressive interpretations of who was qualified to vote. The original argument for changing the voting age from 21 to 18 did not hinge on whether 18 year olds were qualified to vote, but instead on whether a person who was old enough to go to war deserved the right to vote for the leaders who sent him. Congress, as well as the America people, believed strongly in the slogan “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,” which resulted in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment being the fastest amendment to be ratified by three-fourths of the states legislatures.

It seems clear therefore that 16 year olds deserve the right to vote. It is true that 16 year olds cannot legally serve in the military, however, the argument that those who have to go to war should have a say in who sends them there still applies. To make things clearer let’s start with an example: A person turns 18 in December 2010. At that point he is old enough to serve and, it being peace time, decides to enlist. A few months later in February, his commander in chief asks congress to declare war on another country. Our soldier now has to fight in a war authorized by politicians he never voted for, and which he will not have the opportunity to vote for until November 2012, 2 years into the war. So how do we rectify this situation?

For the United States to officially go to war Congress must pass a resolution authorizing action against another nation. While the senate has terms of 6 years, making it hard for a determined citizenry to effect change in the senate, representatives have a term of only 2 years. Thus by lowering the voting age to 16, anytime House of Representatives that declares war was voted into power by the people who can be drafted. No matter what year a person’s birthday is, they will have been able to vote one time before they are able to be drafted.

There are many other arguments both in favor of and against lowering the voting age. Every argument against lowering the voting age seems to apply as well to lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 as it does to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. From the fact that the voting age was in fact lowered and few people argue that we should raise it, we can surmise that being able to control one’s destiny is more important than the fact that he is too young. Similarly most arguments in favor of lowering the voting age from 18-16 apply just as well to lowering the voting age from 18-6. From this we can surmise that there must be very important concerns to outweigh the potential for damage and abuse. It is my opinion that there is no more important concern than controlling who sends a person to war.

Granting more suffrage is rarely a popular viewpoint among politicians. In our countries history we have only done it 3 times. The reason for this is simple, because the people who want suffrage don’t have the right to vote, no one represents them enough to grant them the right to vote. It will take immense public support and courageous politicians to spearhead such a plan. It will be an uphill battle, but will be worth it in the end.

In this election year much has been made of change from the president, however I would like to examine the theme of change in candidates in general.  Despite all the talk of bringing in Washington outsiders to clean things up, is voting against incumbent candidates really in a voter’s best interests?  Somebody find a tissue, I think the leaking is about to begin:

            Acting in one’s own self-interest is the foundation of Democracy.  All citizens come together and by acting in their own self-interest they elected the candidate who represents the best interests of the most people.  In this way, democracy can almost be defined as a capitalistic utilitarianism in which the greatest majority of people are benefited by acting only to help themselves, and in doing so help others.  First I draw the analogy to economics in that it is found that by increasing the benefit to oneself, the benefit to all is increased as well.  While this does not always work in practice, it does have a greater success rate than other economic theories, just as democracy which does not always benefit everyone in practice, has a higher success rate than other political theories.  Thus, with this analogy drawn we can see that by everyone acting in their own rational self-interest the greatest common good can be achieved as in the saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

            So why is voting for incumbents acting in a voter’s best interest?  There are many arguments made as to why people should vote against incumbents.  According to Vote Out Incumbents Now (VOID), a major complaint against incumbents is their perceived tendency to “vote irresponsibly”.  They define “voting irresponsibly” as, voting for “pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare…” and failing “to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, tax reform, etc.).”  These are serious claims and our country must be on the verge of collapse, as dramatic as these claims are they are, thankfully, untrue.  I am disinclined to believe the assumption that newcomers to congress are any less beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests as incumbents.  According to a February 1^st, 2007 article of The Hill,

“Many Democratic freshmen raised tens of thousands of special-interest dollars toward their reelection even before they were sworn in for the 110th Congress…Rep. David Loebsack (D-Iowa), who surprised former Rep. Jim Leach (R), has already raised $71,000.  About $60,000 of that came from political committees such as the American Bankers Association PAC, which gave him $5,000 on Dec. 18, and the National Association of Realtors PAC, which also wrote him a $5,000 check the same day… The numbers show that although they said during their campaigns that they would reform the “culture of corruption” in Washington, many quickly immersed themselves in the town’s lobbyist-dominated fundraising network to fill up their coffers and retire their debt.”

This is not one isolated incident, as the article went on to say,

“Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) raised about $50,000 in PAC money between Election Day and taking the oath of office. Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) raised about $40,000; Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) about $35,000; Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) about $35,000; and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) about $50,000.” 

This confirms a logical conclusion that a freshman congressman who wins a close race against an incumbent faces much more pressure to raise money for reelection than an incumbent with name recognition and the organizational backing to run a campaign already set up.  So if freshman congressmen are at least as likely, if not more, to be beholden to special interests, how can they benefit their constituents more than incumbents?  What do *John Conyers, Rush Holt Jr., *Edward Kennedy, Rosa Delauro, *George Miller, Barbara Lee, *Ed Markey, Richard Durbin, Maurice Hinchey, John Tierney, and Maria Cantwell have in common?  In a January 5^th 2007 article of The Nation they were cited as sponsors of the “Top 10 [pieces of legislation] for a More Perfect Union”.  What else do they have in common?  None of them were freshman senators or congressman (Technically Maria Cantwell had just started her second term as senator but she had previously been a member of the US House of Representatives).  In fact a few—Conyers, Kennedy, Miller, and Markey—have been serving in the House of Representatives for over 30 years.  This list didn’t even include important pieces of legislation that had already been enacted such as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by two veteran Senators).  So it seems that when it comes time to “pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms” it is the veteran congressman who are getting the job done.  So fine, veteran congressman do good things for the whole country, but they harm their own constituents, right?  Freshman congressmen are going to go in, like Mr. Smith himself, and clean up Washington with nothing but hard-work and determination.  They are going to make sure that their constituents get a fair share, right?  Lets analyze one of the complaints that VOID makes against veteran congressmen, they say that adding pork-barrel spending is one of the most corrupt things a congressmen can do.  On this they are partially correct.  Most pork is useless (quite literally in the case of the famed “Alaska Bridge to Nowhere”) and simply wastes taxpayer dollars.  Of course being a pragmatist I ask myself, ‘as long as pork spending still occurs why shouldn’t my district get a piece of it?’  Indeed, when citizens reelect incumbents they are adding to an already powerful incumbent’s power.  As more senior congressmen retire, die, and lose elections the local congressmen moves up the list of senior members until he finds himself in a position that allows him to direct spending toward his district.  If the government is going to spend $5 Billion developing a new fighter jet, I would logically want it to be built in my town, where my neighbors will benefit.  In a sense, reelecting incumbents is like investing money for the future.  While people will argue against me saying that all I am doing is perpetuating a cycle that hurts the country I answer that electing new congressmen doesn’t reduce pork spending it merely redirects to a place with a  more powerful congressmen.  I am a strong believer that governmental spending should be controlled and pork should be reduced, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is never the correct tactic because as long as there is money to divide up, someone is going to try to use it in his district to try to win reelection and it is in a citizen’s best interest to make sure that that district is his own.  If citizens want to eliminate pork the only way to do that is with across the board reforms (better find a veteran congressman with some power to push that across, because a freshman won’t have a chance).

            I’ve asked a lot of questions but I have one more left, ‘What is the benefit of electing a new congressman?’  As I have shown, doing so is neither beneficial to the country nor the district.  Unless a congressman no longer represents you on the issues, a citizen shouldn’t vote them out of office.  Thinking about it, I was wrong in the beginning, self-interest isn’t the basis for making decisions in a democracy, belief is.  A congressman should believe in the same things as you, that way he can represent you, the length of time he has been in office shouldn’t matter.

Yesterday the New York Times published an article entitled: Pushing Paper Out the Door about Google engineer Chris Uhlik and his efforts to make his home paper-free.

This got me thinking. How convenient would the paper-free lifestyle be? I take a look at my desktop. Sheets of paper are strewn everywhere. Take away the paper products and I have JBL Creature Speakers, Sennheiser headphones, a TI-83+ Calculator, A Maxtor external hard-drive, A TV remote control, my laptop, a lamp, a small Dasani water bottle, and a bottle of multi-vitamins. Gathered together, they have a footprint of about 6 square feet. My desk itself is about 7 feet long and 3 feet deep (including my dresser which is adjacent to my desk, forming one counter) creating 21 square feet of desk space. So while my technology uses less than a third of my desk, I can hadly see any part of my desk due to the masses of paper and books that occupy it. In addition to this clutter, my shelf unit is overflowing with books, notebooks, and loose papers.

My Cluttered Shelves

My Cluttered Desk

While I complain of my room being too small it occurs to me that my room is just too cluttered with papers. So how nice would my room be without paper? Well I’ll find out eventually since I will now be attempting to reduce my “Paper Footprint” (And yes I’ve just trademarked that phrase).

There is a bonus. Thanks to former Vice-President Al Gore we all know that our wasteful lives have irreparably changed the planet. As landfills overflow countries turn to burning their garbage as a means to both generate energy and deal with their trash problems. In response to activism the cliché response is, “But what can I do?”, well I’ve figured out what I can do. By reducing, and perhaps one-day eliminating, my paper-footprint I can reduce the strain we put on the planet. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Greenpeace loving environmentalist but I do understand that it is important for people to protect the planet, if only out of self-interest (more on my opinions on protecting the planet in future posts).

I pose this question to my readers, few though they may be, if you could change one thing in your life to help the planet, what would it be and why?

First of all let me say that I have no experience in MMORPGs, I have no experience in hacking, and I am not an expert in the subjects I am talking about.  As a result take everything I say with a grain of salt.

That having been said…  In this month’s issue of WIRED magazine there is an article about people groups of clandestine hackers that commit cybercrimes on MMORPGs.  The article details who groups of people, “griefers” attack internet communities, such as Second Life and World of Warcraft, in an attempt to, put simply, make the users cry.  According to the article, leaders of these groups have said that they attempt to blur the line between the fiction of games and the reality that people project onto the games.  In essence they are the school bully who makes fun of a kid for thinking Dungeons and Dragons is real.

Personally, I agree with their basic premise.  We do turn alternate reality into reality too much.  When we spend thousands of dollars a year buying upgrades for an avatar who doesn’t exist we are in essence, paying for a delusion.  While some people accept that, others actually attempt to profit off of alternate realities by selling alternate reality real estate, playing the game for people to increase their abilities, and selling characters who have advanced far in the games.  In the article it talks about how attackers in the digital world have attacked these Second Life moguls and harassed their clientele.  I understand the idea that it is all part of the game, but once you are actually disrupting real cash revenue doesn’t the real law have to apply?

As I sat down at my computer I came upon an article on Yahoo! News, reprinted from WIRED magazine’s blog with the title, “Anonymous Hackers Track Saboteur, Find and Punish the Wrong Guy”.  Basically what happened is: apparently a war between anti-Scientology and pro-Scientology hackers has been occurring on the internet.  One of these groups of anti-Scientology hackers, from the same community of people who are griefers, tracked an “enemy” hacker to a certain IP address in Stockton, California owned by a 59 year old man and his wife.  After posting their personal information (Address, Phone Number, Social Security Number) on the internet he received harassing phone calls and death threats.  Upon finding out about their mistake the griefers, also known as “g00ns”, promptly took down the information and issued an apology.

Fine, case closed right!  I say not.  If this weren’t cyber-crime but real crime the police (assuming they could find the culprits) would be breaking down doors and making arrests for harassment.  Instead, nothing.  This is a serious issue that will face the coming nation in the near future and demands the attention of lawmakers.  Of course, I think it is safe to say that few lawmakers would understand, let alone care, about cyber-crime.  As a nation we need to develop strict rules as to the culpability of crimes committed on the internet.  Where does the innocent interrupting an attack on another character turn into stealing upgrades that a character has purchased?  Where does the innocent (though not necessarily legal) messing with someone’s computer turn into putting a person in physical danger?

The story I told was about a man who got caught in the crossfire of a virtual war, why are the combatants who have harmed him less culpable than the gangs who hit innocent civilians during gang wars.  I’m not an expert, but I do know that something has to be done or else sooner or later, the internet will start claiming fatalities… if it hasn’t already.

          It is my belief that every high school student should have to study physics for at least one year before they can graduate.

          Your child asks you, “Mommy, Daddy, why is the sky blue?” to which you inevitably respond, “It just is.”  In this time of Presidential Elections we seem to worship down-home-ness and being a common man (or woman this year).  We have a culture of anti-intellectualism that has got to stop.

          America’s educational system has continued to rank low on the world scale.  According to a report released by UNICEF in 2002, the US came in a stunning 18^th place rank in terms of education.  The rankings were based on the literacy and science and math abilities of 15 year olds.  According the study 16.2 % of students were below international benchmarks putting us right behind the rich and mighty Hungarian school system with its 14 % failing rate.  Of course Japan had a failure rate of just 2.2%.  This is flat out ridiculous!  In a country that has mandatory, free public schooling for all its citizens how is it that we can’t manage to be among the top countries academically.  In 2003 an international assessment found the US to be 9^th out of 12 industrialized countries in math scores tied with another wealthy country… Latvia.

          The reason why I am thinking about this subject right now is the controversy with teaching intelligent design in schools.  First let me state for the record my opinion on intelligent design:  “BULLSHIT!!!” I want to believe in God just as much as the next person but trying to call intelligent design secular and claiming that it has scientific basis is poppycock (I never get to say that anymore).  On a side note (there will be many of these during my brain drippings), Darwin who championed the theory of evolution actually thought that evolution was proof that God must exist because how else could creatures have the ability.  I don’t necessarily agree with this, I think probability and random chance is a much better (though less comforting) explanation, but it just goes to show you. 

          Anyway, point is, children are taught so much abstract science that I believe that it is hard for them to understand what makes science, science.  Sure you can learn about the theory of evolution in biology or understand ionic bonding in chemistry but in physics you can actually see what you are learning.  You can see gravity, you can feel gravity.  You can make circuits and light light-bulbs and hopefully be inspired by an experiment that you perform.

          According to the National Center for Education Statistics, on 24.7% of high school students will take a class in physics, the only numbers lower than that are Calculus at 10.1% and trigonometry at 21.1%.  For comparison, 73.9% will take a foreign language, 93% will take biology, 55.5% will take chemistry, and 53.9% will take both biology and chemistry.

          What does this mean?  In an age that is defined by technology, the United States is not keeping pace with the developing economies in Asia and Eastern Europe.  America, the center of post-war technological innovation is being superseded by China and India.  Every day in the news we hear people complain about how they were laid off their factory job so that someone working for peanuts could do it in Asia.  That is the beauty of engineering.  You can’t use child labor and you can’t use peanuts.  Sure tech-support can be outsourced (ever called Microsoft for help?) but tech-support is to engineering what blogging is to novel-writing, it takes less skill, effort, and time.  Engineering is a field that is hard to outsource and can provide job security to Americans at a time when it is increasingly hard to find a job.  Richard Feynman said in his autobiographical book “Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman”, that he was often able to pickup other subjects very easily because he understood the physics behind why they worked.  I’ve found this true in my own studies as well, understanding thermodynamics makes chemistry a breeze sometimes. 
          So here’s the practical plan.  High school is 4 years long.  It is my belief that every student should take non-calculus physics in their first year, biology in their second, chemistry in their third, and have the choice of either calculus based physics or earth science in their final year of high school.  Why do I consider Earth Science so lowly.  Besides the fact that I slept through a year of it with a 95 average (my highest in any science course I took), I find it to be rather trivial to be able to calculate your altitude based on the azimuth of the sun or to be able to name the angle of repose.  Most of the key parts of the subject are learned in physics, biology, and chemistry.  Students who have a solid foundation in physics will be better prepared to enter the high-tech job market and if they choose not to, will at least have a solid scientific background to draw from later in life.

          When you grow up and have kids instead of saying, it just is, you might be able to answer their question, “Because the color blue disperses most easily when it enters our atmosphere thus causing the sky to appear blue”.

It was quick, I know, but I just wrote this email to Chancellor Wrighton outlining some of the reasons why Barack Obama should be allowed to speak at Washington University in St. Louis. It is poorly edited and written quickly and was meant to be nothing more than a note that I doubt he will even read. But for your enjoyment, here it is:

“

To Chancellor Wrighton,

First of all I preface this by saying that I am not an Obama supporter, nor am I a Gonzalez supporter. I simply want to see our campus as a center of political debate. This not only benefits the students but attracts the best and brightest future students. I chose this school over smaller schools because of what name recognition can do, not for my career, but for my experience at school. Instead of having the former assistant to the deputy to the vice-attorney general (I’m aware this position does not actually exist) we have the former attorney general himself speaking. We should be having every Presidential candidate holding rallies on campus if they want. I challenge you to name ways that the students are harmed by having even one candidate speak. And then find me 10 students who would actually feel that harm. Frankly if other candidates don’t choose to come here, that is there loss, and the fault of their supporters for not demanding it. They lose votes, we lose nothing.

The arguments put forth so far by the administration have been quixotic at best. Every time one is satisfied another one magically appears. Well the latest one as far as I know is that we might not be able to give every candidate the opportunity. So below is a list of places that a candidate can use (enough for all current candidates) including outdoor ones that can’t just be busy when a candidate wants it:

                1. The AC

                2. Brookings Quadrangle

                3. Brookings Steps

                4. Holmes Lounge

                5. The Swamp

                6. Mudd Field

                7. The IM Fields

                8. The Concordia Fields

                9. The Field in front of the B-School and all the Construction 

                10. 560 Music Building

                11. Graham Chapel

                12. Lab-Sci 300

                13. Edison Theatre

And I’m sure there are others.

Point is: We should extend an official invitation to every candidate specifically saying that availability of any of these sites is limited and will be given on a first come first serve basis. This covers the university from liability because there is then an official reason why a candidate gets preference (he reserved it first).

Don’t limit the students, don’t prevent discourse and debate. The greatest thing to happen to Columbia was the President of Iran speaking there. Alberto Gonzalez is a step in the right direction, but if we want to keep calling ourselves a school at the level of the ivy leagues, we have got to start acting like it (which might I add Ivy League schools have had candidates speak there).

In response to the argument that it might endanger the vice presidential debates. As nice as those are, they were a consolation prize. We won’t be getting the candidates, we won’t be getting the same media attention (In 2000 the vice-Presidential debates had fewer viewers than the Subway Series between the Mets and the Yankees). The debate is great for the campus, don’t get me wrong, but it shouldn’t be determining all policy with regard to being controversial for the next year and half.

In closing, to prevent Obama from speaking on campus would be a disservice to all the students of this school. Given the raises in tuition, I think that students ought to be given more control over what happens on their campus, because in reality the campus should belong to the students, and if the students want to see candidates, the students should get to see candidates on campus.

Respectfully,

Peter Glaser

School of Engineering ‘11

”

We’ll See What Happens

Dear Blog Reader,

            Well, here I am.  One of those guys.  There must be a billion of them.  The internet has brought incredible change to the world.  Perhaps its most prolific change is that it has allowed any idiot who thinks he has an idea to become a columnist.  So, I say again, “Here I am”.    Though no one is going to read this post I feel that in the interest of being forthcoming I ought to tell all my readers (who at the time number: Me) what this blog will be about.

            I’m sitting at my laptop watching Barack Obama being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN.  I just finished writing a few samples to include with resumes I will be sending to possible internship opportunities for the summer.  I often read a book, watch tv, or write a paper and think to myself, “Someone ought to hear my opinion on the subject”.  Despite a lack of erudition when it comes to writing (I consider myself to be a much better public speaker than a writer), I am opinionated and I have things to share with the rest of the world. 

That having been said, some blog posts will be incomplete ideas.  They will not always represent my intention and when this happens I will attempt to edit them for clarity.  Consider no post a finished product but instead, a rough draft.  These are posts from a “Leaking Brain” and cannot be fully controlled at times.  What may seem like a brilliant idea at first may come out differently than I want and as a result I may change wording a text from time to time, I may even replace posts wholesale if I make an edit on them for some reason.  If you wish to quote me or see original copies I can be contacted for permission.  Sure there is nothing preventing you from quoting me without permission but if I feel I have been misrepresented there will be consequences.  I am a very easy person so please don’t take advantage of this for personal gain.

The blog is called “The Leaking Brain” for two reasons.  The first of them is practical, someone already had the name “Brain Drippings” and I didn’t want to use a one that someone else had.  It is possible that someone chose “The Leaking Brain” already, but I didn’t know about it, so if you’re reading my blog at this point (which seems incredibly unlikely given that no one is reading my blog at this point) sorry, tough, deal with it.  That is I suppose my first opinion.  That people shouldn’t complain (which I understand is ironic, given that I’m starting a blog) about things that are unavoidable or accidental (this was accidental, though not unavoidable, so don’t complain about, perhaps if you are polite I might change the name, but complaining will get you nowhere).  Back on track, the second, and much more important, reason is that this blog will be those ideas that are leaking right out of my brain. 
            This is my pledge to you, the readers:

1.       I will regularly respond to comments left on articles if they are civil and polite.  It is a great way for me to fill up column space and allows for a dialogue between us.

2.      I will regularly post.  The only thing that will prevent me from doing so will be if I am asked by an employer not to or if I forget.  Either way, sending an email to me is a quick easy way to remind me if you’re ever angry that I haven’t posted.  Posts will likely be weekly but will sometimes be more often (I’ve got a lot of backlogged ideas) or less often (Eventually I’ll need to build up more ideas).

3.      I will never criticize someone who calls me on an incorrect fact.  In dialogue people are lacking facts and tend to disapprove of no-it-alls.  I will encourage anyone who thinks they have facts that prove or facts that dispute what I say to post them.

4.      I will listen to you.  If you think there is a book that I “have to read!” because it is so influential or controversial, I will make my best attempts to do so.  I am a student.  I do have other responsibilities.  But I will try.

So there we are.  The blog is officially started.

Signed,

Peter Glaser

–The views on this blog are in no way represent any organization that Peter is a part of, they are from his head and represent nothing more than an idea.