Central Coast News Mission Santa Barbara

Conserv-ation

2006-01-12T13:37:00.000-08:00

When I was in graduate school, a fellow student accused me of being a conservative (funny, huh?). I’ve never particularly liked labels like that because I think they make communication more difficult than it needs to be. People argue with what they assume other people believe based on “liberal” and “conservative” archetypes instead of just listening without prejudice.

Nevertheless, I argued with my accuser, saying that, for instance conservation is very important to me. He joked that that just proved that I was a conservative because look... I was in favor of conserving something...

It strikes me as kind of funny that, in fact, environmental conservation is considered a priority for “liberals” more than for “conservatives”. It seems to me that on this score, the major difference between the two archetypal positions is that liberals want to conserve things for the long term. A liberal sees that current practices can’t continue because if they do, we’re going to run out of stuff we’re exploiting. So liberals state that we ought to make changes in order to come as close as we can to continuing what we want to do. A conservative will say that the future is uncertain, and the farther to the future you look, the less certain are your predictions, so... don’t worry about anything more than a year or so down the line. The future will somehow take care of itself, probably through means we can’t yet see. Choosing today’s actions based on predictions of what the earth will be like in twenty years will definitely cause hardship -- potentially unnnecessary hardship -- to some people today. Why choose certain hardship today to prevent possible hardship decades away?

Dr. Seuss saw the error in the conservative viewpoint and published The Lorax in 1971. You can find the text of the story here, but I would encourage everyone to find a copy of the book.

For a more ancient source of inspiration, Aesop’s fable, “The Grasshopper and the Ants” also seems germane. There are different ways the story could be interpreted -- ironically I just found a site where the story is re-told with Democrats playing the part of the bad guys. But one way to interpret it is that you can either prepare for a future that isn’t currently obvious but can still be predictable (what the ants do), or you can fritter away your life in times of plenty, hoping that if things get worse, you’ll find a way to muddle through (as the grasshopper did... at least in versions of the story where the ants gave him food instead of leaving him to die).

I would like to think that we are learning from history. That there are so many grasshoppers and Once-lers around us suggests to me that we’re not learning as quickly as we need to be. But I can hope...

--Mickey P. Rowe (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu)

Can we expect peace this year?

2006-01-06T13:31:00.000-08:00

I’ve been staying away from all of the latest Bush scandals, but I can’t do that forever. It wouldn’t be in my nature...

I predict that this is going to be a very ugly year for this country. My rationale has been spelled out by many such as Howard Fineman in his recent column, The 'I' Word.

People in power generally have to find ways to fend off threats to that power. Few have been as ruthless as the current occupants of the White House. A major trick they’ve used to co-opt others in their own defense has been to suggest that any dissent against them is the same as dissent against the United States. It’s not going to keep working for them. Too many people are noticing that what’s good for George Bush is not the same thing as what’s good for America.

Blatant Misleading

Over the holidays I had the good fortune to spend time with my father... who likes Fox News. Two things in particular caught my attention as being particularly disingenuous. The first was from Mr. Bush himself.

He was defending his NSA directive to eavesdrop on international phone conversations with U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He argued quite forcefully that he should be allowed to monitor these conversations. He is attempting to direct public opinion away from the real reason for outrage. By arguing that the government should be allowed to eavesdrop, he is sidestepping the issue that is actually upsetting people... the claim that agents working on his behalf can conduct these wiretaps without any judicial oversight.

If the case can be made that these conversations should be monitored, then the case should be made. Little things like “due process”, “innocent until proven guilty”, and “unnecessary search and seizure” are important to this country. If Mr. Bush doesn’t understand that this is what the uproar is about then I hope someone can burst his bubble. By arguing about the eavesdropping instead of its oversight, I suspect he is misleading on purpose.

Which brings me to my second example of misleading... On New Year’s Day, Fox News kept running a story about how 2005 had been hard for Mr. Bush. Most people seem to agree with that. However, in their reporting, they asked the question, “how will Bush prevail in 2006”. The quote may not be exact, but they definitely used the word “prevail”. It frames the reporting in a way that suggests that all of the scandals and outrage in Washington are things that have victimized Mr. Bush. The question becomes, “what will he do to overcome his difficulties?” A fair and balanced presentation might have framed the question, “will Americans assign guilt to Mr. Bush for any of the various entanglements in which he’s participated?”

It is not like he is a bystander. And it is not like it is beyond question that he has done some things that are unethical and possibly illegal. The reporting should be framed such that his guilt or innocence are open questions. How will he prevail... I suspect most Fox viewers didn’t even notice they were being manipulated. But it was so blatant... “How” even goes so far as to frame your thinking into a question of the way it will happen, not even whether or not it will happen. How different the report would have sounded if the question were should he prevail?

If you saw the report, I hope you now recognize that you were, in fact, being manipulated... Fair and balanced my afterburners...

Mickey P. Rowe (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu)

How To Have Fun With Fido

2006-01-05T15:23:00.001-08:00

by Karen Lee Stevens.
This originally appeared in the South Coast Beacon.

There's no doubt about it--I'm a party animal. So, when I opened my mail the other day and found an invitation to Santa Barbara Pug Rescue's annual Pug Party, I yipped in excitement. A party with dogs and a cake? It just doesn't get any better than that. But, I can tell you right now, you're not going to find me making small talk and nibbling on the broccoli and celery sticks for long. I'm going to be right in the middle of the action with a digital camera in one hand and a notebook in the other. Karen Lee Stevens, Cub Reporter.

From the moment I stepped through the gates of Connie Phillip's County English estate on the Riviera, I was surrounded by a plethora of pampered pugs. There was nary a bark nor a bite among these squishy-faced, curly-tailed cuties. There were pugs puckering up in hopes of winning the Best Kisser contest, while others preened about in lavish attire in anticipation of taking home the blue ribbon for Best Costume. Those too pooped to party could be found cooling their paws in a shaded play pen.

My favorite pug though had to be four-year-old Molly, a paraplegic pug who belongs to Mandy Evans of Santa Barbara. Molly doesn't let her handicap slow her down. This sweet and friendly four-year-old pug propels herself around with her very own custom-made set of wheels. Evans frequently takes Molly into local schools to talk about what it's like to love and care for a dog with special needs.

The pawpularity of pooch parties are increasing exponentially, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. The findings showed that, in 2004, nine percent of dog lovers held birthday parties for their canines, a six-fold increase over the previous year.

No one knows how to party with panache better than Arden Moore, author of Dog Parties: How to Party with Your Pup. She says, "Wouldn't you rather attend a dog party than a snobby wine-tasting affair, a pricey candle party, or a put-you-to-sleep Monopoly marathon? People parties are passé--dog parties rule!"

I couldn't agree more. My recent foray into dog party-dom was absolutely pugalicious and I can't wait for another one. Pawty on!

Karen Lee Stevens is the pet columnist for the Montecito Journal, published biweekly in Montecito, and is the founder and Executive Director of AllforAnimals.com.

Dust in the Wind

2005-12-22T08:51:00.000-08:00

When I was four years old, I started building plastic model kits. Over the course of the next fifteen years I built hundreds of them. At one point I had over 75 airplanes and a few space ships hanging from the ceiling of my bedroom. As an adult I’d like to keep up the hobby, but like many people in my generation, the best I’ve been able to do is squirrel away several kits because I just can’t find the time to build them.

I continue to squirrel kits away because I can see that the hobby is almost dead; if I hope to build models after I retire, I need to get them now... I was in Long’s drug store in Lompoc last night... It had been the one holdout in town. Walmart has a supply that waxes and wanes a bit, but Long’s was dependable. Right now it looks like they’ve given up too. Just a few remaining kits tucked away at the end of the aisle.

As a kid I didn’t give a lot of thought to the history of polystyrene model building. It was so easy to find such a variety of inexpensive kits it just seemed like the hobby had been around forever. But I came on the scene not too long after polystyrene kits largely displaced kits built from balsa wood, paper, and dope. And I wonder how many people a generation or two before mine watched wistfully as plastic pushed out wood. Just as I watch electronic games, pre-fabricated toys, and Legos push away the model kit industry.

Things Come and Go

I see the rise and fall of plastic model kits as a metaphor for most of the things people take for granted. Like Christmas. Watching blowhards like Bill O’Reilly foam at the mouth about the “war on Christmas” would be funny if it weren’t so counterproductive and historically ignorant. Bill’s time would be better spent building toy models.

Most aspects of the way that Americans currently celebrate Christmas are relatively recent inventions and co-options of the practices of non-Christians. It’s rather ironic that Christians take offense that others don’t adequately respect their holiday. Should I be mad at the Lego corporation for creating and selling kits that people now generally prefer to the glue and paint kits I prefer? Can I do that without appreciating how “my” kits pushed aside wood and paper?

The biggest irony of all is the statement that “Jesus is the reason for the season”. Whatever season Jesus is the reason for, it’s not winter. For a radical view, including some of the basic reasoning (agreed with by all with even a passing understanding of history) of why Jesus could not have been born on December 25th, take a look at:

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/jesusbirth.html

In some times and places in the precursors to the United States, Christmas was outlawed partly because most aspects of its celebration are thoroughly pagan. Congress was in session on December 25th 1789, and Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until 1870. (These facts are courtesy of The History Channel.) It is quite likely that most of the things we take for granted now -- the mad rushes to buy presents for everyone, the contests to have the most or most impressive light displays, the omni-present decorations and signs saying “Merry Christmas” or, God forbid, “Happy Holidays” will be gone or unrecognizably transformed within a few generations. History suggests it may even be Christians who will be primarily responsible for these changes.

Let It Be

Most changes are greeted by at least some people with sadness and anger. If “Happy Holidays” really does displace “Merry Christmas” the same way Legos and videogames displaced model kits, those who really love “Merry Christmas” will have my sympathy. But if they get angry and attack people “responsible” for the change, they’ll get the same respect they’d give me if I were to angrily denounce Lego and Nintendo and try to rally others to anger in an effort to organize boycotts of those companies. Sounds kinda’ nuts, doesn’t it?

Mickey Rowe (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu)

What we knew three years ago...

2005-12-15T09:40:00.001-08:00

Readers will be forgiven if they think that Ron Fink and I are the same person (like Stephen Colbert debating himself as his own Formidable Opponent on “The Colbert Report”). However, I would like to assure everyone that my return coinciding closely with Mr. Fink’s is purely... coincidental. As is the fact that we are tackling similar topics. I chose my topic before I glanced at his blog...

I’m coming from a slightly different, but not diametrically opposed angle. I’m actually getting tired of hearing how badly the mainstream media failed to get people to realize that invading Iraq was a bad idea. If you followed enough media reports, it was easy to see that the Bush administration was hyping the WMD story.

When I wrote my first entry for the CC News Mission blog, I noted that I was new to blogging. But I wasn’t new to spouting off. Here are a couple of things I sent (these are unedited excerpts from my files) to the editors of The Lompoc Record, first in January of 2003:


     We're told we need to attack Iraq because they have 
     weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush and Mr.
     Rumsfeld insist those weapons are there even 
     though to date U.N. inspectors have found none.

and then in March of 2003 (I wrote this before the invasion began, though I think it was published after “Shock and Awe”):


     The vast majority of us opposed to an
     unprovoked attack on Iraq love our country 
     and support our troops.  Most of us think 
     the best way to defend America and its ideals 
     is to do all we can to prevent what we think 
     would be by far the worst mistake our 
     government has ever made.

     Last summer the CIA said that if Iraq has any 
     weapons of mass destruction they are unlikely 
     to be used unless Iraq is attacked first.  More 
     recently UN weapons inspectors have stated that 
     no evidence of such weapons or their production 
     has been found at sites searched based on 
     intelligence provided by the U.S. government.  
     The inspectors stated that the "tips" they've been 
     receiving have been garbage.  That's not a literal 
     quote since I'm sure the Record would not 
     publish the word actually used.

     There is no credible evidence that Iraq is any 
     threat to us now or will be in the near future.  If 
     we attack, though, we will be inviting a new 
     generation of terrorists inspired by the "success" 
     of 9/11.  I can imagine a much better future.  I 
     protest in an effort to bring about my vision 
     rather than Osama bin Laden's.

Although many may have been snowed by “reporting” such as that put forth by Judith Miller at The New York Times, if you read multiple sources and gave the most credible sources the most weight as you tried to determine the Truth^®, you could have anticipated much of what we would find out if we invaded Iraq.

Anyone who wants to argue with the me of three years ago should look into the CIA’s current assessments of the impact that the Iraq war has had on worldwide terrorism. There’s essentially no dispute that the invasion and subsequent occupation have been the greatest terrorist recruiting tool that Al Qaeda has ever had. The occupation has also turned Iraq into the best possible terrorist training ground. These things were predictable. Anyone who thinks they weren’t should be ashamed. And don’t blame “the media”. On issues as important as this, people should put in some effort to educate themselves.

--
Mickey P. Rowe (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu)

Janet Wolf To Get A "Free Ride?"

2005-12-11T08:58:00.000-08:00

By contributor Jon K. Williams, Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition.

The News-Press trumpets "conspiracy" since several Democratic electeds have spoken in favor of Janet Wolf’s running for county board of supervisors. Would that there were enough cohesion in the local Democratic Party to actually conspire or, as a less biased and judgmental publication might call it, "reach consensus to effect positive change."

Personally I believe, as the News-Press says it does, that our community can only benefit from hearing the views of multiple candidates on a wide range of issues. I fear, however, that the esteemed daily journal will not be able to control its own libertarian urges when it comes to commenting on the discussion that ensues.

Today, before anyone actually declared intent to run for office, we heard from the paper that Ms. Wolf is the "hand-picked successor" of outgoing supervisor Susan Rose, a woman they call "beleaguered and polarizing, one of three off-putting twisted sisters leaving behind a legacy of ineffective representation."

Now that’s starting things off with an open mind, isn’t it?

The editorial concludes, "Party bosses want to give Janet Wolf a free pass to November." I challenge the News-Press to publish an accurate and well researched article explaining who these local "party bosses" are and how they wield such nefarious power.

I'm not suggesting there's a conspiracy on the part of a certain paper and those hoping to see the 2nd district go to a conservative candidate, but "Free Debate and Fair Reporting" needs to be our battle cry and all concerned readers have to help keep the News-Press editorial board in line.

Friday Night Films Continue Tradition

2005-12-08T10:25:00.000-08:00

There's an ongoing tradition in Santa Barbara called "Friday Night Films." You are invited to come view a timely film at Friendship Manor. The address is: 6647 El Colegio, Isla Vista, every Friday night at 7:30 pm.

Films on the schedule for this month:

December 9 -- "CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN."
John Perkins’ personal account of the events that forced him to choose between conscience and the glamorous life of power, luxury, and beautiful women.

Also playing, "NEW PATRIOTS." Five U.S. military veterans, including a Congressional Medal of Honor winner and a woman West Point graduate, speak out about terrorism, patriotism and their transformation from warriors to peace activists.

December 16 -- "EMBEDDED LIVE." Embedded Live contains a stage performance of Tim Robbins' controversial satire that pointed out the horror and the folly of the American invasion of Iraq. The story of the play concerns a group of journalists who have been embedded with troops on the ground in the fictional country of Gomorrah.

December 23 -- "SOLVING THE CRIMES OF 911." A great gathering of concerned citizens met at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles on October 23, 2004, in an exciting and often dramatic demonstration of citizen courage and responsibility.

They drew on Common Law for precedent, elected and convened a Citizens' Grand Jury, formally rejected the legitimacy and conclusions of the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission and declared the 'Official Story' "physically impossible, contradictory, implausible and fraudulent."

December 30 -- "ON THE EDGE" by Ron Dexter and Douglas Gillies, winner of the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival Award for Best Global Perspective Documentary. "A discussion by a blue ribbon panel, including Mikhail Gorbachev and Jane Goodall on options and outcomes for a sustainable world."

Friendship Manor is in the heart of Isla Vista on the corner of El Colegio and Los Carneros. The events take place upstairs in Jaimison Hall near the library and meeting room.

Parking is at the Manor Corner parking lot (the entrance is on the southeast corner of the empty lot at Camino Pescadero and El Colegio, on the east side of Friendship Manor.) The opening is nearly opposite the west end of Cervantes Road. Do not park in the underground parking structure! Better yet, walk, bus or bike to the film.

All are welcome. Suggested donation is $3 to $5 or whatever you can afford. For more information contact Art Schwartz by e-mail (art.farm at cox dot net), or call him at 968-1965.

This event is co-sponsored by Campus Greens, Hopedance, Isla Vista Co-Op and Veterans For Peace.

The Little Pug Who Could

2005-12-03T19:54:00.000-08:00

by Karen Lee Stevens. This column was first published in the Montecito Journal.

Down through the ages, the rallying mantra, “I think I can; I think I can,” has resonated with children and adults alike who revel in Wally Piper’s, The Little Engine That Could. This timeless classic is one of the greatest stories of motivation and power of positive thinking ever told.

There is a little engine of another sort that faces life’s daily ups and downs head on. Her name is Molly, and this perky pug is a remarkable testament to the indomitable will of the spirit. You see, this friendly four-year-old cannot accomplish a lot of things that her canine counterparts take for granted--simple stuff like walking on all four legs or going to the bathroom.

Like most puppies, Molly was born with energy to burn and initially appeared healthy in every way. But, at three months of age, the unthinkable happened--her back legs simply stopped working. After a battery of tests, veterinarians determined that her spine was twisted as a result of a birth defect, cutting off the nerves from her cranium to her caboose.

Euthanasia was quietly suggested. Her human mom, Mandy Evans, refused to be derailed by any thoughts of putting her precious puppy to sleep. Instead, Mandy pledged to pamper her paraplegic pooch, even going so far as to change her diaper several times a day and incur an avalanche of ongoing veterinary bills.

So, just how does Molly get around on a daily basis? Quite nicely, thanks to her very own set of custom wheels, which Mandy can strap to her backside faster than you can say put the pedal to the metal. And, on any given day, this curly-tailed cutie can be found enchanting school children and the elderly at several venues on the South Coast where Mandy regales eager listeners with tales of what it’s like to love and care for a dog with special needs.

Mandy, a corporate event planner in Santa Barbara, possesses an entrepreneurial spirit and recently launched MySpecialDog.com with her business partner, Kevin Roberson.

Their online magazine is devoted to raising awareness of dogs and other animals who are handicapped in some way, whether it is from paralysis, loss of a limb, or blindness. In addition, she is planning to launch Molly Inspires, a line of greeting cards. Mandy and Molly have already appeared on local television and radio shows and are hoping to garner national exposure in the near future.

This dynamic duo appears to be right on track by focusing on what you can do, rather than what you can’t do.

Karen and her new friends will be conducting a doggy fashion show in the Spring of 2006 as a benefit for MySpecialDog.com and All For Animals, Inc. For more information on how you can help make this a first-class event, send email to: karen at allforanimals dot com.

Karen Lee Stevens is the pet columnist for the Montecito Journal, published biweekly in Montecito, and is the founder and Executive Director of AllforAnimals.com.

I Am Thankful

2005-11-18T15:55:00.000-08:00

By guest blogger, Karen Lee Stevens

Though I've never been particularly attached to any specific holiday, Thanksgiving has long been one of my favorite days of the year. It is a time to focus on family and friends and to reflect upon our many blessings. It is also a time to give thanks for the animals in our lives.

I am perhaps most thankful for my work, for it is here that I find inspiration and fulfillment. Between writing professionally about animals and managing All for Animals, Inc., the organization I founded eight years ago, I have the opportunity every day to make a difference in the lives of animals in need.

I am thankful for the tireless efforts of the volunteers and staff at the myriad animal shelters and rescue groups in our community. It is they who give abandoned and abused animals' hope for a brighter tomorrow.

I am thankful for dogs' warm kisses and wet noses. I am thankful for their silly antics that make me laugh even when I'm having a bad day. I am thankful for their ability to find joy in the simplest pleasures--a tennis ball, a car ride, a belly rub. I am thankful for Guinness, my next-door neighbor's beagle. Her exuberance and endless delight at taking a walk with me never cease to bring a smile to my face.

I am thankful for the gentle grace and dignity of cats. Their serene presence and throaty purr can unravel even the tautest of nerves. I am thankful for my cat Cassidy. Even though he has long since passed away, our deep connection transcends time and his soulful presence still envelopes me. He was my muse, my teacher, my purr-fessor, if you will.

I am thankful for the sparrows that built a nest on my front porch and for the tiny bobbling heads that tentatively peek out at the sound of my voice. I am thankful for their cacophony of whistles and warbles outside my bedroom window every morning--they are nature's alarm clock.

I am thankful for the pods of dolphins that slice effortlessly through the surf and instill in me a sense of wonderment, of peace, of bliss.

I am thankful for the innocence of animals in a world that has become increasingly filled with uncertainty. Without animals to calm, to soothe, and to share love and affection, life would be infinitely more difficult. I am thankful for all the animals with whom we share the earth.

This Thanksgiving, please take a moment to give thanks for all the creatures that enrich your life and enhance your appreciation of nature.

[What animals are you thankful for this holiday season? Send your comments to: karen at allforanimals dot com]

Karen Lee Stevens is the pet columnist for the Montecito Journal, published biweekly in Montecito, and is the founder and Executive Director of AllforAnimals.com.

Karen is also a freelance writer and author of the book, "All for Animals: Tips and Inspiration for Living a More Compassionate Life," published by Fithian Press and a 2001 Cat Writers Association Certificate of Excellence winner!

Acts Of Humans

2005-10-07T08:41:00.000-07:00

I hope no one's been disappointed by my tardiness... The last couple of weeks have been busier than I anticipated. It's going to get worse as I'm going to a conference in a couple of weeks and another conference a few weeks after that. I will be, at best, erratic for a while. With respect to timing, that is.

Anyhoo, the subject for the day is Katrina and global warming... are there any causal connections?

In my last posting, I talked about how people want science to corroborate their religious beliefs because the results of science are thought to be the closest we can come to "truth". From what I can tell, people generally fail to appreciate that the "truth" science offers is always probabalistic. Anyone with any kind of science training should understand that science can't provide certainty.

One of my favorite movie lines comes near the beginning of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". Jones is lecturing students in a classroom, and he tells them:

Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

You could insert "science" more generally in place of archeology and the quote would still ring true (which is a little ironic because a couple of centuries ago, what we now call "science" was called "philosophy"... but I digress...)

Recognizing that science never produces certainty, what can we say about Katrina and global warming? Well, here are some facts.

A lot of things have to come together to create a hurricane. A major factor contributing to the strength of a hurricane is the temperature of the ocean along the hurricane's path. Higher ocean temperates cause stronger hurricanes.

Over the course of the last couple of decades the ocean has been heating up. Models strongly implicate human activities as the ultimate cause of this heating.

Combine my previous two paragraphs to get a sense of why people are drawing links between human activity and hurricane Katrina. Among scientists studying climate models, there has been a lot of controversy despite the facts I've laid out. Why?

For one thing, that's just the nature of science. Scientists are basically paid to argue, so that's what they do... But there are some very legitimate reasons to argue here. For instance, global climate models are about statistics... how the weather is behaving and will behave on average. Katrina was an isolated event.

One analogy I saw recently and thought was particularly good is that blaming Katrina on global warming is like blaming a particular car accident on an increase in traffic. As streets get more crowded, people are more likely to bump into each other. But the proximal cause of any particular accident is more likely to be that one of the drivers was too close to the car in front of him, or was adjusting his air conditioner, or was falling asleep or... Increases in traffic due to economic factors, population growth, etc. are conducive to more accidents, but it's hard to say that any one accident would not have occurred if traffic patterns hadn't generally changed.

On the other hand, when traffic is sparse, a person falling asleep at the wheel isn't likely to hurt anyone else. Similarly, when the oceans are cool, hurricanes are unlikely to get very strong.

Much has been made about a couple of recent reports documenting an increase in the relative frequency of stronger hurricanes in recent years. The authors of these reports are convinced human activity is ultimately responsible for part of this increase. Because the reports and the trends they document are new, it will probably be a while before scientists in the relevant fields reach a consensus (i.e., before we can say that the link is most probably correct). Until then it's reasonable to accept the linkage, but also reasonable to be quite skeptical.

A major reason for skepticism is that although an increase in typical hurricane strength has long been a prediction made by climate modelers, the actual rise appears to be occurring earlier than predicted. Let's just hope (or pray) that's a natural glitch rather than an indication that models have been too optimistic on that point...

Notice that I have not bothered to make the case that climate and ocean temperatures are being significantly affected by human activities. That's because among scientists there is a strong consensus on those topics. You will never find scientists in complete agreement; scientists as individuals are all just as human as anyone else and hence can always find things to disagree about.

What we need to do to make rational choices as a civilization is try to understand the roots of disagreements. When there is a small amount of data (e.g., the recent rate of increase in hurricane strength compared to expected hurricane strengths derived from recognizing historical patterns), it's reasonable to sit more or less on the fence. On the other hand, when there are multiple lines of independent evidence all pointing in the same direction (e.g., human activity has dramatically changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and hence its heat budget) then it's not so reasonable.

TTFN.

--Mickey P. Rowe

Science and Religion

2005-09-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

As I wrote before, some people attributed Katrina to global warming and others to the hand of God. Either, neither, or both attributions could have some level of correctness. How can we assess their accuracy?

A Science of Religion?

I have no idea how to assess, "God did it", from a religious perspective. But I can talk about ways to frame the issue so that you could test it from a scientific perspective.

People generally shy away from this sort of analysis. That's probably prudent. The best reason to be so shy is that all religions shroud God in enough mystery to render moot pretty much anything that I could write about the subject. Many Christians are quite explicit about this -- you cannot prove the hand of God because if you could, then we would not require faith. Without faith, belief in God is meaningless.

But I'm not a prudent person.

Follow Me If You Too Are Foolish

How could a scientist test whether or not God creates large scale destructive events? By creating hypotheses about God's properties and testing to see if the data are consistent with these hypotheses.

For instance, many people believe that God rewards good and punishes evil. If that hypothesis is correct, and if God uses natural disasters toward those ends, then you would expect that hurricanes and such-like would target areas where evil is more prevalent.

Now all we have to do is correlate the likelihood that areas will be targeted for destruction with the areas' relative amounts of evil. For "evil", we can add up statistics for homicide rates, mugging rates, etc. For destruction, we can add up statistics for rates of death by hurricane, earthquake, landslide, wildfire, etc.

Now what do we do with the results? What if there is a strong positive correlation? Does that mean you've proven God exists and has the property of using natural disasters to destroy evil? Then as I wrote above, you wouldn't have to have faith. Belief in this God would be an act of reason (until and unless competing hypotheses provided better explanations for more data -- bear in mind that in any scenario, science is a never-ending process; new hypotheses are continuously being proposed and tested).

What if there was a strong negative correlation (that is, evil flourishes in places where death via natural disaster is rare)? Does that mean you've disproven the existence of God? Or have you just disproven the hypothesis that God uses natural disasters against evil?

What if there's no correlation at all (that is, evil is just as likely to flourish in places routinely targeted by natural disasters as it is in places where natural disasters are rare)? You're left with the same questions. On the other hand, at least in this case you don't have to worry that the results mean that God and the devil are fighting on Earth and that the devil is winning...

So perhaps this exercise would be foolish... for believer and disbeliever alike there's no particularly good outcome.

What the H-E-Double-Toothpicks Did I Do This for?

For three reasons. One is because I said I would :-)

A more important reason is that I want to draw a firm distinction between science and faith. In America, the success of science at explaining, predicting, and helping us to manipulate the world has lead many to think of science as the ultimate arbiter of truth (please note that this is not generally a position to which practicing scientists adhere). And since people also hold that their religious beliefs are true, then they draw the conclusion that science and religion should provide the same answers. But scientists generally don't answer the questions religions pose. I'd like to think I've just given you an idea of why that is and why it's as it should be.

I've just given the basic outline to a (note a not the) scientific analysis of the claim that God causes events like Katrina. Would it be helpful if people actually pursued the course I outlined? Would the results have any impact at all on your faith? Should they?

Typically this type of discussion stems from concerns about the theory of evolution. If you are a Creationist, you should know that scientists did once think that it made sense to test hypotheses about the mind of God made manifest in the various forms living things take. After a few rounds of discovery indicating that God didn't think about life in the way people hypothesized he might, the pursuit was abandoned.

Nobody, not even the current crop of "Intelligent Design" advocates, currently studies biology by testing hypotheses about how God thinks. And as long as no one is doing that, there is no science behind Creationism.

Cycling back, there's no science (that I know of; corrections welcome) behind statements that God causes hurricanes. As I hope I've made clear, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. And so my third reason for going through all of this. I don't see any evidentiary support to the assertion that God is a (much less the) cause of Katrina.

If anybody wants to educate me on how to use religious tradition to test the claim that God causes hurricanes like Katrina, please post a comment. Barring some rational way to do that, it seems pointless to tell people that God is responsible. To think God is responsible is purely a matter of faith and hence can't be used as the basis for or result of a logical argument.

In my next installment, I'm going to go back to global warming and more appropriate applications of the scientific method.

Why the furor...

2005-09-09T09:09:00.000-07:00

Since the "blame game" continues to rile people up, I'll stick with it... Probably the best source I've seen for identifying various sources of blame is this story by the BBC. Seems typical to me that some of the best reporting about America comes from England...

Note that the story describes various things that should have been done better than they were without actually ranking which of those things contributed the most to the resultant catastrophe. Such a ranking will probably remain forever a matter of opinion.

What I'm finding to be most interesting is the Rorschach nature of how people are assigning and ranking the causes of the catastrophe. Two causes that don't get mentioned in the BBC article but that have been bandied about elsewhere are the wrath of God and the warming of the ocean caused by humanity's pollution of the atmosphere. I plan to talk about those in another blog, probably next week.

Today I'll return to the subject of my own Rorschach test.

Why so much ire at Bush?

Die hard Bush loyalists appear mystified that Bush is taking so much heat for Katrina. So I'd like to take a crack at solving some of that mystery.

For me personally, Bush's response (or lack thereof) to Katrina is just one more example of some rather obvious (to me) deficiencies in the man as a leader. In that regard, I believe I am thoroughly out of the mainstream, so that can't be the reason for the dogpile. What is?

Mr. Bush is inheriting the wind. For the last four years he has been riling people up by trying to direct their fear and anger at his preferred targets. Americans have been happy to go along and even cheer for him as he's lead them to believe he's the gung ho cowboy who sets his mind to goals and follows them through. Better yet, big daddy will take care of our problems by telling us we're great, and it won't cost us anything. He'll even give us back some of our money!

The facade is breaking down. It's becoming clear that he can't do what he says, and his failures are costing us. Where is Osama bin Laden? Why are terrorist attacks rising in frequency and severity (in general -- 9/11 was an anomaly)? Who doesn't know someone at risk or already a casualty from Iraq? Why are the Iraqis still fighting us and costing us money instead of giving us flowers and paying for their reconstruction out of their own oil profits as we were promised?

And then Katrina brings home the real question... are we safer? We were told many times last year that we would be safe only if we "re"-elected Bush and Cheney. Who still believes Bush and Cheney have the powers they and their supporters claimed them to have?

People need to blame something. Mr. Bush appears to understand this and has done his level best to turn it to his advantage whenever he could. As I wrote before, there is no obvious target he can re-direct us toward now. Some options:

Mother nature? No. Not only do people generally like nature, it's also quite clear that we don't currently have control over it. Even though we're only ten years from the setting of the beginning of "Back to the Future part II", nobody even imagines practical methods we could use to create and disband storms at will.

Local officials? That's the best target Bush has, because it is quite clear (as the BBC article highlights) that they could have done better. But they're too sympathetic to be demonized. Mayor Nagin never gassed anyone in New Orleans.

The people themselves? It's too obvious that many of them didn't have the resources to help themselves or even to understand the danger. They're even more sympathetic than local officials.

So who or what? If you have an answer, call the White House.

Is the blame heaped on Bush fair? To a large extent, no. It really is a dogpile. His poll numbers have been plummeting all summer. He's taken hits from Cindy Sheehan's efforts. Other politicians and reporters are now turning his tricks to their advantage. Attacking Bush helps to sell copy right now and gives other politicians -- even Republicans -- an enemy to rally against. An enemy that's not them.

Mr. Bush masterfully deflected blame for 9/11 from himself. You have to admit it's a neat trick that he presided over the worst terrorist attack in world history and convinced the public he was their best bet to keep them safe from terrorists. The current estimate for the number of people killed by Katrina is three times as high as the ultimate toll from 9/11.

The nationally televised speech Mr. Bush gave on 9/20/01 was seen as a real turning point for him. It's now more than nine days since Katrina hit land. Where's the stirring speech now, and what should it contain? I actually have some ideas about what the speech should contain, but that too should be left for another day. The bigger concern for everyone now is, can Bush answer those questions?

To me and, I gather, most Americans, the answer to my last question appears to be a resounding no. As long as the answer remains no, the dogpile will continue.

--
Mickey P. Rowe

George Bush's Responses To Disaster

2005-09-07T12:59:00.000-07:00

The Santa Barbara News-Press ran a column from a Philadelphia newspaper on Sunday. The gist of the column was that the author hoped George Bush would soon show the sort of leadership we need now in the aftermath of Katrina. Like many others, he is seeking leadership like that which Bush demonstrated in his supposed success at responding to the attacks of 9/11 (after he finished flopping around the country making sure he wasn't in any personal danger, that is).

Although Bush did rally the American public four years ago, I personally think he did the worst thing he could do back then, and I'm sure he can't repeat it now.

When faced with an injustice, human nature causes us to crave the administration of revenge. This desire served our ancestors well in ensuring that individuals contributed to rather than drained society. It's not always in our best interests to give in to the craving, however. Our base impulses can be abused by opportunistic politicians. Like George Bush. What Bush did in 2001 and has been trying to do ever since is channel our collective desires toward his own ends.

It allowed him to send troops to Iraq. So blind was our rage that only now is a majority starting to wonder if Iraq was an appropriate target for it.

The problem for Bush from Katrina is that there are no enemies against which he can direct people's anger. What's he going to do, declare war on nature?

It's sadly ironic that, in fact, Mr. Bush has declared war on nature. Easing regulations on pollution, denying scientific consensus on the most pressing problems current consumer habits are causing, increasing access to public lands by extractive industries (oil, timber, etc.)... Mr. Bush couldn't do much worse to nature if he did explicitly mobilize people to destroy it.

But mother nature just doesn't present a target as nice as Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin forgotten). It's just too hard to get people to hate their mother.

So don't expect "great" leadership from Mr. Bush in response to Katrina. Construction is not his strength. --Mickey P. Rowe

Introducing Our New Blogger, Mickey Rowe

2005-08-31T15:37:00.000-07:00

by Mickey Rowe, UCSB research biologist.

This is officially my first blog contribution. I'm no neophyte on the net; e-mail has been my primary means of communication since 1988.

I wrote my first web pages in the early 90s, when Mosaic was the only web browser anyone used.

And "anyone" wasn't a whole lot of people...

But I've resisted the blogosphere until now. I've generally felt my life to be full enough not to go looking for such added distractions. I was drawn to the Central Coast News Mission by another local blogger. The local aspect has reeled me in...

Many of you may know my name from having seen it attached to letters to the editors of The Lompoc Record. Generally when I write there, I'm responding to something someone else wrote.

Here, I'd like to initiate conversations. But I'll save that for later. Since blogging has developed a history, I'll bow to the wisdom of some who have come before me. In particular, David Ciaffardini suggests that blogs that aren't kept short aren't read.

I'm unlikely to keep all of my posts short. But I'll try to reveal myself and my concerns mostly in small, tolerable doses. I hope to give readers some things they'll like and some they won't... but above all, my aim is to make people think. I hope some will return the favor. --Mickey P. Rowe, mrowe at lifesci.ucsb.edu.

What Are Taxpayers Entitled To Know?

2005-08-19T06:14:00.000-07:00

Photo by: Scott Jacobs
Gotta stay alert and watch what the state government does with our money at all times, especially when it comes to stem cell research in our own backyard.

Basic facts here courtesy of the blog, The California Stem Cell Report.

The Santa Barbara, Merced, Riverside and Santa Cruz UC campuses have applied for "type three" grants for specialized stem cell training programs. Yet the California stem cell agency created by Proposition 71 says this application information is secret.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is organizing a $45 million effort to create a cadre of stem cell researchers through grant programs.

Type three grants offer training at "one or two levels of education." Each grant can support up to 6 trainees, with a budget of no more than $500,000 per year.

But the names of the applicants have been kept secret by the CIRM.

CIRM's claim to secrecy is based on language in Prop. 71 that says CIRM "working group" records are not public. A working group is scheduled to make recommendations later this month to the Oversight Committee on which applicants should receive grants.

Following approval, only the successful applications would become public.