Bad Idea

An Ode to Coded Language

After reading an editorial in the New York Times by Barbara Ehrenreich and Dedrick Muhammad, I was rather upset about the state of political discourse in this country. While running afterward, I started composing a response. It ended up in the form of a poem:

An Ode to Coded Language

From the radio and the television,
flowing through the Internet's tubes
comes a rallying cry,
"Arise, take your rightful place!"
This poem is for you, defenders of tradition.

I sit here astounded by your similes
(literary allusions, no doubt):
you proclaim that social programs are watermelons,
and that the chicken being promised for every pot
is fried.

When the party was going well,
the banks said we would be fools not to buy,
and you happily agreed.
Now that the hangover is here,
you lament the way that power was wielded
for the last 8 years by (who else to blame?)
Maxine Waters.

You espouse your traditional mores
chastising criminals who use chemicals to cope
and like Jacob you brag
(just a bit away from the microphone)
that you have enough love for Leah,
and for her sister Rachel.

You long for the days
when the Real Americans walked proudly
with tears in their eyes
to settle dusty new lands
carrying nothing but a carton of Marlboros
and a case of Jack Daniels.

Go ahead, wrap yourselves in your flag,
telling those that hide under their sheets at night,
afraid of the shadows,
that the cross has been borne.
So gather 'round outside,
all that's left is to light a bonfire.

Glen and Rush and Sarah,
this ode is to you.
You tell your crowds what they want to hear
but can't quite say.
I see what you do.
To quote a wise man,
"You're hurting our country."

After writing it, I felt better. If it helps you, feel free to edit it, or pass it on.

Dumb Things to Say in a Conversation about Race (and Why)

Thandi and I decided to come up with this list, because she especially seems to end up in a lot of dumb conversations about race. Our list starts with the obvious ones, and moves on to some more thorny issues.

(1) We have a black president, and a latino supreme court justice. We must be living in a post-racial society.

As long as there are plenty of people who find it necessary to point out the races of people in power, society can hardly be called "post-racial".

(2) I've been arrested for arguing with a police officer, and I'm white. I don't think that race is important in policing.

The first statement is merely the obvious fact that some people in positions of authority at times abuse people of all races. However, this says nothing about whether some races are abused more than others.

(3) I'm black (or Asian or Hispanic). I can't be racist.

We have heard this far more often than we can believe. Do we really need to explain that racism is not liking someone because of their race, regardless of what that race is?

(4) I have some friends who are black. . .

While it is good that someone can demonstrate that they are capable of seeing past race, would anyone really want to sound like they're saying, "I like some black people"? It makes it sound like their good feelings towards people of a specific race have to be earned. Whatever discussion someone is in, this statement won't cast them in a good light.

(5) You don't sound black, because you don't talk like. . .

If someone has only ever heard a person talk, they are bound to construct a mental picture of that person in their mind. There is nothing wrong with that picture subconsciously including a person's race. There is also nothing wrong with being surprised when a mental picture is overturned by some new information, such as finding out that the person's race doesn't match one's image.

The problem comes with the choice of words that comes next. "Oh, I didn't realize you were black," is a generic, benign statement about the fact that a mental picture has changed. "You don't sound black," is a bit awkward. However, if someone finds themselves trying to explain what a black person (or someone of any race) sounds like, it reveals that they are assuming that all people of a certain race talk the same. It makes it seem like someone haven't realized that people of all races come from every economic background, every education level, and even from every part of the world.

(6) She must have got there through affirmative action.

Race-based affirmative action has its problems, it is true. It doesn't necessarily do a good job of bringing opportunities to the poor, or to people who grew up without parental support, or to people who had the misfortune of growing up in a bad neighborhood. It also leaves open a door for people to rationalize their racist assumptions.

If someone doesn't know anything about a person's capabilities, they have no business  assuming that the person has a position because of race-based affirmative action. It is unreasonable to assume that someone wasn't able to succeed on their own merits, just because of their race. Even if someone thinks statistics are on their side, and that it is more likely for a black person to benefit from affirmative action, it is in fact racist to make the blanket assumption that the "race card" was played to get that person into an important position.

Now, what about those people who one learns through experience aren't capable? If someone sees a person who is incompetent, shouldn't they consider the fact that there are plenty of ways that incompetent people get into important positions? Perhaps their parents or friends were able to pull strings. Perhaps they slept with someone influential. Perhaps their charm got them in a position that their qualifications wouldn't otherwise have got them into. Or perhaps, like all managers that reach their "full potential", they simply got promoted to the point where they were no longer competent. Why assume that their inability is related to their race?

(7) I'm not racist.

This one is likely to bother people. Someone might be saying, "If I'm really not racist, why is it dumb to deny that lie?" They should consider two scenarios.

If someone is in an argument that they want to win, saying "I'm not racist" won't further that goal. It will only lead someone to say other dumb things on the list above. Instead, they should let their demeanor, actions, and insights speak for them.

Now consider a situation with someone thinking that they are the victim of racism, and another person who wants to say something that will help. If someone is angry, and one thinks one has been misunderstood, one should try some empathy. Humans are wired to make snap judgments about people (it kept us from getting ganked in our tribal days). Often, we can't help but leap to conclusions unintentionally, and that will sometimes inflame a person who might have been treated badly previously because of their race. If this happens and someone decides that the most important thing is to defend themselves against charges of racism, they will only make the situation worse. If they acknowledge that the person might have reason to be upset, the situation will usually calm down (this is a common customer service technique).

Now, if reading these annoys you, please take a look at the title of this blog, and take a deep breath. We don't take ourselves too seriously here.

Starting a More Serious Blog

Now that I am settled in my new job, I have decided to try to develop some ideas that I've been kicking around for a while. One is to start a wiki to facilitate research, by providing background on what is needed to carry out successful experiments, and software algorithms and examples of how to use them. Since my expertise is (still) astronomy, I decided to pitch it to astronomers, and have started astrohow.org. Unfortunately, it turns out to take a lot of time and energy to provide the information that I have in mind, so that project isn't getting too far.

I have also decided to take up science writing as a hobby, now that it isn't part of my job. I have started a new blog, which is meant to be more serious and technical than this one. I'm sure it will devolve in short order, however.

Finally, as another way to practice science writing, I have put together a series of pages describing some concepts in astronomy. I'm thinking of adding a few other things as well. One idea is to provide short explanations of why scientists believe in their major theories, such as the Big Bang and evolution. Another is some pages on energy consumption and efficiency, which Thandi may help me with.

Anyway, I expect most of my future writing to end up in the new space.

Is Pluto a Planet? You Decide!

Flow charts are all the rage on the internet these days, or so I've been told. They are also used at my new job. Im guessing that is because the engineers we sometimes have to deal with are used to visualizing systems as block diagrams. Anyway, that got me thinking, Could one of the most publicized astronomical controversies of the last few years be clarified using a flow chart? Here is the result: a flow chart to help you decide whether Pluto should be a planet. 

(For instructions on reading a flow chart, see xkcd).

For those seriously interested in the debate, here's what it boils down to. Most astronomers are concerned with very large questions: how the universe evolves from the Big Bang (cosmology), how galaxies form from the cooling plasma produced by the Big Bang, how stars form within Galaxies, and how the debris surrounding newly-formed stars coalesces into planets. 

For planet formation, the broad question is how dust grains that are less than a micron in size coagulate to form bodies thousands of kilometers across --- an increase in size of a factor of 100 trillion. This process probably has two steps, roughly speaking. First, objects the size of boulders and mountains must be formed. This probably happens slowly, as things collide and stick together. Eventually, something will get big enough that its gravity starts collecting other small bodies, accelerating its growth rapidly until it forms a full-fledged planet. 

We now know that Pluto is a member of the Kuiper belt --- a group of bodies of icy material that has stuck together to form objects with sizes ranging from boulders to mountains. Pluto is one of the largest members, and is interesting because it has enough gravity that it pulled itself into a round shape. Unlike the other planets, however, it did not get big enough to collect much of the material in its orbit. Therefore, it exists among a family of bodies that are similar to the asteroids, but that are icy instead of rocky. For this reason, some members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted that Pluto should not be called a planet.

However, as I mentioned, Pluto is unusual among the Kuiper belt objects in that it has enough gravity to make itself round. In this sense, it is similar to other planets. Pluto probably has more interesting geology than other Kuiper belt objects, so it is useful to study it as an exceptional object. For this reason, and for the historical fact that we have called it a planet for about 75 years, many people feel it should keep its status as a planet. 

The IAU compromised to some degree, calling Pluto a "dwarf planet", along with the asteroid Ceres, and (as of 2009) three other Kuiper belt objects, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake. 

Of course, this doesn't make everyone happy. That's why we need a flow chart.

Kittens of the Sea

I only wish that I had the comic genius to think of this first. Unfortunately, it appears that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are ernest. PETA has started a campaign to call fish, "sea kittens," because "Nobody would hurt a sea kitten." I could talk about how silly it is for PETA to personify (kittenify?) fish, but the site really speaks for itself. 

However, their campaign raises so many problems and possibilities, that I just have to mention a few that came to mind right away:

• One of my wife's friends wondered: what will they call catfish? Cat-sea-kittens?
• Should Wisconsin deal with the controversy around their law legalizing the hunting of feral cats by calling them "land-fish"?
• If the PETA "sea-kittens" campaign fails, should they start calling fish "sea-rats," because no one would want to eat a sea-rat? 
• What if the sea-rat campaign backfires, because governments start promoting the elimination of that aquatic vermin? 

Does PETA even realize the can of worms they've opened? 

I Like to Ride My Bicycle

There has been some talk on the web as to whether riding a bike uses more energy than driving a car. I decided to check the numbers, because my gut instinct was that it is way, way more efficient to move myself and a 20 pound bike to work, than it is to move myself and a 3000 pound pound car to work. I would have guessed, say, 100 times more efficient.

There are some analyses on the web, but they tend to miss things (i.e., where food comes from) or be unecessarily convoluted.

I start with our cars. A gallon of gas contains about 31,500 Calories per gallon. Our Prius is getting 40 mpg, which translates to 788 Calories per mile. My 1974 BMW gets at best 20 mpg, or 1575 Calories per mile. If I only drive it short distances, I get closer to 14 mpg, or 2250 Calories per mile. This has to be corrected for the amount of energy needed to extract and refine petroleum so one gets gas, but since roughly half of a barrel of oil can be converted into gas, I doubt the numbers different by more than a factor of two.

Riding a bicycle burns about 42 Calories per mile, if you're riding at a leisurely pace (10 mph). If I go faster, air resistance causes me to burn maybe 50% more. Some of this energy (roughly 8 calories) would be used anyway if I were just watching TV, to keep my brain warm. So, lets say 34 Calories per mile to ride a bike to work, instead of calling in sick. On the face of things, then, it would appear that cycling is at least 23 times more efficient that our Prius. However, food needs to be grown, packaged, and delivered. In the US, for an average diet, every Calorie you eat took about 10-15 Calories of energy to grow, package, distribute, and prepare (link). So, it really takes at least 340 Calories per mile to ride a bike.

Now, cycling has other advantages that one could incorporate. For instance, I will be more healthy. Although some seem to claim this is bad for the environment --- if I live longer, my energy-intensive lifestyle is prolonged --- I think this argument is specious (killing myself is NOT an acceptable solution to our environmental problems!). Of course, bicycles cost a lot less energy to manufacture, but since we insist on having both a car and a bicycle (my wife won't let me carry our daughter on my bike), that point seems a bit moot as well.

Therefore, riding a bike is only about 2 times more efficient than driving a single person in a Prius, and about 4-5 times more efficient than a more ordinary car (assuming my BMW is ordinary, which it is not, because it is one of the best cars ever made!).

Now, if I carpooled, I'd be using the same energy to drive as to cycle. A full Prius would be 2 times more efficient! A scooter, at 70 mpg, is equally efficient as a bicycle. Cycling isn't as green as I thought, because our system for producing and distributing food is inefficient! To really make a difference, I'd need to ride my bike AND buy my food from local sources.

As a corollary, I now understand why machines will end up ruling the earth, and why the premise of The Matrix is really dumb. Meatbags waste energy!

Baby Gewndolyn has arrived

Our first child, Gwendolyn Iyanu, was born June 7, 2007, at 6:19 am. She was 7 lbs, 15 oz. She scored a 9.9/10.0 on Apgar test, which means she was very alert and responsive. We are all very happy.

Thandi and Mike Will Be Parents!

We found out today that Thandi is 6 1/2 months pregnant! By June, we will have a baby girl!

Now, you might be asking yourself, why did we only learn that today?

It is a long story, although in a few months it will probably be hilarious. For the past few years, Thandi had some symptoms that led a couple doctors to conclude that she had a condition that would make it hard for her to become pregnant (ovarian cysts). Some of those symptoms got worse last September, and in addition Thandi started feeling nauseous and fatigued. She went to her doctor (a M.D.-Ph.D at UCLA, who is also an assistant professor) and had a standard pregnancy test that turned up negative. Her doctor diagnosed her as having a mild stomach virus.

Over the next few months, her symptoms persisted, and she returned to her doctor several times. In November, she had to see another doctor because her first had an emergency, and that second doctor prescribed an ultrasound, because she thought she felt something in Thandi's abdomen. Thandi had the ultrasound taken on December 1, but when she called back a few days later to get the results, no one could give them to her. Her doctor didn't return multiple calls and faxes, so by the end of December, Thandi decided to switch doctors.

She finally got a new doctor, and an appointment near the middle of January. However, although the new doctor got most of Thandi's medical records from the old one, the ultrasound was nowhere to be found. Thandi told her new doctor all of her symptoms, and added that she wasn't pregnant (based on the diagnosis in September). The new doctor suggested Thandi see a metabolic specialist.

In the last week, Thandi started to feel the kicking from what we now know is a baby girl. Worried, she made more efforts to get her ultrasound. She ended up calling the patient advocate at UCLA medical, who faxed her the report from the ultrasound. There it was, on one sheet of paper, clearly written: on December 1, Thandi was 14 weeks pregnant. And no one bothered to let her know. Thandi watches a lot of Discovery Health Channel shows, so given the past diagnoses that suggested she would have a hard time getting pregnant, you can only imagine the theories she had come up with for her illness. The news was a shock and a relief.

This morning, we went to another doctor, and OB-GYN, and had an ultrasound taken. The baby seems to be an active, 2 1/2 pound girl. We'll be having the standard tests done in the next few weeks, but everything seems to be working out fine.

An Echo of Light from Matter Devoured by a Black Hole

I just did my second press conference, at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle. It was the last day, and there weren't many people left at the conference, but that turned out to be good --- my result was the best of the news offerings that day!

I found evidence that the black hole at the center of our Galaxy devoured a small amount of mass (equivalent to the planet Mercury. . . or Pluto, for the stubborn) about 70 years ago. I identified an echo produced as light traveled away from the black hole. The light encountered gas and dust, and was reflected towards us. Because of the length of time it took for the light to reach the clouds before it was reflected, we see the echoes long after the original source of the light had disappeared.

It had long been thought that this phenomena caused gas to fluoresce near the Galactic center. The new aspect of this was that we saw the echo move over the course of three years, as the "ripple" of light moved across the cloud.

The original press release was produced by the Chandra X-ray Center. The work was also covered at geeky repositories of science news like space.com, New Scientist, and by the always-popular (if nothing else) FOX news.

Best of all, though, New Scientist did an interview, and it is available as a Podcast! (Link) I feel like this could be the start of my fifteen minutes of fame! Why, having a Podcast was number 6 on my list of things to do before I make a new list! Of course, number 1 is being on the Daily Show. . . Jon Stewart, are you bored and reading this?

Our Governmet: Protecting Unborn Lives from Astronomers

My next-door neighbor Stan just bought a computer with his research grant, and while he was away one day the secretary came into his office and affixed a UCLA property sticker on his computer. This was a little odd, because UCLA has stopped keeping track of inexpensive computer equipment. It turns out that his grant was administered by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and they wanted UCLA to keep track of the computer. So, OK, it made sense.

But then a government auditor came by yesterday, to confirm the existence of the computer, and affix a couple more stickers, as shown in this image. Stan of course asked, "What's the bottom one?" The auditor told him that it was to prevent the computer from being used for non-registered human embryonic stem cell research (hESC). Stan thought it was a joke, but apparently the auditor had no sense of humor.

Stan does study the birth places of stars and planets, but he doesn't think the prohibition against working with stem cells will significantly impact his research. However, we're all now wondering whether he'll be able to look at the this link from his computer.

And we're all just really impressed at how our government defends its principles.