Eureka!

Amid this hectic week filled with flu bugs and packing bags I heard someone on a political debate show of some sort mention that science should be allowed to operate on its own, without politicians telling scientists what is right or wrong. This person seemed to think that at some point in the history of America that this unfettered scientific pursuit was allowed to take place. At first, I agreed. When I actually thought about it, however, I realized that this seemed to be rose-colored nostalgia. When was this great time of scientific free thinking? Perhaps during the Scopes-Monkey trial, when a Kansas teacher was facing incarceration for teaching evolution? One can think back all the way to the days of Galileo or Copernicus and see that science was always treated as a fantastic thing, as long as it didn’t upset the established order too much. Or as long as it made obnoxious amounts of money, of course. Now the traditional foil or science has been religion. Although many people fly the flag of faith when combating a scientific advancement or concept that they disagree with because it is a convenient rallying point rather than the major point of contention. Even today there are several issues relevant to current politics that would be better served by allowing scientists and experts to do the necessary research and experimentation to give unbiased results. I’d like to break down a few of these issues and clarify what is known through experiment and observation without the slant that politicians and the television media tend to put on things.

Though the debate about evolution has waned some with much of the country’s focus centered on the economy first and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan second, there are many states in the country that still attempt to find alternative theories to teach their children. I think the main problem in this debate is the public misconception of the word “theory” as it pertains to the scientific method. In the states that teach Creationism or Intelligent Design, the claim that is made is that if one theory can be taught, then so can another. However, a theory in science isn’t just their best guess at how something might work. It is a principle verified though thorough experimentation and observation. A key element of something becoming an accepted theory is that the experiments must be able to be repeated anywhere at any time with the same results. The concepts discussed as alternatives to evolution would be very welcome in a discussion on philosophy or religion, but they cannot be verified through the scientific method. That being the case, it would be very hard to make a case for including those topics in a science class.

More contentious is the issue of global warming although, these days, the debate has switched its focus greatly. As I write this, there are no American or international organizations of science that disagree with the basic concept that the world’s median temperature is increasing and that human byproducts are at least partly to blame. It is true that some television personalities will still claim the concept is a hoax, but these people are increasing moved to the extremes. They are the exception rather than the rule. Today the debate is centered on ways to combat or adapt to climate change. The leading school of thought is to simply limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be released into the atmosphere. These are the gasses in our atmosphere that, at their naturally occurring levels, keep our planet at the pleasant, livable temperature we are so familiar with. When their levels go to high, too much radiation is trapped within the atmosphere and temperatures rise. However, if these gasses were completely removed the Earth’s temperature would be about 59 degrees colder. Currently, the international treaty that governs greenhouse emission is the Kyoto Protocol, and it is ratified by every leading producer of these gasses in the world except the United States. In its current form, it is set to expire in 2012, but a meeting is set to convene in late 2009 to discuss a new treaty. The only two options left to the United States if we choose not to limit our greenhouse gas production would be to simply adapt our society to permanent higher temperatures or to use technology to somehow control the climate. The latter has been suggested, but no projects are known to have been proposed or undertaken.

Perhaps no scientific issue has been more contentious than the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. By definition, a stem cell is any cell that can reproduce itself through cell division and differentiate the copies into any number of cell types. There are several types of stem cells, but the ones that most concern the topic at hand are found in human embryos.  They are generally harvested about 4-5 days after fertilization, and these cells can become nearly any type of cell in the human body. Because of the nature of some types of cells, especially neural cells which largely do not divide or regenerate, there is great hope that stem cell research can be used to discover treatments for many currently incurable ailments. At this time, no embryonic stem cell research has yielded an approved treatment for any condition, but the scientific community remains optimistic. Contrary to popular belief, this research has never been banned in the United States. Then President George W. Bush merely removed all funding to establish new lines of embryonic stem cells. President Obama signed into law this year a provision that would allow such funding from the government again. There is also some hope that adult stem cells could be used in this research to similar effect so that the objection to destroying a human fetus would be removed. There are many good arguments both for and against the use of embryonic stem cells in the quest for treatments for a plethora of conditions. My hope is that people will take the time to consider the science and the empirical evidence collected before they rush to any knee-jerk reactions. The worlds of religion, philosophy, and science need not be mutually exclusive. In these issues and any future disputes that arise between the politicians and scientists, I simply ask that we allow these people to do what we pay them to do, and we take their advice seriously. Science doesn’t yet have an answer for everything, but that in no way invalidates the answers it has brought to light.

A Touch of Class

Today I'd like to introduce a term I've come to call qualified greatness. This comes into play when someone is so great in their field that their accomplishments or contributions cannot be ignored, but neither can some horrible personality trait that comes close to overshadowing what they did. In popular usage, you would hear it as, "Joe Everyman is so great at whatever it is he does... but he's a murderous sociopath. Michael Jackson was that way until he died, and everyone mysteriously forgot he was insane and possibly a child molester. Then again, qualified greatness is a common them for artists of every ilk, but musicians in specific seem to get it a lot. Another example, Kurt Cobain revolutionized modern rock... but he was plagued by debilitating insecurity which led to heroin addiction and, ultimately, suicide.
The case I would like to present today is Michael Jordan. I think his ego has finally grown to the point where we can say it overshadows what he's done on the court and we can no longer ignore everything we have up to this point. The tipping point would be his induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame this weekend. This is a momentous event in the life of any professional athlete, there is no higher honor. Most players use this occasion to thank the people that got him there, look back fondly on their career, and graciously, humbly accept the honor their peers have bestowed upon them. Jordan took the opportunity to blast several of his opponents from his storied career, to the point where even the mild mannered John Stockton, also inducted, looked like he wanted to choke Jordan. The argument can be made that an athlete is only as good as his competition, because it is the only true measuring stick of your ability. Guys like Stockton, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, and others are as much a part of why Jordan is in the Hall as any that helped him in his journey. Eleven years ago, Jordan had the ball in the closing seconds of Game 6 of the NBA finals. If he hits this shot then his Bulls win their third consecutive championship. As the clock runs out, he pushes his defender, Byron Russell, off the ball and hits a shot that defines his career. No foul is called; the television announcers for the game don't even mention it. He's Jordan; he gets that call in that moment. It’s just understood. So now, in 2009, you choose to call this man out for not being able to cover you, while you stand at the podium accepting induction into the Hall of Fame? Utterly classless. No one had the guts to call you on pushing him out of the way then, and the replays of that shot today are generally altered to only show the shot and nothing before. His legacy is built, in part, on a foul that would never be called against the Golden Child of the NBA. In his unending tirade of a speech, he also called out former Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy, Isiah Thomas, and his old high school coach, for slights and insults both real and imagined.
So let's add up the evidence. Jordan in his playing career was known as a bully, a trash talker, and an over the top competitor. He punched teammate Steve Kerr in training camp after he came back from retirement the first time, and was known as a terrible teammate. In fact, while playing minor league baseball, the team chartered him his own bus so he didn't have to ride with the rest of the team. He has a well documented gambling problem. He is and always has been a man that knows his greatness all too well and looks with disdain on anyone else. He gets utterly offended when someone suggests there might be a "next Jordan" and won't even entertain discussions about Kobe Bryant or LeBron James (almost as egotistical as Jordan himself). Jordan replies simply, every time, that there is only one Michael Jordan. Somehow, because we're talking about Jordan, all this gets ignored when other athletes are blasted in sports media and talk radio over similar offenses. So, for me, Michael Jordan is one of the greatest players in basketball history... but he’s also a self absorbed egoist of the highest order and has no regard for the game or anyone else who plays it.

The Nerve of Some People

People these days. What's wrong with them? I mean first our president issues a speech to kids encouraging them to stay in school, work hard, and follow their dreams. Think of the damage such a message could cause. Catastrophic really. Here's a little taste of the horrifically biased rhetoric the President spewed at our impressionable youth:

"Every single one of you has something that you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer... And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is... There is no excuse for not trying... Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it... The truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject that you study. You won't click with every teacher that you have... At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents and the best schools in the world, and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities."

How dare he. I mean when politicians are so insanely jaded that they are up in arms about a speech before it even happens because the President might use it as a platform to push his health care ideas on impressionable young minds, then maybe we should consider retiring Democracy. You have to admit, it had a good run. I think its time to go in a different direction when the people running the show display such startling hypocrisy that it no longer phases you. For example, former Bush supporting Republicans criticizing a President for trying to equate blind loyalty to the President with patriotism. Especially when it concerns a speech that hadn't been given yet and included no such rhetoric. Or when Fox News praises the demonstrators protesting health care reform based on lies they either made up themselves or don't care to correct, but vilified those protesting the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq as crazy people or traitors. So don't let anyone fool you. Anyone who was pissed about Obama's school address, and there were plenty, wasn't pissed about the message he delivered. They were ready for the one he never did.

And then today he just went too far. In a speech before Congress, he didn't make idle threats or attempt to strengthen his point merely by discrediting his detractors. This is the big league, Obama, you can't go up there and actually try to make sense. Where have you been for the past 200 years?

"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have."

Clearly he doesn't have a grasp on how Washington politics work. You don't offer reasonable alternatives and attempt to work on a compromise solution that satisfies both parties and moves the country forward in a positive direction. No, that's just crazy talk. What you do is dig up irrelevant dirt on your opponent, because if they are tainted, than clearly their cause is terrible as well. Should that fail you make up terrifying, worst case scenario, hypothetical situations to strike at the primal, fear based areas of the public psyche because no one bothers to check if those things could actually happen anyway. Because compromise clearly shows weakness, and it's far better to leave a broken system alone than to let the other guy get the credit for fixing it. Especially if he fixes it in a way that pisses off your friends, and (more importantly) donors.

So who does this Obama think he is? Talking about hope and hard work and compromise. I mean, he said right in his campaign speeches that health care reform was going to be a major priority of his first term. Then he actually goes and tries to enact that very legislation? Talk about mixed signals. The nerve of some people.

A Question of Fandom

I've always thought that college sports were infinitely more fun to watch than professional, and the fans are one of the biggest reasons why. These are people that feel like they as least have some emotional investment in the outcome of the game. You go to the school, your kid goes, your parents went, you know some of the players, or a multitude of other reasons, but all of that means things are a little more passionate, more intense. Intensity and competition breed rivalry, it just happens and you can't stop it once it starts unless one of the programs involved disbands or completely falls apart. Nothing in American sports can compare to Michigan/Ohio State, Duke/UNC, or any of the long term, storied college feuds. The rivalry in question today is between the Miami Hurricanes and the Seminoles of Florida State University. Now, as a Florida Gator, I (of course) hate them both. But there are two teams I can never bring myself to root for under any circumstance. One is FSU, the other is Georgia, so for one day a year I am a Miami fan.

The scenario is this:
Miami plays a game on the road at Florida State. The "U", as Miami fans are so fond of calling them, comes in unranked and the clear underdog. Over the course of the game, they continually shoot themselves in the foot with dumb penalties and questionable play calling. Defense had been the calling card of the program for decades and it looked terrible this game. However, your opponent's was just as bad. Their coach was too senile to realize the game clock was still running and they had a time out to spare and so ran off a good  20 seconds from the clock at the end of the game. And no one taught their receivers to catch a low ball with their hands underneath so the ball doesn't hit the ground first. They also miss an extra point in a game that was decided by 4 points. Miami wins.

What anyone not from South Florida doesn't realize is that Miami fans of any sort, even the pro teams, are obnoxious front runners by and large. Really the only worse fans are Philly fans, but that's a whole other story. Its my contention that, while you should be excited for a road upset over a rival, a Hurricane fan's joy should be tempered by the fact that a competent team would have won that game. Thus, they have earned bragging rights over the fans from Florida State, but any crazy conjectures about winning conferences or bowl appearances need to be put aside until they show they can beat someone good. Fortunately they have plenty of opportunity. You beat Virginia Tech in Blacksberg, and those privileges are yours.

Now the Florida State fans have to feel like they just caught a kick to the groin. The end of that game was just painful. You do get a shot at redemption when you play at the Swamp to end the year. But you have to be legitimately worried. You gave up 38 points to a Miami team who started a young quarterback and had questions at many of the skill positions. And you were at home, with the crowd on your side. You get to play at BYU, at UNC, and at Florida. All high powered offenses. Throw Georgia Tech and that crazy option they run into the mix and you could be looking at a 5 loss season.

Its amazing what one 4 point, last second victory can do to the psyche of the two associated fan bases. It really isn't like this with professional sports, and its not nearly as intense of a feeling if it isn't a rivalry game. Miami fans feel invincible, while Florida State fans are feeling sick.

Disney.... owns... Marvel....

There is a part of me, maybe the rational part, that says this could end up being a positive. Disney is the evil empire, but they won't hesitate to put money into a property that they feel will make them money. You would think they are smart enough to let Marvel's people maintain the comic side of the business, while the good people at Miramax will take over the film licenses. The hope would be that they would leave the creative people well enough alone, but ensure a greater film quality and higher budget with their near infinite resources.

That's likely just me trying my hardest to put a positive spin on things. However, with the exception of properties currently in production, Disney will have creative control over all of Marvel Entertainment's current cast of 5000 characters. And, thus, will have the ability to whore them out to sell the rest of their crap as they see fit. The first time I see the Disney insignia in front of a Marvel game or movie, I might lose my lunch (a warning to those that might accompany to such an occasion). Can you imagine teenagers dressed as Wolverine hanging out in Cinderella's castle at Disney in Florida? Iron Man on Saturday mornings on the Disney channel? Maybe the most horrifying prospect is the next batch of Disney groomed teenage stars cutting their teeth in "big boy" movies in Marvel features. If you thought Kirsten Dunst sucked as Mary Jane Watson, imagine Miley Cyrus... and try not to cry.

The other scary part of Disney's "creative control" would be the potential censorship and content control a company like this would impose on all books, movies, etc that are associated with its brand. For example, imagine if Wolverine's or Nick Fury's trademark cigars are replaced with chewing gum. Or if Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, suddenly stopped his drinking and womanizing and settled down with a wife and kids. Could the Punisher even exist in a Disney universe? It saddens me that these titles that I've grown up with and loved for years will likely never be the same. I'll have to tell my (god help the world) grandchildren about the days when comics were still good, and a place where free expression was possible. Much like science fiction writers, comic writers are given license to imagine the world they way it could be, and tell their story in a completely unique medium. They are able to dream up their world in word and color, and it would be a shame for the biggest of these companies to have their creativity stifled by a company that cares about imagine first, profit second, and quality somewhere further down the priority line. I hope I'm just being alarmist and nostalgic, but I think another piece of my childhood is about to be dismantled as I watch.

A list! The first of many...

I'm really fond of lists. I will order anything you like into some sort of list of ascending importance and/or quality. Now in my first post, I mentioned a couple of great games from the past decade or so, and it got me to thinking. So, here's my top five, and a couple of reasons why, as well as some honorable mentions.

Honorable Mentions-
    These didn't make the cut for whatever reason, but are still great to me.
    The Madden franchise: I do love a good sports game, these are the best.
    Goldeneye (N64): I'm generally not a fan of shooters, but the pure chaos of a four man free for all from this game was a ton of fun.
    Super Metroid (SNES): Pretty much speaks for itself. Great game, great franchise.
    Diablo (PC): Another Blizzard Entertainment classic. I've loved these Diablo games for quite some time.
    Soul Caliber 2 (PS2): My favorite fighting title. Its a great game and a lot of fun.

5. Baldur's Gate- PC
    Very possibly the first successful adaptation of Dungeon's and Dragons to the world of video games. I can't count the amount of times this game kept my up until 3 or 4 in the morning playing just to see what happened next. Which is exactly what set this game apart from many other role players that I had previously attempted to play: the story. It was interesting and well told, featured voice acting for all of the major characters (including 4 or 5 choices for you depending on your sex), and it responded to choices you made. Your companions would object to things you did that they didn't like, random people wouldn't talk to you if they didn't like you, and there were actual consequences for most of your actions. The game had an expansion and a sequel, plus another game with its associates set in the same universe called Icewind Dale. Everything in the line was fantastic, but the original, as usual, is the best.


4. The Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past. - SNES
    For my money, its the best of the Zelda franchise. This one clearly set the mold for all the others to follow and is the gold standard for action/adventure games of the time. Its one of those rare games that has held up very well over time, despite the poor graphics of its day. Its also one of the first games I can recall where you improved your character in multiple, unique ways as the game continued. You collected hearts to improve your health, jars to enable you to collect more potions or faeries in the event you die, improved weapons and armor, and gadgets to help you pass the game's many puzzles. It was a genre defining title, and an eternally replayable game.

3. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness- PC
    The advent of the modern RTS (Real Time Strategy game) lies here. Collecting multiple specialized resources to build your base and your army, and bring the world (of Warcraft?) to its knees. Anyone between the ages of 25 and 30 remembers the epic LAN battles this game would cause. I spent half my algebra class in the 8th grade playing Warcraft in the back of the classroom against the other smart kids who could similarly get away with murder. For me this game began a life long love of the RTS. Without it I never would have discovered Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, Starcraft, or many others that I've enjoyed over the years.

2. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic- PC

   Any gamer/Star Wars geek will tell you, most games of this license are forgettable at best, and painful at worst. This one is the exception. Much of the creative team behind Baldur's Gate was behind this one as well, and it showed in the quality. Everything I loved about what they did with Baldur's Gate was present, and it had Jedi. It also developed a spin on the system developed for BG for how your companions and NPC's (non player characters) react to you which is uniquely Star Wars. Actions most would consider good gave you Light Side points, and evil actions award Dark Side points. Playing as dark or light also affects which powers from the Force you have available to you.

1. Super Mario Bros. 3- NES

    The game that made me fall in love with gaming. I'd played the previous versions of Mario, of course, as well as Tecmo Bowl and other sports games, and a variety of other early Nintendo mainstays. But this one was the first to get its hooks into me. The first game I ever lost sleep over. The first game I dared to defy the orders of my parents to play. Looking back anyone can see the moment in time where they first develop that interest for something that later sparks into something bigger. So you can tell me there are better games, and I'd believe you. But this is a sentimental favorite for me, and it always will be.

So there you have it, my list. Feel free to comment me with suggestions, criticisms, games I may have forgotten.

Edward Moore Kennedy

I've been toiling away in ole Dixie, helping my brother move into his new place in South Carolina. Computer time has been nonexistent for the past few days, but with the funeral service for the late Senator this weekend I had to offer a few words on the subject. I think many people my age, especially if they don't follow politics, don't realize just how influential and important Senator Kennedy has been over the past five decades that he served the nation in office. In his age, I think he became something of a character. Known only for his impressive name and as fodder for late night talk show comedians.

It would have been easy for Kennedy to get into public office based on only his name, and then proceed to coast by on that reputation and live forever in mediocrity (see Bush, George W.). However, that isn't the route this man chose. At a young age, as the junior senator from Mass., he was quick to make a name for himself. He was instrumental in pushing through the immigration act of 1965 that finally eliminated ethnic quotas for people immigrating into the United States. His eulogy of his brother Robert, after his assassination in 1968, was one of the more memorable speeches of the past 50 years of American politics.

"As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: 'Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

In 1971, he passed the National Cancer Act which was meant to increase government funding and research aimed at combating the disease. In that same year, he began to call for peace in Northern Ireland, a place afflicted by sectarian violence for decades. Ending the violence here became one of his many career spanning goals, and one which was achieved in the late 1990's. He also began to campaign for health care and insurance reform, which was another battle he fought until his passing recently. He was a strong supporter of Obama's current plan which is before Congress today. After Watergate, he championed the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendment of 1974 which limited the amount of money that could be contributed to candidates and set up a means for public financing. He made only one unsuccessful run for the presidency in 1980, losing the Democratic primary to Jimmy Carter, who would later lose to Ronald Reagan. His speech at the '80 Democratic Convention is considered the best of his career and a rallying cry for all liberals, even now nearly 30 years later. He expanded the powers of the Voting Rights Act to enable all persons aged 18 years or older to vote, gave equal funding to women's college sports under Title IX, fought for AIDS research funding, and fought for equal right for homosexuals, all under the overwhelmingly Republican government of Reagan's first term. He also fought tireless against the Apartheid government in South Africa, and was one of the leading American officials speaking out against the injustices there. Even leading the override of Reagan's veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which enacted harsh sanctions on the government of South Africa as long as conditions there remained the same. In 1990, he fought with the George H.W. Bush's administration and Republican Senate to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Ryan White Care Act (to provide funding for low income or uninsured victims of the AIDS virus to get treatment).

It was after this that the troubled Senator's personal life started to overshadow the good he did for the nation, and he was in the news more for his alcoholism than for his politics, and this is where the political consciousness of much of my generation begins. Above I listed only some of the major contributions the man had made, not only to America, but to the world as well. He remained an effective symbolic and, for lack of a better word, spiritual leader to the Democratic party until his passing a short week ago. His is an inspiring presence, a larger than life figure. His chair will be a tough one to fill. One can only hope that his successor will try to live up to his legacy as best he can.