Video: if this doesn't make you smile....

I could post about how frustrated I am about politics, the craven collapse of the Democrats in front of the Republican minority, the willingness of the President to give away fundamental principles for what amounts to a mess of pottage, the or the whipsaw emotions of the Prop8 hearing yesterday.

But I think I am going to try to give up politics for the season.

Instead, I want to share this video with you. If this doesn't put a smile on your face, you must be a Scrooge!

Texas Republican State House: only Christians need apply

From Steve Benen

The current [Texas] House Speaker is Joe Straus, a conservative Republican leading a conservative Republican majority. He's currently facing a challenge from state Rep. Ken Paxton, who appears to agree with Straus on nearly everything.

So what makes this noteworthy? Straus is Jewish, and some far-right activists in Texas have a problem with that.

A few weeks ago, a coalition of Tea Party and right-wing Republican groups began lobbying for Paxton to replace Straus, with coalition activists circulating anti-Semitic emails. The message from conservatives was that the GOP state House needed a "Christian conservative" leader.

....One of the two party leaders, John Cook, insisted in a message, "We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it."
....
He added that he prefers Christian candidates, but isn't anti-Semitic. "They're some of my best friends," he said of Jews, naming two friends of his.

Someday, folks will have to understand that "some of my best friends are [fill in the blank with a minority group]" is a cliche repeated by bigots. I would have hoped that was obvious by now.

Military chaplains and DADT

From the WaPo, describing the Pentagon's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) report.

[N]o group had such strong - or sharply divergent - views as the military's 3,000 chaplains, who provide spiritual guidance to the men and women in uniform.

The debate highlights the delicate position of the chaplains, who must balance the demands of their faiths with the reality of a diverse military. ...

The authors of the report noted that only three out of the 145 chaplains who participated in focus groups suggested that they would quit or retire if the law were changed. Many chaplains expressed opposition to a repeal, while many others said they would not object, according to the report.

"In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual," the report stated. "In equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is a sin, informed us that 'we are all sinners,' and that it is a chaplain's duty to care for all Service members."

Read that again: chaplains stated they would refuse to support or assist a gay person, simply because they are gay. Putative men of God. I find that disgusting.

...The report's authors wrote that the opposition was not insurmountable, arguing that "the reality is that in today's U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions - including those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not - and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live and fight together on a daily basis."

The assertion drew a sharp rebuke from Christian groups....

How could they rebuke it? It's TRUE. At this point, it's worth reminding readers that there is a real problem with right-wing Christianity in the military, especially in the Air Force.

The WaPo article concludes,

Those who advocate in favor of repeal say that the ranks of chaplains are much more conservative than the rank and file and that their opinions should not prevent a change in policy.

"The U.S. military is not a religious institution. It is a civilian government organization," said the Rev. John Gundlach, a retired captain and Navy chaplain. "My position on this is, if they can't handle this change, they're in the wrong ministry setting."

Too bad this degree of rationality isn't on display in Washington.

The hearings concluded with a divergent set of views from the military brass, a clear preference for legislative over judicial action, and one statement that they were unanimous on: if the law changes, they'll enforce it.

New life? Not so fast.

Well, this is all very exciting, but having skimmed the actual paper, there is much less to this than there appears in the news. Despite breathless headline writers, this isn't "new life". This is a typically adaptable extremophile bacterium that does something that we know is theoretically possible: replaces phosphate PO₄ with the chemically similar arsenate AsO₄. In fact, that's part of the reason arsenic is toxic to most cells.

Bacteria of various types are remarkably adaptable to harsh environments--a sort of "if you can't beat it, defeat it." Think of the ones living on thermo vents on hydrogen sulfide, which is toxic as all get out to most life forms. There are acidophiles that live in conditions that would melt metal. Then there's D. radiodurans, which pays no attention to massive doses of radiation and is one of the most bizarre extremophiles out there. This doesn't "defeat Darwin" in any way. Rather, it is a prime example of evolutionary selection in action.

Bugs (slang for bacteria) do what they do to survive. They are adapatable, evolvable, and very good at it. Nothing here is challenging scientific principles, evolution, or our understanding of life.

In fact, it remains to be seen how complete the exchange is. They grew their bug under positive selection for arsenate incorporation, but it's almost impossible to eliminate trace phosphorous from all their reagents. There's a way to go before they prove arsenate has completely replaced phosphate in all aspects of metabolism.

Science works by adapting its hypotheses to available data. Hypotheses are tested by attempts to disprove them: that's what we do. Scientists love cool stuff that challenges the existing hypothesis and demands we refine it. Which is how we went from the central dogma in Molecular Biology (DNA makes RNA makes protein) to discover exceptions to the rule, like reverse transcriptase, RNA editing, and self-splicing proteins.

It's funny, but non-scientists seem to think we scientists are unreasonably rigid, that anything unexpected pulls the rug out. Not so: we just demand evidence. We keep it simple. Our mantra is Occam's razor:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity)

So There's a lot of cool stuff out there, especially in microbes. Just ask any microbiologist why they do what they do!

In the meantime, this is a really cool example of a potentially adaptive response to an extreme environment. I will look forward to reading more of their work as they figure out how far it goes.

I must admit I don't see any theological component to this at all. I don't need to invoke a god to make it fit. I just need to adjust the model. The fact that there are still wonderful new things to discover in How Things Work continues to cheer me up.

Bug picture from Science Magazine. Mono Lake picture from IT's photo album

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

From the AP

Extended unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans begin to run out Wednesday, cutting off a steady stream of income and guaranteeing a dismal holiday season for people already struggling with bills they cannot pay.

Unless Congress changes its mind, benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks will end this month.

But meanwhile,

Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government, vastly complicating Democratic attempts to leave their own stamp on the final days of the post-election Congress.

Are you clear on this? The Senate Republicans will block ALL bills unless tax cuts for millionaires are extended. Proving that they are completely out of touch with real life.

This really isn't complicated -- when the unemployed get a check, they spend it. When it comes to getting a strong bang for the buck, jobless benefits have proven to be one of the best economic stimuli in policymakers' tool-belt….

The data on this is incontrovertible. If Republicans want what's best for the economy, why can't they think this through?

Also note the larger, Dickensian context -- Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, but they're poised to kill extended unemployment benefits for those struggling to find work in a weak economy, at a fraction of the cost.

Raising taxes on the rich under these circumstances is considered madness. Leaving jobless Americans with no benefits and no buying power under these circumstances is considered responsible.

This isn't a surprise, of course. Republicans have repeatedly argued throughout the recession that those struggling to find work in the midst of a jobs crisis are lazy and quite possibly drug addicts. Of course they're prepared to screw over the people most in need of assistance; they just don't like the unemployed.

But as the recovery continues to struggle, Republican opposition to jobless aid only guarantees more struggling, weaker economic activity, and more poverty. It's an easily-preventable disaster, which GOP officials in Congress are willing to just watch unfold.

It's not just jobless benefits. Child nutrition is blocked in the house

House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children....
Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach.

And the defense bill. And everything else.

It's hard not to consider the charges of willful sabotage.

If you have a Republican senator (my condolences), now is the time to call their office and ask them WTF?????

The dangers of a University education

Following up on our previous discussion about the anti-education attitude of the current republican party, we can't overstate how much of this opposition is religiously derived.

College in our society is a time when young people are exposed to new ideas and concepts, in a sufficiently structured environment that they have a safety net.

The LA TImes reports

[F]or many students, college is a time to develop spiritually in ways that can endure after they've finished school, a new long-term study has found.
...
Astin said young people often enter college knowing only what they were brought up to believe. They may never have been faced with opposing views. College is a safe haven in which they can explore their spirituality and challenge it.
...
The study found that many students struggled with their religious beliefs and became less certain of them during their college years.

It also found that many young people eschewed the rituals of organized religion but embraced what the researchers defined as the cornerstones of spirituality: asking the big, existential questions; working to improve one's community; and showing empathy toward other people.

"These spiritual qualities are critical and vital to many things a student does in college and after," Astin said.

The researchers also found that students who were more spiritual typically performed better academically, had stronger leadership skills, were more amiable and were generally more satisfied with college.

Students engaged with the liberal arts were more likely to become spiritual; those in math and science fields were less likely. Partying and overexposure to television and video games tended to inhibit spiritual growth. Community service and taking time to reflect — as well as class assignments that encouraged those endeavors — encouraged spirituality.

Does this sound like a good thing to you? It's what an education is supposed to offer: exposure to new ideas, challenges to your worldview, and an enriched life as a result. (The failure of most mainstream faith groups to connect with those "spiritual but not religious" students is a different issue.)

But of course, not everyone thinks that's a good thing. Albert Mohler, arch-conservative of the Southern Baptists, cautions parents of Christian students against letting their children go to college.

Even as most professors see themselves as stewards of the teaching profession and fellow learners with their students, others see their role in very different terms — as agents of ideological indoctrination....A professor who acts as such an agent of indoctrination abuses the stewardship of teaching and the professorial calling, but this abuse is more widespread and dangerous than many students and their parents understand.

For Christian parents and students, this should be a matter of deep concern and active awareness. The secularization of most educational institutions is an accomplished fact. Indeed, many college and university campuses are deeply antagonistic to Christian truth claims and the beliefs held by millions of students and their families. Furthermore, the leftist bent of most faculty is well-documented, especially in elite institutions and within the liberal arts faculties. ….

Bollocks. There are lots of mainstream Christians on the faculty, lots of Jews and other faiths too. Though few are fundamentalist Evangelicals, I agree.

[A] significant number of professors are happy to have parents spend 18 years raising children, only to drop them off on the campus and head back home. These professors are confident that the four or so years of the college experience will be ample time to separate students from the beliefs, convictions, moral commitments, and faith of their parents.

Even after expressing these truly breathtaking agendas, these professors go on to claim that they do not seek to indoctrinate their students into their own beliefs and worldviews, but no one can believe them now.

Also bollocks. The only goal is to teach them to think for themselves. If that's a threat, if that's a challenge to their morals, then how strong are they? If they depend on ignorance for survival?

I once met a woman at a science conference who taught biology at a small Christian college in the midwest. She knew they would never give her tenure--she wasn't of their denomination, but since she was married to an Episcopal priest, they couldn't exactly reject her as a non-believer. She told me that many of the students arrived there with rigid views that brooked no alternatives and it was a very frustrating task to teach them, even to teach them science.

College education should challenge rigid beliefs. Exposure to the world around us should be mind-expanding. What Mohler sees as a threat is what I see as my job. It's the student's job to put what they learn into their world view (and according to the LA Times, they are… but not necessarily in the way their parents want.)

When a student "gets it", the amazing coolness that is cell biology, they fairly dance with excitement. Oh, oh, oh! How they wrap that into their world view is up to them. But students who come in rigid denial (of evolution, for example) would be denying a fundamental aspect of science. It's just not compatible with an education: it's pure cognitive dissonance.

Of course at a big Research-I university, such students are unlikely to study science. Probably their parents adhere to Mr Mohler's exhortations, and they don't apply to the sort of places I have taught.

What a waste.

What is my role as a professor? It's best described in this poem, by Christopher Logue about Guillaume Apollinaire:

Come to the edge, he said.
They said, we are afraid.
Come to the edge, he said.
They came.
He pushed them.
And they flew.

And that, my friends, is what I do.