The Song of the Dodo

I'm taking a break from the quite lengthy but interesting John Adams book, and am now reading "The Song of the Dodo". The book is by David Quammen and is about, as it is subtitled: "Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions". Biogeography is perhaps not as complex as it sounds. It basically looks at how animal species are distributed, and how that's important. In 1855 Alfred Wallace came up with an idea so simple and profound, it almost seems obvious:

Every Species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.

Essentially: new species come from old species, and tend to live close them. It was groundbreaking at the time, because it argued against the previously accepted idea of "special creation". Namely, God designed species to specifically suit each geography location. Islands are a focus because they are simple. Species can't easily come and go from them, so they are essentially closed systems.
Of course, what Wallace didn't know at the time of his idea was how new species formed. He would later, nearly simultaneously with Darwin, come up with the mechanism of natural selection (the history is mixed as to who really deserves credit for publishing the idea first).
What I find amazing is the creative inspiration that allowed these brilliant men to come up with their theoretical leaps. They both (Darwin and Wallace) collected and observed animal species. But it took a leap in the brain to come up with the theory to explain how the species were evolving. Science, contrary to what you may think, does involve creativity. You have to come up with ways to interpret evidence, and use those interpretations to figure out what to do next. It's perhaps one of the most difficult and rewarding elements of science. Anyone can blindly run statistical tests, or, can dig their way through difficult classes. It takes something else to put those ideas to discover something new, or to figure out which tests to run, or how to interpret those tests. It's a skill that I certainly need to improve in my own work.
For now, I've got another page to read...

The blah's of extremist blogs

Joel Achenbach's blog in the Washington Post was interesting the other day (the 18th of July to be exact). He's commenting on an article about political blogging written by David Von Drehle

... Surely there is still a place in American society for journalists who try to present the facts as best as they can be ascertained, and let the readers and viewers make up their own minds. Crazy as that sounds.

The two bloggers in the DVD story strike me as intellectually rigid, mere spouters of dogma, and with every utterance provide a vivid reminder of why so many blogs are a drag. Political blogs too often are mires of political fundamentalism. A fundamentalist, whether political or religious, has a hard time being a good storyteller, because every story ends the same. You know how it's going to turn out! Look at all that Karl Rove stuff from the Right and the Left: The analysis of his actions precisely tracks the pre-existing political bias. [Except when I write about Rove, in which case you learn amazing stuff, like the fact that he was once in the cast of Spanky and Our Gang.]

I like mainstream print and radio journalism. It has it's place, and it's important. He's right, it is a drag to read extremists on either side of the fence. What's interesting is wrestling with the ideas from a complete perspective, and seeing the truth and what's right outside of politics. An unbiased source is nearly impossible to find. But at least the mainstream media tries, despite it's many flaws, to give you some ideas to sort through, rather than handing you an opinion on a platter. I don't listen to Air America or Rush for that reason. I try not to write like them either.

A Review of Internet Romance

As many of you know, I've tried internet dating. I have had some success, and have dated a few people, but at press time I'm still single.
So, the question is, how effective is it? Is it good or bad? Does it help people find romance?
Well the answer, and this may be a bit disappointing, is that it is mixed. I have known people who have met, fallen in love, and have gotten married. I've known others who have met their share of freaks and weird people, or have had their heart broken.
Why this very mixed picture? Well, no matter how you sell it, it's still dating. Dating is subjective, selfish, complicated, and awkward. It can also be fun, surprising, intriguing, and can lead to something really amazing. So let's look at it in a bit more detail.
First, what is so troubling about it? Online dating gives you the ability to put up a profile and sorta sell yourself to potential mates. You list your likes and dislikes, what you do for fun, vital statistics, and of course you show a picture. Then, you can search for others by various combinations of these profile elements.
What's wrong with this? Well, it gives you the illusion of control. You believe you can pick and choose among various qualities and custom order your potential mate. So, if someone sends you a message, and they are too short, or they don't like sushi, or they actually voluntarily watch American idol, you don't respond. It's impossible to get to know someone from a profile, but because one or two of these elements doesn't mesh with you, don't give it a chance. Effectively, online dating can make people more superficial, because one sees people as a bunch of individual qualities, rather than a whole person.
In the non-online world, of course, you can be just a superficial. Looks are more apparent. But, you learn about them on your own time, not based on a quick read through a profile. And of course, you can't really pick and choose among various options; Not in the same way at least.
So what's good about online dating? Well, intent. In general, you can meet a whole group of people who are single (hopefully) and looking to date other people. You can find ones who live near you, and are hopefully willing to be open minded about who they meet. If this happens, then it can work great. You meet someone, and can begin to judge them on who they are, not how they come across in profile. You can also join dating sites with a theme: Midwest Jewish science geeks, for example (I wish).
So in sum, it's just an option. It has it's pluses and minuses. It requires you to use your instincts and good judgment as much as anything else. But it's possible, just possible, that it can lead to romance.

Happy 25th!

The organization I work for just had it's 25th Anniversary celebration. A lot of former employees, visiting scientists, and related scientists all fell upon Madison to commemorate and reflect on the past and future of satellite meteorology.
Two "themes" of the meeting made an impression on me. The first was reflecting on how amazing it must have been to be on the forefront of satellite meteorology. We take for granted the satellite image that appears on the nightly weather forecast. We don't get surprised by the formation of hurricanes anymore: they are easy to find in a satellite image. The collection of satellite data has made huge impacts in improving day to day weather forecasts as well. Without that data, the computer models that forecasters rely on would have significantly less skill. But, there was a time when this information wasn't around, and a few visionaries put their imagination and knowledge together and came up with the idea of viewing clouds and the atmosphere from space. Many of those pioneers founded my organization.

The second impression the meeting made on me was the degree of international collaboration. We had speakers from China, Australia, Great Britain, Korea, and Germany, among others. Many of those workers spent time at my organization, learning and sharing ideas. I believe that a bridge across political conflict is scientific cooperation. If your countries have a vested interest in working together, conflict has more severe consequences. I've touched on this topic before, and it struck me more strongly this week. If even one politician could use science as the center of their platform, they'd have a much stronger and healthier platform. Perhaps I'm a dreamer on that one.

I don't always like my job. Hardly anyone does. But, most of the time it's an amazing place with people working really well together doing cutting edge science and having a good time. For that, I'm luckier than most.

The Art Fair?

I don't really have much to say about the Art Fair in Madison. Lots of people, expensive art, and pretty good food vendors.
(Please see Ellen's comment on irony post if confused).
I feel so cheap.

10 Seconds of My Fifteen Minutes

I was on tv today. No, I didn't get arrested or get seen streaking across the field in a baseball game. It was for my job. The reporters were doing stories on hurricane Dennis, so they did a story about our research lab in the University of Wisconsin. My boss was out of town, so I was put under the gun instead.
It was actually pretty straightforward. I was afraid of being asked a strange "Is this the end of the world, and what does it have to do with global warming, el nino, the solar cycles, and the price of pencils in northeast china?" type question. Reporters have been known to do that sort of thing.
But no, it was really just explaining how we use satellites to study hurricanes from Wisconsin. They just happened to have a camera rolling to tape the conversation. From our ten minute conversation, I was on for about 10 seconds: quite a lot for tv news standards I think. They showed some of our images, our building, and a quick quote from me. Kinda fun.
It's quite strange to see yourself on camera. It seemed sage-like, witty, and clear when I delivered it. When I saw myself say it, I thought it was dorky, awkward and odd. Well maybe that's a bit harsh, but it definitely did not look natural.
Oh well, it was a cool opportunity. When the future tv contracts come pouring in, I'll invite you all out to the parties.

...And speaking of irony

According to the Washington Post in an editorial:

a House majority overturned a city law and voted to allow D.C. residents to keep in their homes loaded shotguns and rifles, as well as handguns bought before 1976, unbounded by trigger locks or disassembled. The deed itself makes a mockery of Congress as a federal body. If the action is allowed to stand, however, the consequences could be even worse: The nation's capital will become a deadlier place in which to live.

So, let me get this straight. On the eve of the celebration of our independance, the day we rebelled against "Taxation without Representation", the House of Representatives overturnes a very popular gun control law in the District of Columbia, making it a more dangerous city. The irony? Guess how many representatives residents of the District have in the House? 0. Delegate Norton has no vote. Perhaps Alanis can add this vote to her song.

A few good wishes

I've got two or three half-finished posts just hanging around in my drafts folder.
One was another attempt to say something deep and profound about American culture and sex. Another is a tribute to a good friend of mine who is leaving town after finishing her PhD. A third examined the question of whether or not we should be patriotic. A final one, coincidentally enough, was about writer's block.
None of these seem to want to get up, flop on my screen and become proper posts. So instead, I'll write a simple post to just be happy. Appreciate those in your life that come and go into it. If you have a lover, screw what Americans think about sex, and enjoy what you're lucky enough to have. If you don't have one, count on the fact that when you are ready for it, it will come.
Be patriotic. Be proud about who you are and where you came from. Enjoy the irony and humor that surround you. (Apparently only 20% of humans are wired to understand irony. Appreciate the irony in that fact that one of 80 that doesn't understand it made a hit song about it). Finally, if you're an American have a great Indpendance day. If you're not, have a great July 4th.