SXSW Interactive is just over a day away. It’s my favorite time of the year. Even better than Christmas.

Great article up on Salon right now called I, Nanobot. Definitely worth a read.

I just saw a great Twilight Zone. One of the old black and white ones. Man, I didn’t realize how much better they were than the schlock they put out in the color series. I saw two great episodes really, but the second one resonated more. The all powerful state, which banned books to limit knowledge, decided if people were obsolete or not. Obsolete people were executed. The obsolete person, a librarian, got his revenge on the state by getting his judge executed as well. What’s good for the goose…

This post was written at 1 AM but due to a power shortage wasn’t posted until morning. (I only mention that so that people don’t think I sit around in my underwear watching old Twilight Zone episodes on a workday morning.)

A study recently published by Science Daily states that moderate drinkers, those who average around a drink per day, are 54% less likely to be obese. They go on to state that that is counter-intuitive. Bah.

So much of what I see around me can be explained by common sense without the need for expensive studies. You don’t get a beer gut by having a drink a day, even if it is beer. Nevermind the fact that the study made no distinction between they types of alcohol, which can have wildly different amounts of calories, carbs and sugars.

That’s not the common sense part though. No. The common sense part is this: if you have the ability to limit how much of an addictive substance you take, then you most likely have the ability to limit less addictive substances like food.

Genetics plays a fair part in one’s body type as well. It isn’t nature vs. nurture people, it’s a combination of both. Always has been, always will be. So if 46% of moderate drinkers aren’t thin, I’m willing to bet at least some of them may be genetically predisposed towards a heavier build.

I know a little something on this subject, growing up I could smash two large pizzas together and wolf them both down in minutes, but by the time I graduated from high school I was 6′2″ and still only weighed 138lbs–tell me that wasn’t genetics.

I would hazard a guess that the 54% number would go up to around 70% when you take that into account. That’s 70% of people who are eating healthy despite the fact that they have a drink per day! Shocking, I know.

I wonder how much their completely worthless study cost? They didn’t consider any factors outside of alcohol and didn’t even consider the relevant facts about alcohol. My analysis cost nothing and is every bit as valuably as theirs.

Bush does not bear responsibility for Katrina. It is possible that society as a whole does for the last 150 years. The gulf has, I believe, warmed by about two degrees and that does add fuel to the hurricane’s fire.

However, Bush does bear responsibility for rolling back just about every environmental protection that exists. He does bear responsibility for blocking publication of good science that supports the existence of global warming. He bears great responsibility for not doing a damn thing to protect the environment or to reduce global warming. Insomuch as Katrina puts a spotlight on the issue, Bush deserves to be singled out.

This is just too rich. The NY Times has an article out called March of the Conservatives: Penguin Film as Political Fodder that has such excellent bits as:

On the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com, an opponent of abortion wrote that the movie “verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it…”

…At a conference for young Republicans, the editor of National Review urged participants to see the movie because it promoted monogamy…

“…March of the Penguins,” the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is “the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.”

Why is it amusing that conservative groups are adopting a movie about penguins for their causes? Because penguins are one of the species that proves homosexuality is not a choice. Penguins do mate for life, some of them with the same sex. I’m willing to bet that in the neoconservative echo chamber, most of them aren’t aware of that fact.

The same San Francisco Chronicle article also points out that Bonobo apes, which are closely related to humans, are almost all bisexual, with females engaging “in homosexual activity almost hourly.” (As a heterosexual man I’m going to steadfastly not comment about how great it would be if human women behaved more like Bonobo apes because that would be wrong of me. Very, very wrong. I won’t do it, I tell you.)

It goes on to point out some 450 species have been observed to homosexual behaviors, many of them mammals. I’m sure they all chose to be gay though.

Let’s not even discuss whether global warming contributed to hurricane Katrina’s fury by creating warmer waters in the Gulf or higher sea levels. Let’s instead focus on the fact that sea levels are rising and more and more areas are going to be at or below sea level in the future. What do we do to protect coastal cities?

There is no silver bullet answer to this question. It’s going to require a combination of different techniques and approaches in different areas. In New Orleans, restoring the wetlands is going to be crucial, along with a levee system. A lot more cities are going to have to build levees (or build more levees) in the future.

There are other common-sense things that can be done too. Any at-risk city should be building or raising a series of thoroughfares throughout their cities to be above the water line (by several feet to account for the upcoming rise in sea level).

Cities should also amend their building codes for all future construction. Concrete would be a much better choice. Countries like the Bahamas and Mexico already mandate concrete. (They can’t afford $100 billion to rebuild people’s houses–I’m not entirely sure we can either, but we must and will.) Concrete provides a natural insulation so you don’t have to sandwich layers together. It can withstand hurricanes much better than brick and wood. Post-flooding it isn’t prone to mold.

The human link in the chain will remain the weakest but it is also the easiest and cheapest to fix: just elect competent officials.

A common-sense approach to disaster planning, disaster management, and post-disaster management is essential to saving lives, saving property, and saving our entire economy. After all, how many Katrina’s can we take?

Another in a series of “framing the conversation.”

Evolution is real. It is concrete. It stands on millions of fossils that all fall into place perfectly with one another, none of them out of place, nothing contradicting the theory. Referring to it as a theory is like referring to the “theory of gravity” as just a theory. Last time I looked out the window, the neighbors weren’t floating over their porches.

The whole idea of teaching “intelligent design” (ID) in our biology classes is anathema to me, but many people think it’s a good idea. There are probably a couple of reasons for that: a large part of the population is religious, another large part of the population has a distrust of science (or anything they don’t understand–I don’t understand what’s under the hood of my car, and I’m notoriously distrustful of it and mechanics), and because the right-wing pundits have done an excellent job of framing the discussion.

The big thing here is that the people pushing ID are really pushing creationism, which was already outlawed in our schools by the Supreme Court under the whole separation of church and state principle. They claim they’re not, but they are. They claim that the complexity of living things is such that they had to have a Creator, err, creator.

Religion is defined as “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Simply put, the belief that someone or something created us is a religious belief. Having that belief is fine. The vast majority of people believe that. It can and should be taught in theology classes and in Sunday school classes at whatever church people want to attend. But not in science classes.

Science is based on testable evidence. As I said, there are millions of fossils supporting evolution, and not one contradicting it. There is no controversy here (the ID movement loves the phrase “teach the controversy”). So let’s frame the conversation in such a way as to make these points more obvious.

Whenever someone brings up the topic of ID, I propose specifically referring to it as creationism in your response. When they balk at that, and they will, you’ll have changed the conversation from “teach the controvery” to “defend the idea that ID is not creationism.” They have to argue that it isn’t creationism because that is already banned from schools. If they don’t argue it, you can point out their implicit acknowledgement that creationism and ID are the same thing.

This is great. Because now you can spend the entire time arguing over whether or not ID is creationism and you’ll have the high ground in the argument. The debate never has to progress to the point of discussing whether creationism (remember, it’s not ID) should be taught in schools.

It’s also a good idea to attack the idea of what they are trying to do. They are attacking scientific principles and the teaching of science. It’s important to frame it that way as opposed to “they are trying to teach/push religion in schools” since the vast majority of people are religious and many of them support the notion of teaching science in schools. As I said above, it’s okay to teach religion in a theology class in a public school. That’s not what this is about.

A question such as “why are you attacking science?” is good. It isn’t inflammatory, and it is a legitimate question that allows follow-up questions of the scientific principles of creationism, for which there are none.

What if scientists had the ability to take an ape embryo and flip all the genetic markers necessary to make it human? Insert a little DNA here, snip a little out over there. It would open up any number of moral, ethical, legal, and religious questions.

• Is it human?
• Does it have a soul?
• Does it have the same rights as (other) humans?
• Is it an ‘it’ or a ‘he or she’?
• If creating life is precious and good, would religious people have to acknowledge that scientists had done a good thing?

Religion has always been at war with science because science has always had the power to damage religion. Scientists continue to say that science and religion can co-exist and, up until now, I agreed. I’m not so sure anymore. Science is fast reaching a point where it will be asking questions that I don’t think religion is prepared to answer.

I do know this: science has never had a greater ability to threaten religion than it does now.

And the sudden sense of urgency in the religious attacks on science begins to make sense. How loud would you shout if you heard the death knell of your worldview?

See also, the site of a true believer: Al Dente.

In keeping with the theory that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, I present to you the following site:

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

And since no theory should be held as scientific fact, I further present you with:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

I was pointed to these links via Scott Rosenberg’s Blog. Enjoy.

Man, that will just floor the religious right won’t it? Can you imagine the next President saying something stupid like that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution? Here’s the catch: the Pope made these statements back in 1996.

Here’s a good take on the battle being fought.