Restaurant Review: Founding Farmers
When most people think about the causes of climate change, the images that come to mind are likely exhaust-spewing cars and smoking oil refineries. Seldom do we take into account the how the food we eat affects our climate. Yet, we all impact global greenhouse gas emissions through the choices we make about what we buy at the grocery store, how we cook, and which restaurants we go to. The fact that a sustainable, carbon neutral, and 100% mouth-watering restaurant exists right in downtown Washington, D.C. truly is a breath of fresh air. Really, if more restaurants were like this the air would be fresher. Its name: Founding Farmers.

The first noticeable thing about this new district establishment is the name. In a community with several restaurants that boast politically-themed names -- Hawks and Doves, The Source, We the Pizza -- Founding Farmers fits right in. The name also rings true. Founding Farmers is actually owned and run by family farmers. Their ingenuity produces a menu that is creative and varies depending on what seasonal produce is available.

No restaurant in D.C. takes sustainability more seriously than Founding Farmers -- from the building itself to the tables you sit at. On their Web site, the owners explain how they view sustainability:

What does sustainability mean? It’s about growing, buying and eating food that is good – for the people that eat it, the farmers that harvest it, the animals that produce it and the world that grows it.

The restaurant building is LEED Gold certified. That means all the energy, water, heating, and air conditioning systems are designed for maximum efficiency with very little waste. Everything that can be recycled is recycled. Even the menus are printed from recycled paper. The furniture is constructed from trees that have already fallen. Even the honey is made locally by beekeepers in the George Washington University Biology Department. (Watch a TalkingScience video of the urban beekeepers here!)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to run a restaurant and have completely zero impact on the environment. Food needs to be shipped; ovens run constantly; it takes a lot of energy to keep a restaurant going. That is why Founding Farmers purchases carbon offsets for all their extra environmental costs. Thanks to the offsets, the restaurant is completely carbon neutral.

All those extra steps to take care of the environment would be for nothing if the food were not good. Luckily, Founding Farmers does not have that problem. The food is excellent.

In terms of appetizers, definitely order the corn bread. It tastes like it was taken out of the oven a minute before arriving at your table. It comes with homemade fresh butter that has a sweet taste to it. If you are looking for something unique to share with your friends, the other appetizer that is a must try is the bacon-wrapped dates. Founding Farmers also features a special, "Popcorn of the Day" that is worth checking out.

The best sandwich is definitely the Frisco Burger. Topped with avocado, bacon, and sharp white cheddar, you can’t ask for a better combination of flavors. Make sure you ask what the butcher’s cut sandwich of the day is before you order.

As far as entrees go, definitely pick one of their signature dishes. The Skirt Steak and Chicken Enchilada dish essentially combines the best of what they have to offer. It is a mini enchilada next to half a skirt steak, served with guacamole. All the meat is tender and cooked right -- and the sauces are great too! I cannot speak for the deserts, because unfortunately, by that point, I was way too full.

Founding Farmers is located at 1924 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, D.C.

______________________

For a video about the beekeepers who supply Founding Farmers with local honey, check out
Urban Beekeeping

For more on urban sustainability, check out the TalkingScience multimedia project:
Sustainable NYC
______________________
Jesse Medalia Strauss grew up in New York City's Upper West Side and studies film and media at American University in Washington, DC. Formerly a TalkingScience intern, Jesse is now a video producer for TalkingScience.
 
 

In this video, George Washington University Biology Professor Hartmut Doebel and his student Heidi Wolff share their passion for urban beekeeping. They raise their own bees on a rooftop in downtown Washington, DC and collect the honey for the nearby restaurant Founding Farmers.

In this TalkingScience video, three New York City urban planners discuss their vision and ideas for New York's sustainable future.

Ernest Hutton is a Principal at Planning Interaction and Hutton Associates. He is also on the board of directors for the American Institute of Architects New York chapter (AIANY). He has been involved in urban planning and urban development for over thirty years.

Ilana Judah is the Director of Sustainability at FXFOWLE, a major New York based architecture firm. She is a LEED Accredited Professional and has years of experience in designing green buildings. She is also Chair of AIANY COTE (Committee on the Environment).

James Wright is an Associate Principal at Lee Haris Pomeroy Architects. There he specializes and urban transportation systems. He has worked on transportation projects all over New York. He is also on the Urban Design Committee of American Institute of Architecture.

This video is part of the Sustainable NYC, a multimedia project providing an inside look at efforts all around New York that are transforming the city into a green and sustainable place.

For more Sustainable NYC, check out:
What is sustainable food?
Cleaning the Gowanus
The 1.45 Mile Long Recycling Project

By Jesse Medalia Strauss, American University

If A Tree Falls is a documentary directed, produced, written, and edited by Marshall Curry, best known for his Academy Award-nominated film, Street Fight. His new film pieces together the rise and fall of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

ELF is an environmentalist group responsible for targeted arsons in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The group burned down the nation's largest ski resort in Vail, Colorado, several SUV dealerships, the Superior Lumber Company, and other targets.

Marshall Curry

Now that the FBI has tracked down and arrested the major American players in ELF, the movie focuses primarily on Daniel McGowan, who directly planned and participated in arson attacks for ELF. He is an environmental activist who has been convicted as a terrorist, now serving an eight-year sentence. He currently is being held at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, built specifically to confine terrorists.

The film follows McGowan and his family as he remains under house arrest in an apartment in midtown Manhattan, while he awaits trial. McGowan certainly does not look the way you might imagine your stereotypical domestic terrorist. He seems much more like a young Woody Allen than a Timothy McVeigh:  a neurotic native New Yorker. McGowan is a young, nerdy family man who does not seem like he could hurt a fly. It is worth noting that, despite its members having been charged with terrorism, ELF is responsible for zero deaths or injuries.

Daniel McGowan

Regardless of the focus on McGowan, what makes If A Tree Falls special is the access Curry obtained to tell all sides of McGowan's story, not just McGowan's point of view. The film is a real marriage of all sides and perspectives. Curry does his best to be fair or at least respectful to all parties. It is refreshing because most documentaries, especially environmental ones, tend to be one-sided. Documentaries of this ilk tend to include the line "… declined to be interviewed in this film."

Curry conducted extensive interviews with the FBI agents who worked on McGowan's case, workers at Superior Lumber Company, McGowan's father, sister and wife, and even former ELF members poised to testify against McGowan. Together, these interviews form a well-rounded and complete mosaic that leaves the viewer with a fair, even-handed understanding of McGowan's situation.

If A Tree Falls raises two primary questions that every citizen of the United States should ponder. Firstly, what is the next step after peaceful protests, demonstrations, and petitions fall on deaf ears?  Secondly, what constitutes terrorism?

It has been 105 years since President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act and created the National Park System. It has been 41 years since President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet America's environmental problems are numerous and growing.

According to the film, since the country's founding the United States has cut down 95 percent of its forests. Trees as old as 500 years are chopped down every day and reduced to fodder for the logging industry. As you read this, fracking, a process that involves drilling for natural gas with many kinds of chemicals, is contaminating our water supply. An oil spill is rushing into Yellowstone River and its wetlands.  Every second, more greenhouse gases enter our atmosphere.

Just recently, House Republicans released their Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior for FY 2012. This bill included significant cuts to the budgets for the EPA, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It also included riders that would allow companies to dump pesticides without a permit, prevent regulation on mountain-top removal for mining, prevent regulation of greenhouse gases, block funding for listing new endangered species, and allow uranium mining to take place in the Grand Canyon.

Vail, Colorado Ski Resort Fire

The word "terrorism" has defined the last ten years of American history. Yet America still struggles to define the word itself. The FBI would argue that ELF's tactics of targeting specific sites for arson was a terror tactic, meant to strike fear into law-abiding individuals who happen to be harming the environment. This action surmounts to terrorism under the law. ELF and Daniel would argue that their tactics were not meant to strike fear, but to inflict enough property damage to prevent what they saw as environmental vandalism. Property damage is a far lesser offense than terrorism.

The film leaves the viewer to decide whether Daniel McGowan, a young working New Yorker with a brand-new family, is a terrorist or vandal, and whether ELF as a whole is an ecoterrorist organization or protectors of what little nature we have left.   As If A Tree Falls makes clear, there’s an adage that rings true,  "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

References:
http://www.ifatreefallsfilm.com/
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/npshistory/teddy.htm
http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/leg/7-6-11_Norm_Dicks_Statement_Interior_Environment_FY12.pdf
http://www.supportdaniel.org/

______________________
Jesse Medalia Strauss grew up in New York City's Upper West Side and studies film and media at American University in Washington, DC. Formerly a TalkingScience intern, Jesse is now a video producer for TalkingScience.

The High Line is an elevated park that runs from Gansevoort Street all the way to West 34th Street, mostly along 10th Avenue. It is cleverly nicknamed "the world's longest green roof" because that is essentially what it is.

The High Line is a fully functional park up in the air. As patrons walk up the long strip they enjoy the sights and smells of over 210 different plant species in section one and 157 in section 2. There are also breath taking views of the Hudson, the Meatpacking District, Chelsea, and Midtown.

At first glance, though the High Line is certainly a green space, it does not appear to be an endeavor in recycling. On the contrary: the very concept of its design is based on the principles of reuse.

In 1934, the High Line opened as an elevated train line that connected factories and warehouses along the West Side for expedited shipping. It was built to avoid major accidents between the ground level freight trains, that were in place before, and street traffic. But as industry faded, trains begun to decline throughout the nation. By the end of the fifties, trucks became the preferred method of shipping and many train lines were abandoned. The High Line was no exception. The final train ran the High Line in 1980. Its cargo: three carloads of frozen turkeys.

Over the next two decades attempts were made to dismantle and demolish the High Line. Residents of the neighborhoods around the High Line formed Friends of the High Line, an organization advocating for the High Line's preservation and reuse. In 2002, New York City officially committed to preserving and reusing the High Line. Instead of demolishing and throwing out this perfectly good and reusable elevated line, the City of New York decided to add one more place to its growing list of parks.

After two decades of idleness, shrubs, grass and even trees had already sprouted all along the rails. Converting the abandoned railway into a public green space was the logical step.

Today sections 1 and 2 of the High Line are now open to the public. New Yorkers can see first hand what determined and creative recyclers can do with old and abandoned spaces.

The High Line's commitment to sustainability goes beyond the original recycling concept. The majority of the plants are native to New York and grown by local growers. The High Line employs a closed-circulation system for its water feature. This heavily reduces water waste. On-site composting facilities are being developed and no pesticides or chemical fertilizers are used on the plants.

The High Line provides the same benefits as any green roof. Its design reduces storm runoff by as much as 80%. The plants provide a safe and rich habitat for birds, insects, and even fruit. All the materials, especially the wood, were selected for their durability and longevity, reducing waste that would result from replacements. The lights on the High Line are all LED. Thus they use little energy and do not cause glare. The plants are positioned and selected based on where natural light is strongest on the High Line and which plants benefit the most based on location.

A cornerstone of NYC's new environmental policy (Plan NYC) is to have every New Yorker live within a ten minute walk of a public park. Parks like the High Line improve air quality, create more green space and improve the overall health of the city as a whole. Aside from being a green space, perhaps the High Line's most important function is to allow New Yorkers to walk from Gansevoort to 34th Street while avoiding all those crosswalks. After all New Yorkers are the savviest walkers on the planet and always looking to cut around traffic.

References:
http://www.thehighline.org
http://www.thehighline.org/about/friends-of-the-high-line
http://www.thehighline.org/sustainability
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml
http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/highline

Links:
Tremblay Apiaries
New York Beef Company
Roaming Acres Farm

This video is part of the Sustainable NYC, a multimedia project providing an inside look at efforts all around New York that are transforming the city into a green and sustainable place.

A Bit of History:
The Gowanus Canal was constructed in 1869 out of the Gowanus Creek. It is 1.8 miles long and is filled by the Gowanus Bay which leads into the Upper Bay which leads into the Hudson and East Rivers.

Built in the height of the Industrial Revolution, the canal became a breeding ground for heavy industry. Factories sprouted all along its sides. The shipping capabilities provided by the canal turned Red Hook into a major industrial hotspot. Transportation was not the canal's only purpose. It also served as Red Hook's open sewer and a garbage dump for all the factories and industry.

The New York State Legislature never allocated sufficient funds for canal locks or a flush system. The Army Corps of Engineers figured that the tides would be enough to clean out the canal. However, they were sadly mistaken. Soon the Canal became too polluted for use, and for half a century the water remained stagnant and its toxins festered. Over the years the stench has gotten so repugnant that the locals ironically nicknamed the Gowanus "Lavender Lake."

The Current Situation:
The Gowanus Canal is arguably to most polluted water source in the United States. Its opaque surface is littered with trash. Rumors persist that the canal was a mafia body dumping ground. The concentration of oxygen is about 1.5 parts per million. It takes at least 4 parts per million to sustain life. Sunlight cannot penetrate its thick, toxic depths, making it impossible for algae and other aqua plant life to grow.

But the worst environmental offense lays within the mud that lines the bottom. This is where over fifty years of chemical and industry waste has embedded itself. The mud is ripe with lead, PCBs, toxic chemicals, and even mercury.

The Clean Up:
In March, 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Gowanus Canal as a Superfund site. Superfund refers to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Superfund sites are among the most toxic and hazardous areas in the nation. The EPA can designate sites as Superfund sites and can compel polluters to help pay for the clean up.

Gowanus Canal Clean Up Site

Cleaning up the Gowanus will take an estimated 10-12 years at a cost of $300-500 million. One of the processes required for the cleanup is called dredging, which is a means to remove the sediment or mud at the bottom of the canal. Once the mud is removed, it will either be shipped to a landfill and treated as hazardous waste, or it will undergo a process called vitrification. What this will entail is putting the mud in large metal molds that are then heated to 2000 F. This kills the toxins and turns the mud into glass which can be recycled and be used in buildings or sculptures.

The Future:
If all goes according to plan, in the next decade the Gowanus will be a place where people can boat, fish and where kids can play, maybe even swim. It will take a lot of time, money, and ingenuity -- but anything is worth getting rid of that horrible stench.

Reference Links:
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus/
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/57886/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03gowanus.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/waste/how-to-clean-up-a-superfund-site
http://www.onearth.org/media/video-cleaning-up-brooklyns-gowanus-canal
http://www.nextnature.net/2011/06/evolutionary-janitors/

Desert farming is a double-edged sword for sustainability. Israel grows its own produce, which reduces shipping costs and fossil fuel emissions. However, Israel must rely heavily on its irrigation system and fresh water supply. This supply is dwindling in a land wrought with political turmoil and uncertainty.

Caesarea Beach

Israel is largely landlocked but its coast does include the Mediterranean and a fraction of the Red Sea.

The Negev Desert

Yet fresh water is scarce. Israel currently faces an ongoing drought that has lasted six years so far.

The Dead Sea

The Dead Sea is one of the largest bodies of water in Israel, yet it is comprised mostly of salt and does not support any aquatic life.

Water Fountain Light Show

As a result, Israelis are taught to conserve as much water as possible on a personal level. Yet walking the streets of its cities, you would never know they were strapped for H2O. This is a water fountain light show in the city of Tiberius.

Fountain in Israeli Mall

A fountain in an Israeli mall.

Tel Aviv Fountain

A fountain in Tel Aviv.

Faucet Fountain

Although Israelis learn in school to turn off the faucet, water waste appears to be everywhere.

The Jordan River

So where does all this fresh water come from? The Jordan River brings Israel much of its fresh water. However, the Jordan River is thin and flows through three countries: Israel, Jordan, and Syria. All of which suffer from lack of water.

Overlooking Syria

This is a huge source of contention between Israel and Syria. Syria has made several attempts to divert the Jordan River.

Overlooking the Sea of Galilee

The Jordan River flows into the Sea of Galilee. This small reservoir represents one third of Israel\'s fresh water.

Israeli Stream

Another one tenth of Israel’s fresh water supply comes from small streams like this one.

Tel Aviv Fountain II

So how can Israel afford to have such lavish fountains like this one in Tel Aviv?

Water Fountain at Western Wall

Or bring water to a drinking fountain like this one at the Western Wall?

Roman Aqueduct at Caesarea

For centuries, the inhabitants of Israel/Palestine have had to get creative with how they transport water. This is the Caesarea Aqueduct. It was built by the Romans after they conquered this part of Israel in 63 BC.

Water Pipe in Tzfat

Israel’s Modern aqueduct is a complex series of pipes distributing water throughout the nation. Like this pipe in Tzfat.

Water Pipes in Tiberius

Or this one in Tiberius.

Farming Irrigation Pipe

These pipes are incredibly useful for Israel\'s farmers. Israel does not import much produce. Vast amounts of land are devoted to farming and due to limited rainfall, irrigation and water piping is needed to sustain crops.

Extreme Poverty in the Negev I

Unfortunately the fresh water isn’t distributed evenly.

Extreme Poverty in the Negev II

The poorer communities suffer the most.

Water in the Negev

Instead, vast amounts of resources are used to transport water to the Negev Desert. The goal is to “make the desert bloom.”

Water Pipes in the Negev

Desert Farming requires an elaborate irrigation system to work because the crops cannot rely on rain water. That is what these pipes are for. As a consequence, ground water rapidly depletes.

Desert Farm

Farming in Israel’s Negev Desert creates a desert lush with vegetation, however, it comes at a heavy cost. It greatly reduces Israel’s fresh water supply and keeps water from getting to those who need it most.

Produce Shipment in Jerusalem

Desert farming is a double-edged sword for sustainability. By growing its own produce, Israel reduces shipping costs and fossil fuel emissions. Yet, it must rely heavily on its irrigation system and fresh water supply, which is dwindling in a land wrought with political turmoil and uncertainty.

Why is science cool?

How did you get interested in science?

Why are so few people interested in science?

Eleven year old Ethan Brown is a young apprentice of Dr. Arthur Benjamin, AKA the Mathemagician. Using methods described by Benjamin in his book, Secrets of Mental Math: The Mathemagician's Guide to Lightning Calculation and Amazing Math Tricks, Brown entertains crowds with his feats of calculation. Faster than a calculator, Brown mentally multiplies enormous numbers and calculates squares. TalkingScience video producer Jesse Medalia Strauss caught up with him at the 2011 World Science Festival.

For more, see our interview with Dr. Arthur Benjamin.
 

Arthur Benjamin is a professor of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd College. He uses his highly developed understanding of math to perform feats of calculation in a fun, engaging, and magical way. In his performance, Benjamin demonstrates and explains his secrets for performing rapid mental calculations faster than a calculator. Watch as he mentally multiplies enormous numbers and figures the day of the week of anyone's birthday.
 

In this video, TalkingScience video producer Jesse Medalia Strauss talks with participants in the FIRST Robotics Competition. The competition organizes teens into design teams that compete to build a robot that can best perform tasks and games. The teams came to the World Science Festival street fair to show off what their bots can do.

For this video, TalkingScience video producer Jesse Medalia-Strauss interviewed participants in the New York Iridescent Technovation Challenge -- a program designed to help high school girls understand what it takes to be a high-tech entrepreneurs. In small teams, mentored by female technology professionals, the students designed a mobile app prototype using the Google App Inventor for Android. They then presented their app before a panel of venture capitalists and industry leaders at a "Pitch Night" held at AOL Ventures in NYC.

The Technovation Challenge is a program of Iridescent, a non-profit which provides STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education for underserved and underrepresented youth.

In this video, recorded at World Maker Faire in New York in 2010, Irish roboticist and inventor Pete Redmond talks about RuBot II, aka "The Cubinator," who is the world's fastest Rubik's Cube solving robot according to the 2010 Guinness Book of World Records.

Become a fan of Rubot on Facebook

At the International Public Science Events Conference in February, TalkingScience's Washington D.C. correspondent Jesse Medalia Strauss caught up with Tim Bailey, CFO and assistant director of Yuri's Night World Space Party. Bailey is a space enthusiast who, among other things, teaches people how to maneuver in microgravity during parabolic aircraft flights that create a "weightless" environment. In this video, he talks about Yuri's night, an international celebration that commemorates the first human space flight, by Yuri Gagarin, who flew the Vostok 1 spaceship on April 12, 1961.

We'll be publishing more video interviews with Tim Bailey in the next week or so. Stay tuned!

Anyone attending a Yuri's Night event this evening? Let us know in the comments!

My last couple of entries I have tackled ridiculousness pertaining to issues that have massive scope. Issues such as energy independence, climate change, the fate of our current geo-political system; ridiculousness that we hear about everyday on television, in newspapers, and across the blogosphere.  However today, while riding the subway, I was reminded that ridiculousness comes in all shapes and sizes. And in this case, ridiculousness came in the form of a book title.

I was sitting on the 6 train this afternoon, heading uptown, the way I often do. Glancing ever so discretely at other passengers, just to entertain myself along the journey when something caught my eye. A man, standing across from me was reading a book called Darwinism Under the Microscope by James P Gills and Tom Woodward. At first I didn’t think much of it. I was just comforted to know that there are some average citizens left who still take interest in science and hopefully that man was learning a great deal.

But then I thought about the word Darwinism for a bit, and you know what, that term is rather ridiculous. The fact that it seems so normal and common speaks great volumes about how little we’ve actually progressed as a society. Before you get skeptical and begin to distance yourself from this blog post, allow me to explain.

First I am going to break up the word. The first part of the word is Darwin. This obviously refers to Charles Darwin. A man of great intellect, Darwin discovered the scientific theory of evolution while studying the behavior of finches in the Galápagos Islands. His work has been heavily peer reviewed and is accepted as a perfectly valid scientific theory by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

The second part of the word is ism. Ism is normally used as a suffix that comes after an ideology people subscribe too or follow. Communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, Judaism, Catholicism and so on and so forth. Do you see what’s wrong then?

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Gravity is also an accepted scientific theory. We don’t call people who believe in gravity as part of Newtonism. Your calculus teacher does not preach Leibnizism. Yet in the world we live in, Microsoft Office recognizes Darwinism as a word and not Newtonism and Leibnizism.

We say that Darwin discovered the theory of evolution. We cannot claim that for the various isms people follow throughout the world. Nobody discovered capitalism, nobody discovered imperialism, nobody discovered Protestantism or Calvinism. They were thought up, that is why they are called ideologies because they all stem from ideas. They are all philosophical.

The theory of evolution is not philosophical. It stemmed from intense observation and adherence to the scientific method. The fact that the line between discoveries coming out of the scientific field and ideology are becoming so blurred within the eyes on the populace exposes a frightening fact. There is a massive disconnect between the citizenry and the scientific community.

When two authors with a PHD and an MD can demote a scientific theory that has the same status as gravity to an ideology that can be either followed or ignored without anyone batting so much as an eye, this fact is confirmed. When a politician puts an ad on television claiming his opponent believes in evolution, and that is considered an attack ad, this fact is confirmed. When people with no scientific background can discredit climate change every time it snows, yet ignore climate change theory in the face of record high summer temperatures, this fact is confirmed.

During President Obama’s inaugural address, he said that we need to restore science to its rightful place. The only problem is, we have become so far removed from the scientific community that we no longer know what that rightful place is. We have lost sight on how to properly educate the masses in science. We have lost our grasp on the basic foundations of scientific understanding and principle and thus we no longer take it seriously.  Scientists have to come out and show us what their rightful place is and that place must be restored before our times take a turn for the even worse. Remember, it was the Scientific Revolution that got us out of the Dark Ages.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,

Jesse M. S.

The underdeveloped world, at a glance, appears hampered by its lack of modern technology and infrastructure. However, that is only at a glance. In the poorest crevasses of Africa or the most isolated quarters of the Far East, some people have been spinning a web of new ideas and innovations. Just remember what young inventor Hugo Van Vuuren says: “If it works in Africa, it works everywhere.”

I found out how right Van Vuuren is when I went to the 2010 World Science Festival’s Modern MacGyvers: Innovations for a Developing World, held at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City. Modern MacGyvers showcased a series of inventions that not only makes a substantial difference in developing countries, but also demonstrates simple ways that we can use our creativity to be energy efficient in our own world.

Hugo Van Vuuren demonstrated this point in much more than words. He was born in South Africa and focuses on designing for Africa. He and his team developed a battery that is powered by small electrical currents in dirt. That’s right -- it runs on dirt, and it can power a light, charge a cell phone, and run a radio. This battery changes the way farmers in impoverished African communities conduct commerce and power their homes. We Americans can take a tip from this invention. In our own society, where we find it easier to waste than conserve energy, dirt technology has the potential to radically reduce the amount of energy and fossil fuels Western cultures consume.

Another Modern MacGyver is Winston Soboyejo, an engineer who teaches at Princeton. Using a special flexible solar panel, he was able to create a refrigerator that runs on solar energy and fits on the back of a camel. This is a near-perfect solution for the many parts of Africa crippled by their lack of highways and roads. This camel fridge can preserve food and vaccines for small isolated villages, without the need to change a battery or find an outlet.

All of the inventions shown at Modern MacGyvers have one thing in common: they can make a huge difference in the lives of millions of people. As any invention should, these have the potential to change the world. Who knows -- maybe 100 years from now, our own lights will be powered with dirt, and our cell phones, cameras and fridges with solar. With thinkers like Winston and Hugo, maybe a sustainable future for all is not so far beyond the realm of possibility.

Jesse and Julian will continue to cover the 2010 World Science Festival. Check back throughout this week and next for fun and insightful reviews, photos, and video of this year’s events.

By Jesse Medalia Strauss and Julian Cohen-Serrins
This is the first post in a series covering the recent World Science Festival in New York City

It was a gorgeous night in New York City, the dark blue sky visible through the vast glass walls of Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall. The perfect setting to share food, drinks and experiences with some of the smartest and most preeminent names in the entire field of science. This was the Opening Gala of the third annual World Science Festival. A most exquisite kick off to five days of forty different events, teaming with vibrant discussion, discovery, and displays of the latest and most innovative breakthroughs in the world of science and technology. A festival put together and built on the insights of some of the smartest, most interesting, and tragically overlooked people on the face of the Earth.

The night began with a welcoming ceremony, which featured drinks, hors d'oeuvres and excellent conversation. Breaking through a barricade of photographers and reporters, we were able to get within inches of icons such as theoretical physicists Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss, actor John Lithgow, painter Chuck Close, and cosmologist Steven Hawking.

The second phase of the Gala was a fantastic and often comedic compilation of science themed acts on the stage of Alice Tully Hall. This program included a lighthearted lyrical vision of a submerged post-global warming New York, a song about calculus performed by some of the cast members of the current Broadway production of South Pacific, an unforgettable live performance by violinist Yo-Yo Ma, and a tribute to and speech by Dr. Hawking, whom the Gala was honoring.

Following the stage performances, we saw a silent film, directed by British artists Al+Al, set to a live orchestra, conducted by composer Philip Glass, and narrated by John Lithgow. Entitled Icarus at the Edge of Time, it is based on the book for younger readers by Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene, co-founder of the World Science Festival with his wife, producer Tracy Day. Both the book and the film re-imagine the famous Greek myth of Icarus, set in deep space where a black hole replaces the sun.

After the film came the Gala reception, set in the spacious and newly designed lobby of Alice Tully Hall. There were fancy cheeses from all over Europe, imported meats and delicious desserts. We had a brief yet delightful conversation with Chuck Close, listened to music, and got yelled at by one of Dr. Hawking’s bodyguards when we tried to take a picture. Unfortunately, there was no sign of Alan Alda, who helped organize the entire event and spoke during the performance. We had admired him on television and hoped to tell him so, but that was not a total loss. All in all, we had a wonderful time and if the Gala is any precursor, we will be in for a fun and exciting few days.

Jesse and Julian will continue to cover the 2010 World Science Festival. Check back throughout this week and next for fun and insightful reviews, photos, and video of this year’s events.

(Video with transcript)

Greetings Dear Readers,

On April 18, 1977, President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation with the first ever-proposed federal energy policy. In this speech, he stressed above all the vital imperative to conserve our dwindling oil resources and move towards alternative and renewable sources of energy. Carter warned that “the alternative may be a national catastrophe,” a national catastrophe like the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Right now, the federal government has no coherent energy policy. The only one we had ended the second President Ronald Reagan took his predecessor’s solar panels off the White House roof. From that point on, the man who said, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles,” would encourage a nation whose morale was suffering from Carter’s truth injection to consume more, and pretend that none of our problems exists. A solid plan for Reagan. After all, he never lived to see oil wash up on Louisiana’s shores.

No one foresaw the problems we have today with oil as clearly as President Carter. When confronted with the truth, instead of making the necessary sacrifices that would have made offshore drilling completely unnecessary and unprofitable, the people of the United States did a most ridiculous thing. They threw out the only honest man in Washington and replaced him with the ultimate out-of-touch yes-man.

But what is most troubling about our collective decision to ignore the staggering evidence that lay right before us in 1977, is not the possibility of preventing dead fish and wildlife, as well as the swift end to the careers of many fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. By steadily increasing our intake of oil, we have been forced to import more. When we import more oil, we end up financing some pretty unsavory folk. You may know them better as terrorists.

The United States has done a great deal since 9/11. We have invaded two countries, bombed the borders of a third, created a new cabinet position, beefed up our security and surveillance, and financed research into new, more effective approaches to security. But there is another front on the war on terror. The second requires more than the brave sacrifice of our enlisted men and women; it requires a sacrifice from every one of us.

The best thing we can do to prevent a second major attack on our soil is to follow through with Jimmy Carter’s plan. Every solar panel you install, every hybrid you buy, every cow you spare, and every windmill that is built mean less money in the pockets of Al-Qaeda. You can do more to fight terror by making simple changes in your own lifestyle than by using bombs and bullets combined.

News pundits are already calling the Louisiana oil spill the greatest environmental disaster of our time. It is also the loudest wake up call. It has been made clear as day that we cannot sustain our civilization if we continue in the direction we are going. We must have a clear and coherent energy policy, we must wean ourselves off oil, and we must switch over completely to alternative fuels. I understand that is a lot to ask of the American people, that the task seems daunting and naive. But remember, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said at the beginning of World War II that we needed to produce 50,000 planes. Everyone thought he was crazy, but after the hard work and sacrifice of every able American, we did not produce 50,000 planes, we produced 100,000.

The most powerful force in the world is a mobilized democracy. No task is too great. We must become energy independent if we are to remain the world’s most powerful nation -- if we are to remain a nation at all. The stakes are that high. We must become energy independent and we can start by demanding that President Obama put those solar panels back on the White House.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.
All the best,
Jesse M. S.

Today is Earth Day, one of the few holidays I actually take seriously. Yet at the same time, it is also a holiday that I find is ridiculous that we need have in the first place. Everything comes from the Earth. Everyday we pillage for its resources, not just for our survival, but mainly to support our lifestyle, a lifestyle of excess and consumption. A lifestyle that is nothing more than a perversion of the American Dream and by consequence inhibits the survival of others and sucks the lifeblood out of our very tolerating planet.

Everyday we fly through our Earth’s air, we cut down its forests, we fish its seas, we pollute its rivers, we drill its grounds, we hunt its animals, and we pour heaping clouds of smoke into the sky. However, we only dedicate one day to say, “thanks planet that has supported my life for so long, please let me continue to walk all over you without any repercussions.” But the obvious problem is this, the Earth can only take so much abuse and unless we start treating the Earth everyday with the respect it so well deserves we will see first hand what happens when our planet decides its not gonna take it anymore.

The obligation we all have to the Earth is an individual one. There are changes, some drastic, some minute that we can make in our lifestyles, to show the Earth we care. Here is the moral code that I do my best to live by at all times of the year. Think of them as The Green Ten Commandments, only instead of written on stone tablet, they are typed on virtual, carbon free Internet paper.

Green Commandment I: The Earth is your home. You have no home before the Earth.

Whether we like it or not, we are all citizens of the globe. We have a greater responsibility to the whole than to the individual. If we can ensure the survival of the whole, all will be taken care of, including the self. Honor the Earth as if it was your home, because it is your home.

Green Commandment II: Avoid driving whenever possible.

I am nineteen years old. I do not own a car, nor do I have a license. I am a man of public transportation. Granted, I grew up in New York City and now live in Washington, DC so that’s hardly a sacrifice. I’m sure if you’re a suburban kid, you’re about ready to cross this one right off the list. Well hold on. Every town, no matter how small should have some form of 24-hour bus system. In fact, back in the day, most of them did. Car companies would seek these towns out and do everything in their power to dismantle the bus system to force the inhabitants to rely on cars. Write your state senators; go to your town hall meetings, run for office, advocate for this. You will create jobs, and save a lot on gas. Or you can just follow the third commandment.

Green Commandment III: Avoid living in the suburbs whenever possible.

The average New Yorker has a carbon footprint that is 75% less than the national average. There is a reason for this. A suburban lifestyle makes it nearly impossible to be green. A house uses substantially more energy than an apartment and statistically speaking there are most likely multiple cars per household. Living in the city means you don’t have to drive, you’re in close proximity to your job, you take up less space, use less energy and have greater access to recycling options.

Green Commandment IV: Eat only local, grass fed, organic meats whenever possible.

I have a very strict requirement when eating meat. It must be grass fed (if it is beef) and it must be local (unless I’m on vacation in another country, then all food is fair game). Industrialized meat is one of the top contributors to climate change. The amount of oil it takes to raise a single cow for McDonalds would astound you. Grass fed, and local is healthier for you and more humane for the animal and produces fresher, tastier meat. Also all game meat fits this criteria, and believe me, a rabbit or elk sandwich is much more interesting than a burger.

Green Commandment V: Buy local, organic and fair-trade whenever possible.

The fastest way to get corporations to greenafy their practices is not through legislation, it’s simply buying already greenafied products. Take my favorite beverage, Honest Tea, for example. Honest Tea only uses organic, fair trade tea and recyclable packaging. Because of that, a lot of people started to buy it, so many people that Coca Cola began to take interest. Now Coke owns 40% of the company. Nothing has changed about the green standards of the product, all that’s changed is more people now have access to it and the price has gone down. Remember, five years ago there was no organic section at Wal-Mart. The more we buy green products the more corporations will try to deliver them. That’s really how you can change the world.

Green Commandment VI: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle whenever possible.

I’m sure if we look hard, we can all find products we don’t need to buy, we all have bags and water bottles we can reuse and we all can take that extra time to recycle. You’ll save money and it’s a small effort on your part. You’ll be doing the Earth a lot of good.

Green Commandment VII: Shutdown, unplug, buy solar whenever possible.

It’s not that hard to save energy. When you go outside, turn off the lights, turn off the air conditioning and unplug some of your stuff. To save energy further, buy Energy Star rated products. You’ll save a lot on your electric bill. If you want a return on your electric bill, invest in solar panels for your house. You will actually be generating electricity and will be paid to do so buy electric companies.

Green Commandment VIII: Invest in green technologies whenever possible.

The greatest thing you can do, if you have money floating around, is invest in green. Make green profitable. You can create jobs and drive innovation towards making the world a better place. It will work out nicely for you in the short run and will do wonders for all of us in the long run.

Green Commandment IX: Vote green whenever possible.

Be informed, listen to what politicians have to say, look at their campaign contributions and make sure they have the well being of the Earth in mind. Every election we empower individuals with enormous influence and decision-making capacity. They are in the best position to bring about change. Don’t be afraid to hold their feet to the fire and if ensuring the Earth remains inhabitable for your grandchildren isn’t at the forefront of their policy, don’t be afraid to vote them out. Vote early, vote often.

Green Commandment X: Spread the word, stay active, get involved whenever possible.

If you can follow these commandments to the best of your ability, you will be making a difference. If you want to make a great difference, get someone else to do it too. Talk to your friends, write your local papers or your favorite blog sites, make a movie, join a group. We are above all else a community and we must stand united. The best way to ensure our survival is not to cut each other’s throats but to work as a community, to work for each other. Like I said, we all have an individual obligation to honor the Earth, because the Earth represents the whole. To honor your obligation to the Earth is to honor your obligation to your peers. You have to make sure they are working too. You have spread the word, you have to educate.

Everyday day we are alive is a day spent on Earth. Everyday is Earth Day. We cannot set aside one day of the year to care about our home. It must be everyday. We must constantly be improving ourselves, constantly striving to better our community, to achieve new levels of greatness. We have to set an example right now for the next generation and the generation after that. We have to show the future that the meaning of life is to leave the Earth better than you found it, to be a positive influence, give back to your community and pass on what you have learned. We have to set this example for the future, because if we fail to do so, there may be no future for us at all.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,
Jesse M. S.

I understand that this is a funny headline for a science blog. But unfortunately we live in very politically volatile times. Although ideally science should be kept far, far, far away from the soap opera with a trillion dollar budget that is American politics, the reality is that politics and science are very much intertwined. Without the votes of our elected officials, there would be no funding for important and revolutionary projects like RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, a true modern marvel that I recently had the privilege to see. Totally funded by the United States government, this 2.5 mile circuit has the power to heat particles to up to four trillion degrees, and then smash them together to replicate conditions right after the Big Bang. Brookhaven scientists are working very hard in hopes of discovering vast new things about the origin of our universe.

Politics not only holds power over the current state of America’s scientific affairs, but also their future. For our government, local and national, has direct control over school curricula and funding. This means public officials have the power to graduate future scientists -- or not. If the schools stop taking science seriously, I can tell you for sure the students will stop too, if they haven’t already. This is precisely why it is crucial that scientists everywhere keep very close track of current political trends.

But above all else, this blog encourages rational thinking by exposing irrationality wherever it exists. Unfortunately the epicenter of irrationality often radiates from a white-domed, column-lined building, where every so often, 535 people congregate to determine the future of everything.

Last night, the United States House of Representatives passed HR 3590 with a vote of 219 to 212. This marks the greatest step forward in health care reform since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. This bill will cover 32 million people who previously could not afford health insurance, ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and prevent arbitrary rate hikes. The bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates that this bill will save the United State over a trillion dollars.

It was a long and painful path from the moment President Obama announced his intentions to reform health care to last night's achievement. The national discussion was not a debate over critical data, economic realities and moral philosophy; it was a debate hijacked by a storm of irrationality. What should have been an open and honest discussion very quickly turned into the mass broadcasting of erroneous, fear-mongering rumors, with the other side's feeble attempts to dispel them falling on deaf ears. President Obama could have hung a giant banner outside the White House that read “HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL SAVE US $1 TRILLION!!!” And yet every time I turn on the television there is a Tea Partier or a Fox News anchor talking about how the bill will increase the national debt and drive up medical costs.

Dissent over health care reform is valid. But there is a difference between irrational dissent and rational dissent. When the opposition has to launch one of the largest disinformation campaigns ever perpetrated against the American populace, they invalidate themselves. One should never have to lie to prove a point. As a tragic result, half the population now thinks that a bill that is less progressive than what Republican governor Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, and far less progressive than systems that work for almost everyone living in Europe and Canada, will turn this country into the Soviet States of America, with a 90 percent tax hike on all the kids to pay for it. That’s not thinking scientifically.

A scientific thinker examines available data and forms a hypothesis. For the most part, the opposition to this bill tried to alter reality to fit the hypothesis they already created.

The fact that the Republican Party was almost successful in derailing this bill is not a sign of its strength but a sign of its decline. Not a single Republican in the house voted, not just for the bill, but even to debate it openly. When President Clinton proposed his plans for health care reform, there was unanimous consent to open debate. No bill in U.S. history has ever attracted this much partisan opposition to any bill. Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act had bi-partisan support. The Republicans have banded together to form one dogmatic, homogenous voting block against the Obama administration, no matter what its agenda may be. They have done so because they are desperate. The Republican Party is a cornered wolf, taking one ferocious last stand.

Firstly, let's take a look at minority voting trends. Statistically speaking, minorities tend to vote Democrat. According to population projections, it will not be long before minorities make up a majority of the American population. At a time when Republican survival depends on widening their tent, their new-found dogma has only managed to narrow it.

Secondly, the Republican base has been hijacked by former Alaska Republican governor Sarah Palin, the religious right, and the Tea Party. What this means is that rational Republicans have to distance themselves from the base of their party. They have to clarify that even though they are Republican, they are no fans of Palin or even former President George W. Bush. However, Republican candidates still have to campaign to their base if they stand a decent chance of winning primaries or drawing high turnouts for general elections.

Take Mitt Romney. He is a highly educated man who signed into Massachusetts law one of the most progressive pieces of health care legislation this country has seen. But when someone of his intellect goes on national television, as he did during the C-PAC conference, and calls Obama supporters “neo-liberal monarchs,” you know he knows better. Moderate Republicans and independents are forced to take a step back, and the Democrats now have another sound bite to use against Romney in 2012.

The third sign of the decline of the Republican Party is simply that America is growing more liberal. The majority of young people vote Democratic, support gay marriage and drug legalization, and are pro-choice. We also are the generation that didn’t grow up during the Cold War. Outside Tea Party and Wall Street culture, the Red Scare doesn’t really exist. The word "socialism" doesn’t send chills down our spines the way it did for our parents and grandparents. So we are more open minded when it comes to social programs, such as a public option.

These realities are forcing Republican strategists to use fear mongering and disinformation tactics to the point where their constituents are buying into a new reality, one that is not based on fact or reason. In this reality, even the U.S. Census, which has been constitutionally mandated since our nation's founding, has become unnecessarily controversial and called an “encroachment on our civil liberties.”

These tactics are most effective and most dangerous when they are implemented in our public schools. Some of our most important elections -- and often the most overlooked -- determine who serves on our school boards. Scientists especially should be paying very close attention to school board elections. All too often, a school’s science budget is the first line item to be cut, before sports. All too often, teaching widely accepted scientific theory is considered controversial. What goes into our curricula could easily determine the future of the scientific standing of the United States and how effective we will be in dealing with issues pertaining to the environment and energy independence.

There is no greater evidence of this than the recent conservative overhaul of Texas’ textbooks. In what came down to a party line vote, the overhaul went so far as to significantly downplay Thomas Jefferson’s role in history, simply because of his secular ideology and writings. What makes this even more frightening is that Texas is the largest buyer of textbooks in the nation. So textbook publishers must cater to the Texas curriculum to survive. Changes in Texas education affect the rest of the nation.

Grade school science is so much more than just teaching kids the periodic table or what happens when you mix vinegar and baking soda. Teaching the scientific method and habits of scientific thinking is crucial because it teaches kids to base their conclusions on data and observation. Students learn to have viewpoints that are reflective of reality -- not to have their reality reflect their viewpoints. To study the scientific method is to encourage rational thinking. When that is cut, then perhaps students will cease to question why Thomas Jefferson is no longer in their textbook.

Schools should encourage students to think scientifically and civically. What this country needs more than anything right now is a generation of young people who will grow up thinking that success is not determined by profit margin but by whether you make the world a better place for all. Last night, 219 men and women in Congress did just that. Because of the great risk they all took by voting for HR 3590, 32 million Americans finally got that breath of fresh air they so desperately needed. The passage of the health care bill will be remembered as one of the most important pieces of legislation since the Civil Rights Act and Medicare. The only thing that will prevent that is if we let the Republicans cut March 21, 2010 out of the textbooks.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,

Jesse M. S.

If you live anywhere within continental United States, you are no doubt informed of the rippling snowstorm spreading across the country. Some citizens even experiencing snow for the first time, like many Texas residents who had the pleasure of receiving a whole foot of the stuff dumped on to their unsuspecting roads and houses. In Washington, DC, where I live the majority of the year, we experienced the worst snowstorm in 200 years. A storm powerful enough to shut down the roads, metro, schools and even the United States government for a whole week. A storm so intense, the district could not start plowing until four days in, making navigation and travel excruciatingly difficult. At American University, where I attend, not only were classes canceled for a week, but part of our dining hall collapsed. Luckily no one was hurt.

So from a crop freeze in Florida, to record high snowfalls across the country, to the crippling of our government, people, and by people I mean several conservative talk pundits and the sheep that blindly follow them, are starting to doubt climate change. Well not so much doubt, they’ve been doubting climate change ever since the airing of the first trailer of Inconvenient Truth. It is more accurate to say that they are delivering the rest of world, the demographic that is more in touch with reality, a very snowy and unwarranted “I told you so.”

At first glance, this is puzzling. Certainly an abrupt spike in weather phenomenon that is unprecedented in recent history bares some evidence that our climate is in fact changing. Scientists have stated over and over again that the shift in the Earth’s atmosphere will result in a higher frequency of storms that will become increasingly more severe. But unfortunately we made a colossal mistake. Just as our movement started to gain momentum beyond a few local farmers and recycling freaks, and evidence of our planets transformation began to take real form and reach broad consensus, Al Gore coined the term Global Warming.

Environmentalists have a lot to thank Al Gore for. An Inconvenient Truth rallied and educated millions of people and forced scientists and politicians to come out and address problems facing the environment. The film lifted the cause of a few commune living hippies and dismally funded lobby groups up onto its shoulders and into the national stage of conversation. In those respects, the film did its job flawlessly. Al Gore got people talking about the environment, and when people talk, they get interested and want to know more. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is operating on a budget larger than ever before, companies all over the world are spending millions of dollars investing in fuel-efficient cars and green technology. Mayor Bloomberg’s Plan NYC is going to plant a million new trees, sort through New York’s trash to find recyclables, require all schools to launch recycling programs and greenify building codes. Environmental Science is slowly becoming part of the core curriculum across the country. Environmental Filmmaking is now a major in universities everywhere. Even the set of 24 has gone green with digital scripts and carbon offsets.

A lot is being done, and the efforts of millions upon millions of people who are working as hard as they can to leave the Earth better than they found it are quite often overlooked. However, as much as we are indebted to Al Gore for legitimizing our movement, he also made a crucial mistake. You see Al Gore is a democrat and unfortunately being a democrat he is cursed with the inability to name things well. Lets look at some of the names Republicans have come up with, The Patriot Act, a law that limited civil liberties. The Internet Freedom Act, a bill that would allow companies to control the speed and content of the Internet based on how much you pay them. The Pro Life movement has a great name, hell, even the Tea Party is kind of cleverly dubbed in its own way.

Democrats have Cap and Trade, Gas Tax, and Single Payer Healthcare System to name a few. Doesn’t have quite the same ring. Al Gore decided to call the shift in Earth’s climate global warming. And although there is legitimacy in that name. Sunlight is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere by fossil fuels, which are heating it up. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the weather we experience on the ground is warmer. In fact a melting ice cap will result in colder ocean temperatures. And even though the last two winters were some of the warmest on record, the fact that global warming and not climate change is the common terminology, every time Sean Hannity has to ware a coat to get to work he can later go on TV and call Al Gore’s theory “hysterical.” The frightening thing about that is people believe him, a lot of people, and now every time the weather is colder than usual or snow falls in areas where it shouldn’t be falling, the entire green movement is undermined.

The environmental movement is asking for our civilization to sacrifice a lot. The way we get around, the way we eat, our entertainment, one could say a whole culture is being called into question. We sometimes forget the scope of what we demand from our fellow citizens to save this Earth. That is why there really is no room for error. We cannot afford to have our statements taken out of context, we cannot afford to be dishonest, and we have to always remember the more disorganized we look, the more we falter, the less legitimized we appear to be and the less people are willing to take us seriously and perform the sacrifices the world desperately needs them to do.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,
Jesse M. S.

Now, I understand given this is talkingscience.org, so there is an argument to be made that this blog post could be deemed “inappropriate” or “off topic.”  However,  recent events in the circus that is the American political world have injected me with what can only be described as an adrenaline rush equivalent of ridiculousness. So, given the thousands of universities that now offer political science as a major as my justification, as well as the fact that the Democrats are pro-science, I will now analyze for you the ridiculousness that is the most recent Massachusetts Senatorial election.

Now, Massachusetts is traditionally an extremely liberal state.  The late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy held his seat for generations, and he accidentally killed a woman.  Massachusetts has the most progressive health care system in all the United States, which a Republican governor was forced to implement. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage. How is it possible to screw all this up? Well, not surprisingly, the Democrats have found a way. Not only did the Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, basically stop campaigning after winning the primary, but she insulted the Red Sox. How can you run for any office in Massachusetts and insult the Red Sox?! Additionally, at a time when health care is so critical nationally, Coakley proved her political brilliance by flying to Washington to attend a fundraiser hosted by multiple health insurers. Even Obama, who carried the state by over 60%, couldn’t lift this woman onto his shoulders. In fact, his last-minute campaign contribution came off as pathetic and desperate.

Now since I'm a science journalist, the results of this election worry me greatly, especially if this upset is a precursor for election disasters to come in November. Let me explain why. For eight years I have witnessed, along with the rest of the United States, the systematic dismantling of the role scientific research and argument play in society. For the last eight years, there has been an undeniable full frontal siege on the intellectual fortress of reason and rationality. A siege that has been led by religious right-wing fundamentalists, a neo conservative administration, and the oligopolies they were in bed with. Before you write me off as a looney leftist extremist, I ask you to allow me to explain my thesis in a rational and factual manner.

Firstly, and most alarmingly,  the Bush administration attempted to perpetrate a fraud of global proportions against the American people and their future well being. It is a fact, let me repeat this, a fact that the oil conglomerates of the world worked with White House officials in altering scientific data in order to propagate a version of reality for the United States in which climate change does not exist. This was done under the banner of greed and justified under the Social Darwinist ideology that is American capitalism. Like the cigarette companies, who launched a widespread cover-up campaign in order to hide their highly addictive product’s relation to a plethora of deadly conditions, mainly lung cancer, the oil companies sought to cloak the stranglehold they have on the Earth’s health in a veil of deception, propped up by the credibility of a pPesidential seal.

Secondly, let's take a gander at the religious right. It is impossible to deny their relationship with the Republican Party. Just look at polling results in the Bible Belt. We can thank  this constituency for the Bush Administration’s push for federally mandated abstinence-only sex education, which denies students the very relevant information they need to protect themselves from STDs.  Ironically enough, abstinence-only sex education increases the chances of teen pregnancies.

If the religious right had their way, the Bible would play a major role in science education. For example, in a recent story in The New York Times, an Ohio science teacher named John Freshwater was quoted as saying that because according to the Bible homosexuality is a sin, scientists must be wrong in their claim to have isolated a gene that causes homosexuality. In fact, there exists a substantial proportion of the Republican party, including top Republican officials such as former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who have stated that creationism should be taught alongside evolution as an alternative scientific theory. This idea conveniently overlooks the fact that creationism isn’t a scientific theory. There are no scientific proponents or consensus backing creationism, nor was it proposed originally by scientists. Creationism is a theological theory, and should be taught, if at all, in an objectively-taught theological studies class.

Then there is my personal favorite. There was a group of Christian Republicans who demanded that the Hubbell Space Telescope be taken down. Their rationality: the photographs it was producing contradicted the Bible. Let me reiterate the key word in that sentence: photographs.

But the greatest crime of all is how a Republican majority altered language connotation. As we saw during Palin's book tour, they have an engrained bias against anyone who is  liberal and educated. The truth is, public education is a liberal idea, and chances are that under Republican leadership, we would see somewhat less of it. Over the past eight years, we have reached the point where Obama literally had to say “We will restore science to its rightful place.”

Your vote is sacred.  Use it wisely. And when you do, I ask you to consider the long term well being of this country. Science and math scores are at an all time low, budgets are being cut across the country, and the debate over creationism is actually growing. If we are to restore science to its rightful place, we need to make sure we have elected officials who are willing to give the subject the time and credence it deserves. And for all those candidates campaigning for Congressional seats in 2012, bear in mind that in this political landscape, no district is “safe.”  Don’t win your primary and go on vacation.  Campaign your heart out to the end.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing on Faith.

All the Best,
Jesse M. S.

I write to you from the tight confine that is the window seat of a Bolt Bus. My legs, holding in place a duffel bag filled with clothes, are practically stuck for the next four hours, a torture barely offset by the fact that Bolt offers Wi-Fi. As the sky slowly begins to grow darker and the driver steers the bus south down the highway, I can feel my much-needed winter break slowly draw to a close and the pressure and anticipation of the start of a new semester loom over me, like an overarching shade that grows darker as the bus continues to progress towards its destination.

Now, for all those reading this, currently going through the ridiculousness of epic proportions that is the college process (and most likely the subject of a future blog post), what your various guides tell you is true:   when you go to college, you will be meeting all different kinds of people. For example, growing up in New York City and attending a highly liberal high school, I was always under the impression that I needed to fly all the way to America’s heartland and venture to some cabin on the outskirts of a forest in Idaho, to find someone who still doesn’t believe in climate change. Yet despite the urban and strong academic environment that is American University and the overwhelming scientific consensus, I've been shocked that the fact that Earth’s climate is changing just doesn’t seem to resonate with a great portion of the student populace.

Considering that when it comes to climate change, civilization as we know it is at stake, it is absolutely ridiculous, nay, disturbing that there is an ever-expanding distrust of the scientific community within the United States. How can bright young people, educated people, men and women of ambition, looking to further their worldly studies through a university, hold such high disregard for such crushing evidence. I’ve literally had conversations with students living in my dormitory who have said, in a manner that suggested they knew better than thousands of experts who have dedicated their lives to this area of research, that human beings have  no effect on the Earth’s climate. That after more than a hundred years of industrialization, a population that is growing exponentially and rapidly, and the past century of devastating warfare, we have placed no burden on our planet. That the thick, disgusting smog over Los Angeles, a city where there are more automobiles than people, would have been there regardless of anything we have done. When I point out these facts,  my peers' answer is always the same:   “Scientists can be wrong.” I understand that in the past, individual scientists have made mistakes and have drawn the wrong conclusions based on collected data, but when you have an entire field of experts working independently of one another drawing the same conclusions, plus satellite photographic evidence of the polar ice caps dwindling away, I think it’s safe to say the Earth is changing.  But unfortunately for America,  it’s easier to say those satellite photos were photoshoped in a massive scientist conspiracy to get more grant money.

This attitude that a large majority of our population has embraced is not only defeatist, but suicidal. If people convince themselves that a problem doesn’t exist, then they will do nothing to solve or prevent it.  At the rate we are going, by the time our country wakes up, the people in my home town, the sunken borough of Manhattan, will be living in refugee camps in Canada. Every once in a while, a generation gets a necessary call to act and sacrifice. The last time this happened, a nation mobilized to defeat the armies of fascism. The most powerful force on Earth is a mobilized democracy calling for action, and that is what we need to be. Right now, we have been granted a very small and rare window to change our ways to save this planet for our children. A new decade means a clean slate.  Unlike now in 2010, when 2020 rolls around, let's be able to say truthfully we left the decade with the Earth better than we found it.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,
Jesse M. S.

Greetings, Dear Readers.

If you are lucky enough to catch this post, then you will have stumbled upon the first of many entries in my new weekly blog: Jesse Battles Ridiculousness. Herein will lie one of the few places left in this vast world of ours where TalkingScience and Science Friday lovers alike can seek refuge and enjoy the sanctuary of a land (or Web page) where only facts, evidence and logic reign supreme and are the necessary cornerstones to every argument presented.

That is not to say that this is an environment safe from the ridiculousness and blatant fallacies that plague our very society. On the contrary, here they will have a very present place and an extremely important role to play, for their mere existence makes this blog possible.

The only difference is this: here, and only here, all the ridiculousness in the world cannot come to harm you.  Instead, it will instead be exposed for your own entertainment and enlightment. I ask you to think of this blog as a zoo for the wacky and irrational notions we face every day as we go through life.

Here you will laugh and relate, as I use the power of science and the written word to showcase and defeat the ridiculousness I encounter, as you all do, over the course of our many travels. Here I will tackle the issues that face our civilization every day and explain in the most scientific of ways exactly how, what should otherwise be benign, problems are holding back our very society in the most ludicrous and absurd ways.

Ridiculousness comes in many forms: conversations, bumper stickers, mainstream news.  So you must be prepared at all times to face it.  For the first exposure I will relate to you, ridiculousness comes in the form of a very large and public sign.

This sign, the size of the average billboard, is hung alongside of a building, located on the very block I grew up on, on New York City’s Upper West Side. The building belongs to an organization that for the most part champions an ideology based on ignoring the insurmountable evidence of the physical world and replacing it with their own version of the truth based on a storybook written over two thousand years ago. Now I promise you, you have heard of this organization; in fact, statistically speaking, you are most likely a member yourself. If you haven’t figured it out already, the quote on the sign ought to jog your deductive skills.  It reads “We walk by faith, not by sight.”

Let’s think about this for a moment. Read the quote aloud; let it roll off your tongue; grant yourself a whiff of the ridiculous aroma emitting from those seven words.  “We walk by faith, not by sight.” There is now no longer any need for me to write down the identity of this organization, it is more than implied.

I have chosen to analyze this particular passage for my first blog entry because  I believe it sums up rather nicely the source of most of my crossing paths with the ridiculous. Think about what it is basically telling you to do:  forget about sight, forget about truth or reason,  and trust blindly in something intangible, unprovable and supposedly infallible. That phrase is the ultimate tool of the brainwasher. It is a command to ignore logic and evidence, to shun challenging and thought-provoking sources and to simply have faith in an artificial truth. It is the root cause of the mind numbing epidemic of selective exposure that is spreading throughout an ever more partisan nation, which is precisely why it is one of the main origins of ridiculousness found all around us.

Science and religion are both quests for answers. I have had conversations where people have argued that there is no real difference in which one you believe; they both can’t be 100% proven.  While that argument may be valid to some extremely minor extent, there is a difference--a major one. Although science has proven very fallible in the past and still is today, it is the first to admit it. Religion requires you to sacrifice all you know about the world you live in order to conform your life to a series of rituals and ancient beliefs for reasons that are “just beyond man’s comprehension.”   The scientist takes nothing on faith and will derive his/her truth from data collected through a strenuous method of trial and error. To “walk by faith, not by sight,” is to ignore the valuable knowledge reaped from that method, and to embrace a life where you walk with a kaleidoscope attached to your head, forcing you to see reality in distorted fragments, condemning you to never truly viewing what lies before your eyes. This creates a situation where there is nothing to prevent you from jumping off a cliff, if you believe that will lead to your salvation. So in order to avoid a population running around outside my apartment, more or less blindfolded, I ask you, please for the good of mankind, walk by sight.

Be Skeptical, Be Critical, Take Nothing On Faith.

All the best,
Jesse M. S.