Rants & RavesSome of the following might one day be used against me in a court of law. Importance of PBS Importance of PBSThe New York Times ran a story on 2008-02-17 entitled Is PBS Still Necessary? They were so deluged with feedback from readers, nearly all of it in support of PBS, that they closed their forum two days later (the day I heard about it). I posted the following on the PBS forum instead: The News Hour is clearly the most thorough and objective news program currently available on television. As many have noted, other television news programs instead focus on what is most entertaining (or easily sensationalized), rather than what is most important. Like other PBS programs that delve into controversial subjects, The News Hour takes great pains to acknowledge even the appearance of potential conflicts of interest. I watch this program several times each week, constituting the majority of my television viewing. I will certainly admit to a lifetime love affair with science, but I consider NOVA the best program that has ever come to television. Even among science programs (most of which are found on PBS, by the way), NOVA is a clear standout. In the current climate of scientific obfuscation (much of it perpetrated by our own government and facilitated through the lack of journalistic integrity pervasive in other American media), excellent mainstream scientific television programming is a valuable resource indeed. It would appear that the National Science Foundation shares both my opinion of NOVA and of the political challenges faced by mainstream science. I certainly enjoy many other PBS programs from time to time (e.g., Nature, Frontline, and The American Experience). However, if both The News Hour and NOVA disappeared, I would immediately cancel my cable subscription. Elegance of the MacintoshMacintosh computers and the Mac OS were designed by people who think the human/computer interface is the most important thing to worry about. Every time they come up with a new feature, it is an attempt to improve this experience in a deep and meaningful way. Windows computers and the Windows operating system were designed by people who are dragged kicking and screaming every day by their bosses to staple other people's ideas onto a system with a feature list that appears at first glance to be a superset of the Macintosh system's. This enables the sales force to convince a customer that a Windows computer can do anything that a Macintosh system can, usually faster, and usually much cheaper. The difference in results is infinitely more dramatic than the difference between the feature lists. It is the difference between a whole that sings like an orchestra working together in concert on the one hand, and on the other, a cacophony of chimpanzees banging away on their stolen instruments. Study after study conclusively demonstrates that no matter what new UI element gets hammered into place atop the monstrosity that is Windows, it still takes at least twice as long to figure out how to do anything you haven't done before. Its very elegance is what makes the Macintosh a more practical machine. Computers are inherently complex and frustrating devices. Everything about the Macintosh system is an attempt to bring order, harmony, and grace to the experience. This idea shone brilliantly in the very first model, and the dream is still alive today, renewed in every release, embodying the very cutting edge of user interface design. There is absolutely no argument as to who is innovating in this market and who is playing catch-up. For example, Apple virtually invented the laptop computer when it introduced the first PowerBook. This is the difference between innovation and imitation. Theory of EvolutionI can't believe the power being wielded by the religious wrong in places like Kansas. Creationists assert that we shouldn't be teaching controversial theories like evolution in our public schools. The fact that evolution is "just a theory," in no way undermines its credibility. Quite the contrary, that evolution is a theory underscores the higher standard it has been held to for the past 100 years. Scientific theories, especially wide-reaching ones like evolution, are constantly being tested and re-tested by scientists all over the world. If just one of these brilliant thinkers could make a convincing argument against such a theory, he or she would live forever in the annals of science. Yes, evolution is "just a theory," like the theory of molecular chemistry or the theory of electricity. Not In My Back YardA real estate claim does not constitute ownership in the same sense as the ownership of a material object. Real estate property rights advocates (aka Wise Use Advocates) do not have the right to destroy their land just because they paid the current "fair market value" for it, nor do they deserve compensation for the state "taking away" this right they never had. Would these same landowners voluntarily hand over any increase in "fair market value" resulting from the state adding a highway that would bring motorists more efficiently to their property? The function of the state is to allow people to act as a unit that can see and feel the consequences of the actions of individuals. Without this instrument, each individual is forced into a conflict of interest between what's best for him or her personally and what's best for the rest of the Earth. When the stakes are raised sufficiently, as I believe they are in this case of the extinction of a species or an ecosystem, the state has the power and responsibility to act in the interest of humanity. Energy Sources - Nuclear FissionNuclear Fission is not currently a viable source of energy. The real issue is not the risk of a reactor accident (actually quite low, compared to risks that nearly everyone in this country accepts on a daily basis), but rather the unsolved problem of waste management. Once someone figures out how to safely dispose of the waste generated by fission reactors, I'll be the first to advocate their widespread construction (worldwide). However, the scientific community has reached clear consensus that that no such solution currently exists. Taking the ineffectiveness of current waste disposal technology aside for the moment and looking at it from a purely practical standpoint, nuclear power is far more expensive than solar power. The problem, as is the case with most environmental issues, is that we're cheating on the books. Maintaining and then eventually decommisioning a fission plant within the EPA's own standards represents the lion's share of the cost, and strangely, the portion we leave out when comparing different energy production options. High-level nuclear material turns everything it touches for a relatively brief time into low-level nuclear material, and anything it touches over a somewhat longer period into high-level nuclear material. Thus, the fuel in a reactor turns all storage containers (including the inside of the reactor itself) into high-level nuclear waste, which needs to be disposed of using the same methods as the spent fuel itself. Although low-level waste doesn't present quite the same combination of acute risk applied over a long period of time, the volume of the waste ultimately generated by a single fission reactor is staggering. To maintain and then ultimately decomission a plant, you need lots of equipment. When you're done, the equipment and the little pieces of the plant have themselves become a serious waste disposal problem. Wild and Scenic Status for the YubaIt's difficult for me to imagine how Californians can still cling to the notion of building additional dams as a viable means for flood control. If we've learned anything from the extensive and expensive flooding over the past few years, it's that levees and dams only concentrate the problem. To address these unbounded natural events, we need solutions that bend like a reed in the wind, rather than stoically trying to resist the inevitable. When a historically pro-development organization like the Army Corps of Engineers determines that the best way to control floods is through levee setbacks and other flood plain management techniques, it erodes the credibility of the YCWA and other "water ranchers." With regard to the real issue of supply and demand, it's obvious that we cannot continue building reservoirs forever. Eventually, environmental concerns aside, we reach the point at which additional dams become infeasible. We could (and will undoubtedly) argue about exactly when and where that point will be reached. However, the fact remains that the resource is finite while our demands for it are practically unlimited. When the pressure at the tap finally begins to drop, our only option will be to conserve water. Thus, I see only two possible futures for California: one in which water is scarce and expensive, and the other in which water is scarce and expensive, but at least we can enjoy the natural beauty of a wild and scenic river like the South Yuba. I therefore support SB496, which would recognize this local treasure, and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations. Lower Yuba Fish RecoveryI support the State Water Resources Control Board's original plan to provide higher minimum flow standards in order to protect threatened salmon and steelhead runs on the Yuba River. While I understand that the state faces a serious energy crisis, it's hard to imagine why such an important restoration program should be sacrificed just so that a few PG&E customers can set their air conditioning systems at 60 degrees this summer. Some of the other actions California has taken in response to the power shortage make a great deal more sense to me than this one. Temporarily suspending air pollution regulations to allow more plants to be put online in the near term is one thing; turning your back on several important species near the brink of extinction seems quite another. In fact, such a scheme clearly violates the Endangered Species Act. We must therefore ignore opportunistic appeals from the Yuba County Water Agency and others. Instead, we need to maintain a reasoned and balanced approach to the power problem which retains our commitment to protect and restore the environment. Campaign 2000 - Issues and ExperienceIt seems that far too many voters are getting side-tracked in this election, focusing on which candidate is the most charming, or which high school they've attended. Public elections should not be popularity contests. What matters is the job a candidate will do for us once elected, not whether they make us feel warm and fuzzy when we see their smiling face on TV. The most important factors affecting the performance of a potential public servant are their understanding of and positions on the important issues, and their career experience shaping public policy to address those issues. If you don't understand the differences between two candidates with respect to both issues and experience, then you cannot make an informed decision on November 7th. I'm voting for Al Gore because he's the best hope we have for an environmentally conscious president since Theodore Roosevelt, and because his eight years of White House experience make him infinitely more qualified to lead the country. I'm voting for Peter Van Zant because he understands that the real assets of Nevada County lie not in the free space available for expanding the Brunswick Basin, but in the charm of our cities and the wilderness surrounding them. I've also seen him in action chairing the Board of Supervisors, and have admired the way he can build consensus on these and other divisive concerns. Others may of course disagree with my personal feelings about the campaign issues as well as my assessments of the candidates' experience. However, I encourage you all to do your homework before entering the voting booth next Tuesday. For national and state races, Project Vote Smart (www.vote-smart.org) provides excellent information about the candidates positions and voting records on all of the important campaign issues. I think it would be worth your time to visit this web site before election day. Please e-mail comments regarding this page to: Schmed@TransPac.com. © 1997-2008, Chris Schneider. All Rights Reserved World Wide. Last updated 20 February 2008 |