Learning math may be boring, but is it without reward?

The New York Times thinks math is boring.  They suggest that most high school students are not planning to pursue STEM fields in university; though this is a questionable measure of the inherent excitement of math, it also seems to have limited use.  How many high school students should be planning to pursue STEM majors?  Pre-medical and medical degrees are not always included in STEM, nor are students interested in law, business, or the arts.  It is not an alarming statistic to say that most high school students are not planning to pursue a law degree.  While it is not clear how many students ought to pursue a law degree, it is clear that most people are not lawyers.  While STEM is a broad category, given that math- and science-heavy programs like accounting and medicine are not included in STEM, I do not think the number of students planning on majoring in STEM university programs is a measure of the likability of or interest in math in our society.

The NYT piece also references a study that compared American students to international students.  In the Program for International Student Assessment, the US consistently ranks in the middle of the analyzed countries, right at the average, since the first assessment in 2003.  The National Center for Education Statistics also has results from an assessment called the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which dates back to 1995.  Combing the results of the two shows that the US, for about the last twenty years, has been about average compared to other countries.  The US may be slipping a little on the TIMSS, but what the meaning of a change of a couple of points is not clear.  Basically, despite the strong reaction to these results, the US remains more or less where it has always been - the middle.

I cannot comment on the nature of these rankings directly, but it should be noted that the US has one of the most open education systems in the world.  English language learners, the disabled, the poor, and the unmotivated students are all required to be in school, and participate in tests that rank the US against other nations.  Some of the other nations test students to allow them to continue their education (excluding unmotivated students).  Some nations exclude disabled students.  Some nations exclude the poor.  If the US can maintain an "average" ranking, while treating, or striving to treat, all students equally, and accordingly, testing them equally, then I do not see the average ranking as an issue.

Beyond the average ranking, the flat trend of the US rank in the world means that the education system is not failing compared to where it once was.  This is also reflected in American universities outranking every other post-secondary education system in the world, and the American economy being stronger than any other in the world.  Could the average numbers be a "canary in the coal mine"?  I suppose, but given that the universities have remained the strongest in the world, despite decades of tests that report supposedly failing American schools, it seems like these tests are unrelated to any measure of successful societies.

More evidence of boring mathematics comes from an Equation for Change study that suggests Americans are not confident when it comes to math.  The numbers are presented as ominous; for example:  "Although some Americans report positive feelings when they have to do math, like feeling confident (36%), knowledgeable (34%), at ease (30%) and prepared (20%), one in five Americans report that they typically feel frustrated (21%) or anxious (18%) when they have to do math."  Apparently the people at Equation for Change are counting on Americans being bad at math!  The rhetoric does not reflect that twice as many people report feeling confident while doing math than anxious.  The whole analysis is rife with loaded language, but some of the statements allude to a bewildering notion of what "math" actually is.  Apparently 35% of Americans have difficulty estimating weight or distance, which is a sign of failing math education, despite 65% of Americans reporting positive abilities in this decidedly unrelated-to-math assessment of mathematics.  Is the ability to accurately name the paint swatches at a hardware store art?

The Times claims that teachers are not sufficiently trained in mathematics, so students are not getting the education they deserve.  I agree that educators should have more math education, and I do think that it would encourage students to perform better at math if it was unacceptable for their teachers to say, "oh, I'm not so good at math, I've always been better at grammar."  However, a huge part of teachers making such statements is not a lack of training in math, but that it is socially acceptable to have these attitudes.  I am absolutely confident that my elementary school teachers lacked a developed knowledge of, for example, comma use.  Beyond the comma, I do not think the en dash or em dash were ever even mentioned as a topic pertinent to proper grammar in my 13 years in public school.  (Yes, I am including an artifact of typeface as grammar, as typeface has been affecting grammar for about 1000 years, longer than the existence of the modern comma.)  By this argument, teachers should be getting more education on almost every topic, but when society pays teachers so little, it is hard to convince education students to study hard in anticipation of such low pay.

Motivation in math does not just come from pay.  If students were driven only by income, all high school students would want to be petroleum engineers.  Students are motivated by emotion, interest, pay, inspiration, and perceived limitations.  The TV show 30 Rock dealt with one of these issues when an inner city youth baseball team discusses their dreams.  One of them says, "one day, I'll have an office just like this - to clean"!  For as much as Americans talk about following dreams, our socioeconomic classes do not offer mobility, and it is a sad but true reality that those 30 Rock little leaguers are not free to dream of being the executive in the office.

Yet, the world needs janitors, not only executives.  This should not be determined by one's parents, but the student him/herself.  P-Tech, the high school in the Times piece, is inspiring students to study enough math to be technicians, not necessarily presidents.  Blue-collar dreams are attainable if the students learn mathematics, but is a traditional math education what holds the students back?  Does math need to be made relevant to be not boring?  My uncle once told me that when he took geometry he did not bother to learn the theorems, but as a carpenter, deduced the Pythagorean theorem.  While an instructor may have been able to reach him more effectively by applying a different teaching style, some of the onus should stay on the student, shouldn't it?

I am not sure that I have ever seen an extended piece about how boring it is to learn a language.  The Rosetta Stone software advertises that it is not boring, but I do not think major news papers publish many op-eds about how foreign language education needs to be made relevant and fun.  It is boring, though.  I have never taken the time to learn to speak Spanish.  I have taken some classes, I have the Rosetta Stone, I study endless vocabulary, and I memorize numbers and the alphabet.  It is boring.  Many days while studying Spanish I long to do something exciting like read One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish, but I soldier on through vocabulary.  Why do this boring task?  Because when I wander around Barcelona and find a vegan-friendly cafe, I can ask if everything is vegan, and I can order one black doughnut and one pink doughnut well enough that I get a flirty smile from the girl behind the counter.  That is why learning Spanish warrants my time and attention, but I have to know that the ability is worth it to find the motivation to do so.

According to the Times, one of the most important aspects of math education is pre-school level math education.  (Interestingly, the "problem" with math education is elementary and secondary school math teachers, not the parents who are not enrolling the children in preschool.)  Valuing and understanding math must be a societal and parental imperative in order to instill the drive to achieve.  Most high school students do not have the luxury of motivating to learn through personal experience.  High schoolers, and to a larger degree elementary students, must rely on the advice of their mentors.  How do you make math important to these mentors?  That may well be the $64,000 question.

I think better teacher pay is part of the equation.  I think being realistic about educating people according to their needs and abilities is also important; rather than comparing and berating them with arbitrary international tests.  Most important of all, though, is a shift in the perception.  As long as the New York Times Editorial Board is empowering people to be bad at "boring" math, they will be. 

Nye is the Time, Before Oil Buys Science

I have taken a recent interest in Bill Nye, of "Science Guy" fame.  The internet is full of free content featuring Nye, including, on iTunes, a video of his 2006 lecture at Eastern Connecticut University.  He has interesting stories about science, sun dials, and ideas about the ways individuals can "change the world."  While discussing climate change, he displayed an image of an enormous hurricane that hit the gulf region in 2005.  The storm was not Katrina, though - it was Rita.

Occurring less than a month after Katrina, Rita was a more powerful storm, but was less costly in terms of lives lost and damage.  People rarely remember Rita, and seem to only recall Katrina when talking about the ongoings in New Orleans.  Rita, though more powerful than Katrina, was not the most powerful hurricane during the 2005 season.  That storm was Wilma, the most powerful one ever recorded in the North Atlantic.  These three storms are all in the top ten of most powerful hurricanes in the North Atlantic, and they all occurred in one season.

The storms of eight years ago may seem like a distant calamity, so let us consider a more recent example, cyclone Haiyan.  As the death toll in the Philippines in the wake of cyclone Haiyan nears 4000, reports have judged it to be one of the most powerful cyclones in the history of weather measurements.  The seeming escalation of these storms is only observation.

Observation of weather events is a past time of humans.  While pre-historic peoples did not leave a written record of the climate, I imagine they discussed the weather.  Perhaps chit-chat about the weather drove the development of language.  One can only imagine the importance of sun, rain, and moderate temperatures for early people, and what they must have said and thought when nature failed to deliver the anticipated norms.  This tradition continues today, and science has come to be able to predict and explain it.  Scientists record the extremes and the normalcy.  Through these observations and studies, an alarming trend has emerged.

Climate is changing.

Using the scientific method, making that observation is the first step.  Most people, through personal observations, have, in one way or another, come to this conclusion.  Colloquially, the statement, "so much for global warming," on a cold day damages the reputation of what these people know from their own observations; but at the core, no intelligent, thinking, reasonable person doubts global climate change.  What people doubt is the role of human industry in that change.

The subsequent steps of the scientific method is to ask testable questions about those observations, and then test them.  Following this proven method, a method that has provided the basis of scientific advancement from demonstrating a round Earth, to curing disease, the scientific community has come to a consensus - an overwhelming consensus - that humans are causing global climate change.  Through this, "climate change," has become synonymous with "anthropogenic climate change," but I think that dropping the implicating term of "antrhopogenic" implies room for doubt, so in the following discussion, I will use anthropogenic climate change.

Anthropogenic climate change has its doubters.  Most of these people use psuedo-science, economics, or self-interest to question the science.  A great example is an NPR piece about Judith Curry's feeling of uncertainty about a 97% consensus among scientists concerning anthropogenic climate change.  Dr. Curry defensively argues for self-created environmentalism.  She turns out lights and drives a Prius.  Her argument is that a 97% consensus is insufficient given her "unknown unknowns."  These questions, though not necessarily Dr. Curry's, are often things like: "if humans weren't on the planet, would temperatures rise any way"?  "Will curbing pollution curb a disaster, or will it come anyway"?  These are not scientific questions, and shame on Dr. Curry for posing them (or similar ones) as such!

To be fair, most of her arguments against government mandated pollution controls stem from two ideas.  First, the idea that Americans (who use more natural resources than any other nation) should not have to practice any form of restraint because China will continue to modernize, using the natural resources we could have used first.  This is obviously the greedy rant of a spoiled child.  Second, the idea that the economy is so very fragile it cannot support new technology as government mandates.  I am certain that some of the Koch brothers' 36 billion dollars (each) would be lost to them if Americans kept their tires properly inflated, but that money would be available for the American consumer to spend elsewhere.  If the government had continued the fuel efficiency trend from the 1980's, how many people in the STEM fields would have been employed improving the 1985 Chevette's fuel economy (36 mpg), rather than seeing it erode to the 34 mpg 2013 Spark?  To doubt American ingenuity is not only unpatriotic - it turns out it is also bad for the advancement of human kind.

In model year 2000, Honda released the Insight.  It had an EPA fuel economy rating of 53 miles per gallon.  In 2013, the (larger) Honda Insight obtains an EPA rating of 42 mpg.  In 13 years of research, development, and marketing, Honda managed to reduce the fuel economy of their car by 20%!  The ever affected Prius environmentalist can claim an impressive 50 mpg, still lower than a car designed without the technological advances of more than a decade!  It seems that the non-science of people like Dr. Curry has either led engineers to stop innovating, or for marketing departments to ignore those innovations.  Either way, I question the economic ideology that argues for status quo over technological advance.

In reality though, the difference between 50 mpg and 53 mpg is far less important than the difference between 10 mpg and 13 mpg (The New York Times "Wheels" blog has a good explanation of this).  Which is to say, buying a Prius over a Spark (or a 1985 Chevette), is not as important as the SUV buyer purchasing an Explorer over an Expedition.  By some arguments, based on the increased rare earth elements required for the Prius, the Spark may be a better choice.  Why is it undesirable to have the government mandating clear labeling for the consumer to know the environmental difference between different types of cars (for example)?  Will it really hurt the economy if SUV buyers save $700 on their gasoline bills and apply that to other sectors of the economy, say sectors within the US or local communities?  Would it benefit the US in other ways if foreign oil was 20% less important to the country?  It becomes evident that experts and politicians who make these claims are serving a different master than the pursuit of knowledge and the best interest of their constituents.

Who is that master?  Without looking for sources, it seems to me that Americans in 1999 (the year of the Insight) were pretty convinced that their was a finite supply of oil, that the climate was changing anthropogenically, and that inoculating children against mortal or paralyzing illnesses was a good thing.  In all of these sectors, it seems, there has been an erosion of scientific literacy over the past 14 years.  I could be imagining this, but it seems like it was pretty uncommon for entire congregations to get measles, to have whooping cough outbreaks, and unthinkable to have 10% of Washington State's children go unvaccinated against horrific illnesses.  It seems like the Honda Insight was ushered in with advertisements featuring wind turbines because our consumption rates had to change.  Obviously, much of this shift in thinking was long in the making, but it seems like scientific literacy has declined in the past decade, much of it by the "choosing" of the populace.

The public chose this erosion in intellect by electing easily digested soundbites over earned knowledge.  The public sees Jenny McCarthy telling them that her child is disabled because of vaccines, but finds it challenging to understand CDC studies.  The public sees Fox News questioning science daily, but finds reading scientific abstracts time consuming.  "Grassroots" Tea Party activists and ideas are bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, tested and tuned to mobilize and unite the far right.  The issue is that people are being told what to think by the uninformed (Jenny McCarthy) and the wealthy (Tea Party), rather than using scientific advancement to think for themselves.  In a word, the problem is laziness.

In the press, the Millennial generation often has negative coverage about its inability to think and its overprotective parents - basically, its laziness.  The rag goes something along the lines that millennial children were raised with constant rewards and encouragement, but when they turn into adults, the world is actually a hard place with a shrinking middle class.  This, supposedly, leaves them unprepared to actually work through the challenges they face.  While the Millennial children have a challenging world to face when they grow into adults (which may make them unhappy), they did not make these decisions.  The Tea Party is made up of old, conservative, religious, white men, and it is this demographic that decided to make cars less fuel efficient, and the world less scientific.

While the last ten years may have been revealing in the changing tide of the American opinion of science, it has been the last thirty years (or more) that has seen the silent work of the very wealthy to change this perception.   Newt Gingrich taught politicians how to attach negative associations to people, groups, or ideas, rather than debate the issues in the nineties.  Gingrich did not invent this method of politics, but he was essential in uniting a party (in his case the Republicans) to create the same negative associations.  Today we see the effects of this when President Obama is associated with socialism.  (A politician does not have to call Mr. Obama a socialist directly, s/he may say "Obama's socialist medicine plan," enough that Obama becomes linked to socialism.  Conversely, "Romney's corporate agenda," repeated enough, and Romney himself becomes corporate.  Not great examples, but the point remains.)  This seems like a simple degradation of the American statesman.  Unfortunately, it implies to the American conscience that it is not the issues that need to be debated, but the person, i.e. it is the scientist, not the science that matters.

Given a debate between Jenny McCarthy-sex icon turned mom- and some stuffy medical doctor or PhD from the CDC, the science becomes unimportant.  What is actually being decided is a popularity contest between our "first crush," and the person who jabs needles into crying children.  Young parents rush to abandon public health.  Obviously, philanthropic, cancer-crusading David Koch would not support this.  Yet, his libertarian views always place profits over public health.  If the public will choose to not vaccinate their children, they may also accept the argument that pollution prevents skin cancer.

Koch began his unraveling of a thinking America more than a decade before Gingrich.  Koch ran (as the vice-presidential candidate) in a campaign against Reagan.  Contrary to popularly held sentiments, Reagan was not an ultra-conservative.  One reason he did so well in the polls was that he appealed to the middle of the political spectrum.  The Libertarian ticket was rejected without memory, persuading the Kochs that with enough money, the thinking ability of Americans could be purchased.  Thirty years later, the oil embargo long forgotten, cars are less fuel efficient, and the Kochs are vastly more wealthy.

Up against the millions of dollars that the Kochs pump into American politics and the Smithsonian Institute (and other purveyors of science), are celebrity scientists.  "Real" scientists are often members of the lower (middle) classes.  Yes, they have led lives of privilege or luck that allowed them to pursue advanced degrees, but like most of us, they are not fit to be thrust into the public eye.  A volcanologist may be interviewed during an eruption, but they will report the science of the situation, which fails to grab the attention of a Michael Bay-inspired idea of natural disasters (full of excitement, where the beautiful survive).  The next day, the scientist will be forgotten, but Glenn Beck (who may never have said this) will be shouting through his microphone that volcanic eruptions are caused by socialists; leaving the celebrity scientists to fight these battles.

Name a celebrity scientist who is alive (this means Carl Sagan is out).  The Wikipedia page about scientific celebrities has a useful list (of living and dead scientists) if you can't think of any.  The two that come to my mind are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.  The Harvard and Columbia educated Dr. Tyson is a scientist, and makes appearances on talk shows.  Through this, he may reach people.  Nye, a Cornell educated mechanical engineer is more a personality than a scientist.  All the same, he is doing what he can to educate adults who have chosen to be ignorant, a valiant effort for the advancement of science.  Mr. Nye mostly reaches out to children through a 15 year old television show.  This, sadly, is the American media attention given to science.

I respect, and maybe even envy, both Nye and Tyson.  I appreciate the hard work they are doing.  But when they are up against the forces of ignorance that are fronted by Jenny McCarthy and Janine Turner (Maggie O'Connel in Northern Exposure), and backed by two of the richest men in the world, how will a couple of bow-tied nerds convince people that science matters?  That inoculations save lives?  That fuel economy matters in the economy, the environment, and foreign policy?  That thinking scientifically is American and Patriotic?

I am not sure they can.  Not until people choose to remember that climate is changing anthropogenically.  That in 2005 there were three big hurricanes, not just one.  That the future is when dreams happen, not when the wealthy prosper at the expense of the rest of us.  In short, not until people decide that their thoughts are not for sale, and their children should dream of tax-payer created national heroes flying through space, just like the Tea Party did when they were kids. 

American Monarchy from a Skeptical Perspective

I have "lived" in three monarchies.  Life, for most people, most of the time, seems unchanged by what title the head of state has, or how they are selected.  As an American, to merely ask a citizen of a monarchy about monarchs gives you have an American perspective.  It seems assumed on both sides that without being born in a monarchy, one cannot understand it.

I am unwilling to accept that by birthright, certain individuals are inherently better than myself.  This seems like an American idea, that we are all created equal.  In reality, Americans are not born equal.  Disregarding the near caste system Americans have based on race, the rich and powerful have rich and powerful children.  Money is the American caste system, and those born into abject, generational poverty are no more likely to be elected to positions of power, or make millions of dollars, than are the Untouchables of India.

Yet, the American Dream requires us to hope that anyone can be elected president.  Barack Obama gives some credibility to this dream, but at the end of the day, the children of the Bush family will always be more influential than the children on the streets of American cities.

A monarchy, like the Indian caste system, is more honest.  Only one child in a generation will be the head of the United Kingdom, and that child is the first-born of the king and queen.  Despite the exclusivity of this honest system, the British, along with their colonists, will love their Queen, and I will be left with questions.

Beyond my questions of birthrights, I cannot understand it from a perspective of fiscal policy.  I am not an economist specializing in monarchies, but without a doubt, in every monarchy there is a starving child, or an underfunded social program.  In New Zealand, it seemed that the socialized medicine was going bankrupt, yet the Queen was maintained as head of state, despite having a head of state in the Prime Minister.  In Spain, the king made headlines, apparently, when he broke his hip on a hunting safari.  The Spainish people are tightening their belts with cruel unemployment rates, but the King takes a publicly funded holiday.  Fiscally, this is ludicrous.

What makes the people in these countries believe in their monarchs?  In all of my time conversing with subjects of one crown or another, I have heard only one person question the fiscal responsibility of the institution.  The rest seem to believe so strongly in the power of the crown, that even discussions of fiscal policy are out of the question.  This is not government, but dogma.

Of course, the megalomaniacal early kings did fancy themselves chosen by a deity.  How could they not?  When one wins the throne through battle, and the church teaches that god chooses our fate, that would indicate divine preference.  If, however far removed from the original battle, the national mythology holds the monarchy as chosen by god, then most subjects would continue to believe in the power of the monarchy.  I can no more understand the British love of their queen, than I can understand a Christian's or Muslim's love of Jesus or Mohammed, respectively.

Americans are more religious than Iranians, and much more so than European monarchies.  While royal subjects have lost the faith, Americans are still wont to believe in the benevolent power of invisible, flying hominids.  Americans, even many staunchly anti-tax Americans, are willing to pay extra, optional "taxes" (through tithes or donations) to support an elite, privileged class.  About one quarter of Americans identify as Catholics, a religion that, arguably, has its own royalty (though not by birth).  Almost four out of five Americans report themselves as Christian, and nearly nine out of ten Americans report being religious in some way.  Is religion substituted for monarchy in America?

The curious thing about the belief in religion versus monarchy is that, to my knowledge, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye do not challenge the belief in monarchs.  This is not to argue that Bill Nye's Disney shows were secretly supporting a royalist agenda.  It is simply curious that tens of millions of people carry out their daily lives believing that Queen Elizabeth II is a better, more entitled human than they are, and their does not seem to be a skeptics society questioning that.  The situation is vastly more complex, as Queen Elizabeth does not make a habit of lambasting Nye for arguing positions that the Earth is four billion years old, that evolution is observable, or that the moon does not glow.  The fervency of these beliefs is fascinating!

America seems to have a Monarch.  It exists in the minds of 90% of us.  It endows favors upon some, and hardship on others.  It guides political will, acceptance (or not) of scientific thought, education, and social interaction.  It has all the hallmarks of other monarchs, including its questionable fiscal policy.  When you ask an American about the role of religion, most of us discuss benevolence, the need for social order, political guidance, community service, and pride in something greater than oneself.  Americans, like their royal subject peers, never seem to talk about the fiscal nonsense of sending donations to palatial opulence, rather than space programs, education, science, and medicine.

What is Wrong with Girls?

When people discuss gender gaps in society, it always becomes a difficult issue to address in a politically correct manner.  Are there differences between men and women?  Are men genetically better at math?  Are women genetically predisposed to grammar?  The answer to these questions are all, in my opinion, a moot point.

It seems clear that people will succeed where their talents lie, and where they have been encouraged to succeed.  Others will fail to capitalize on their talents, or fail to enjoy the full benefits bestowed upon them.  But, according to a study reported on by a recent NPR piece women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  To determine this, the study assessed the interest of women in a career in computer science while they were in a room decorated with either a nature-themed poster, or a Star Trek poster.  In other words, women's interest in the career was strongly influenced by insignificant cues in their surroundings that affected their perception of those associated with that field.  I think that requires a bit of reflection.

Everyone, or near enough to everyone who takes part in society, is concerned with how others perceive them.  It is, I assume, part of what allows us to take part in society.  Without concern of the opinion of others, it would be difficult to agree upon social constructs like law and manners, let alone enforce these ethics.  Yet, when people are overly concerned of the superficial, say, the display of a Star Trek poster, society judges them harshly as well.  One who would lie about their interests in "nerdy" subjects based their judgmental view of nerds, is either consciously or unconsciously shallow.

When NPR asks if STEM fields should be made "more cool" to encourage the shallow to enter the fields, I reject even consideration of the proposition!  Should STEM fields be accessible through outreach of interesting and intelligent people?  Yes, I have long argued that universities should recruit by partnering with school districts to have guest lectures from interesting, young, energetic people.  Should those people deny their affinity to Dr. Who to entice a "cooler vibe"?  Preposterous!

As a scientist and engineer, I fancy myself a nerd, or a geek - I am nonplussed which label is applied.  I am fascinated by the natural world, and by how civilization uses that knowledge to improve our collective experience.  I also enjoy riding and working on bicycles.  I enjoy running, yoga, and cooking.  I enjoy reading, and debating the proper use of grammar.  Most of this is insufferably nerdy, and like many celebrities, apparently, I am not afraid of the nerd moniker.  The most striking thing about my nerdy ambitions, and the nerdy and geeky passions of the CNN-interviewed celebrities, is the variety of nerdy subjects!  Christian Louboutin is certainly a nerd, regardless of his opinion of sci-fi, though I have no idea how cool he is.

Once again, back to the NPR piece that suggests women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  Cosmopolitan Australia recently had a piece that had an almost surprised tone about the feminism of nerdom.  With no intent to suggest that Cosmo is a leading light in women's rights, it does suggest that women are perhaps more surprised than men at the existence of enviable women nerds.

If interest in a subject fails to excite enough passion in a person for that person to pursue that field (and, thereby be a nerd), is it a crisis?  I am not talking about the difference between the sexes, nor whether society has given any group a particular disadvantage.  What I am asking is that if a person thinks that being a nerd would be too horrific to follow their dream of programming computers, was it really a dream?

I have pondered whether compulsory military service would not benefit this country.  First, I think most 18 year olds do not have the experience to make a career choice.  For example, in the geosciences, to attain any sort of career stability, the average geologist will need an advanced degree in a niche area.  Every autumn, Americans who have never taken an earth sciences course are asked if they want to spend the next 10 years preparing for a career they have never really been exposed to.  Obviously, they cannot truly make an informed decision.  Second, it seems that many young people are unable to afford life on their own.  They continue into adulthood without having realized that they need to make the bed, buy the groceries, and sort out difficulties on their own.  Some time away from their parents would do wonders to expose young people to new ideas.

A friend, after a long discussion of the benefits of compulsory service to the individual and society (which are also numerous), asked an ex-Marine what he thought of compulsory service.  His response to the notion that the military would be a good venue to groom these grown children for the world was along the lines of, "I don't want the worthless people in the military, just as much as you don't want them in the sciences"!  While I disagree with the ex-Marine on the value of compulsory military service, his perspective is striking.  I want people in any career to be passionate about that field, at least to the point that they do not base their opinion of it on what television show their colleagues watch.  To put it more bluntly, to any person who washes out of a field of study owing to a Star Trek poster, good riddance.

Yet, being rid of the problem does not necessarily solve it, and as a nerd, I cannot help but ponder the questions I see in the world.  Why are women more likely than men to be swayed out of STEM by the possible presence of nerds?  Nerds are sexy to me, but obviously this does not hold true for the studied group of college women.  On the other hand, to me, jocks are awful.  If I perceived that a certain field was full of sports-crazed, good-ol'-boy rednecks, would it keep me out of that field?  It seems not, as I have made a living in exploration geology and hazardous waste management, and was educated in mining engineering.  These fields abound with said types, but the study suggests that men are less swayed by these perceptions.  Thus, it seems, I am not qualified to sympathize with the concerns of these young women.

Instead, what I am left with is a question: why would young women not want to be interesting, educated, intellectual, motivated, passionate, and sexy?  More simply put, why would they not want to be nerdy?  What is wrong with these girls?

It seems like there is a quick conclusion that the girls who shy away from STEM because it may induce them to watch too much Office Space, BBC, or Star Wars is a cultural problem.  It may be quickly offered that science needs to be rebranded as "cool," but from my experience, cool is just shorthand for popular jerk.  Some might say that these women have been influenced by public education, media, or stereotypes to choose image over interest.  Yet, women nerds abound, and are successful in every field; clearly, most women are happy to be nerdy in one way or another.

Public figures have been made or celebrated in their advancement of women nerdom.  In Sense and Sensibility, the protagonists are criticized for their reading, making Austen a potential force in convincing women to be nerdy from the 19th Century.  Has 200 years of encouragement fallen upon deaf ears?  Again, from the wealth of nerdy women today, it seems that the problem with girls is a problem with only some girls.

Here then, is the heart of the matter.  It is no great tragedy if, for some unknowable reason, women are genetically less adept at computer science, or genetically less interested in the field, though current research suggests otherwise.  Furthermore, it is no great tragedy if women continue to be underrepresented in computer science, though I doubt this will persist into future generations.  However, it is a great tragedy if society identifies that some women choosing to value being "cool" over being passionate, as a women's issue.

Society must encourage individuals to meet their full potential in fields that interest them, and should combat hurtful stereotypes - including gender stereotypes, in and out of science.  However, society should not confuse the personal responsibility of people to follow their passions with a social contract to make them cool enough for the shallow.

Gender Notwithstanding

Discussing the difference between any two groups of people presents endless possibilities to offend.  It is nearly always an emotional issue.  Yet, the Supreme Court has decided that minorities are no longer disadvantaged at the polls, a New York Times columnist decided women can't do pull-ups, and a recent article in the New York Times Magazine has acknowledged that women are still under-represented in the sciences.

Owing to the high risk of offense on these subjects I want to state a few things at the very beginning.  I think that minorities should be empowered and encouraged to vote, as should everyone else.  I think that women should be encouraged to be physically fit and healthy, as should men.  I think that everyone should be encouraged to have a more developed understanding of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gender notwithstanding.  I think that historically (to include all time that occurred before the present, even yesterday) people have not been given entirely fair opportunities based on stereotypes, and that is wrong.

To begin, I think a few personal examples from my childhood are relevant.  As a child, I was told that being a boy who was good at math precluded me from being good at grammar.  The mostly female teachers that ruled out my grammar probably had less of a handle on the field than I do now.  I was told that as a boy who was good at math, I am not creative, nor good at the arts.  I have acted in plays, been an avid photographer, written speeches and performances, created award-winning scientific posters (a visual media), and maintain a fairly active blog.  I am not sure what part of the arts my elementary school teachers felt I was not going to be able to participate in, but I think I have done okay.  As a "nerd," I was also told that I was never going to be athletic; as an adult, I have been an enthusiast in rock and ice climbing, mountain biking, and long distance running.  I feel somewhat vindicated against the jocks (mostly men) of my youth who discouraged me from attaining my full potential.  In all of these accomplishments my arrogance, more than anything else, has propelled me to levels I was discouraged from achieving.  If those negative influences on my life had told me that the arrogance that propelled me would make me unlikable, they at least could have been correct, for the most part.

When I read the article claiming a paucity of women in the sciences, a few things were very striking to me.  First, I chose to give up some level of likability to attain what I have.  I had lonely Friday nights, and a lot of romantic interests "turn away" from men like me because I see the world differently than they do.  So, I could relate to being discouraged from achieving one's full potential, and being unpopular for trying anyway.  I can, in more ways than is prudent to discuss now, relate to the women in the story.  While this allowed me to feel empathy for their individual hardships, it was most striking that the author chose to not offer a single path forward.

Women who were "mathematically precocious 12-year-olds," the article points out, are equally likely as their male peers to enter "law, medicine, and the social sciences."  Why medicine does not count as a STEM field is beyond me, but the advances of women in medicine is apparently not an accomplishment equal to a woman succeeding in math or physics.  Regardless of the STEM hierarchy that physicists see in the sciences, a glaring omission in the article is an explanation why women are succeeding in medicine, but not other branches of the sciences.

Next, a major concern of the author was that she was never encouraged to attend graduate school.  I mean no disrespect to Ms. Pollack, but if she behaved like a meek and ill-prepared student, then she should not have expected to be treated differently.  A student attending lab in stockings (presumably with a skirt), should not be admitted to the lab for safety reasons.  This is not to place those who wear skirts at a disadvantage, but to keep lab workers safe.  During my time in academia, I do not recall witnessing a single student being encouraged to attend graduate school based on academic merit.  In the geosciences, an advanced degree is requisite for a successful career, so students who are employable are often encouraged to continue.  A student who fits a project and is liked by a supervisor may be encouraged to apply, but that is simply an employer recruiting a valuable employee.  The general rule is that students are not encouraged to continue in academia.  Many academics, in fact, view attrition as key to eliminating weaker students.  Ms. Pollack probably received a 32 on her exam to convince her to leave the program; her professor telling her to stay in the course was encouragement.

I have encountered numerous professors who were the "first women."  Many of them want to prevent their current (female) students from enduring the same loneliness that they did.  I know some women in industry who still are the "first women," and I respect and appreciate their contribution and hard work for the improvement of themselves and society.  Yet, because once the second woman achieves her post, the struggles have been changed so deeply that the previous solution can no longer be applied.

The faculty in the UNLV Geoscience department is 32% women.  Obviously, women, among the faculty, are underrepresented.  While I was a student there, a proposal was being considered to pay a considerable sum of money to enroll the university in a social networking site that would connect female students to female faculty, so women could have women role models.  This network would not connect male students to potential role models, nor would it connect minority students to minority role models, and it would not connect LGBT students to LGBT role models.

Faculty and students listened to the proposal in the department's lecture hall.  After the presentation concluded, the only black student excused himself, a black role model conspicuously absent.  The two Asian faculty left to go back to work shortly thereafter, then the only openly gay faculty member also excused himself.  The straight, white, female professors continued to argue for a program that would, according to them, "increase diversity" in the department, and while I am sure that some of the 58%-female student body would have positive experiences with such a program, it seems like it was addressing a problem that did not exist.

This, I think, is at the core of the problem with the issue of women in STEM.  Society is changing too slowly, so programs do need to help it along.  However, many of the issues are not "women's" issues.  A university that does not offer childcare is not a very good workplace, but to address this issue do we need to be so sexist as to say that women deserve childcare, rather than parents?  If one's potential spouse has an unfair view of domestic affairs, it seems reasonable to find a person who thinks childcare is a family issue.

In the case of John and Jennifer, the imaginary students that illustrate gender bias in the sciences.  If, as the article seems to suggest, Jennifer is less likely to get grant funding, is more likely to request child care, is more likely to leave the sciences, and is less likely to "give everything up" for her career, is she not a less valuable employee?  In my experience, men are much less enjoyable to work with, so I can associate with giving Jennifer some points for likability.  That said, I find both sexes are equally likely to have a change of heart, and I have no knowledge of grant funding disparities between the sexes.  Thus, from my experience, I am more inclined to work with women.  That all said, I would appreciate if the article contained some solutions to the broad problem, not just merely restating the issue, again.

In thinking about the lack of a level field between men and women when it comes to work, I have some solutions.  First, childcare, like parking, costs an employer money.  Every employee should get an allowance for parking and childcare, valued at exactly (or slightly less than) the cost of the service.  Those who choose to live a more environmentally responsible (and cheaper for the employer) lifestyle who live within walking distance of their workplace get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using a service.  Those who choose to have less home commitments, i.e. no children, get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using the childcare service (not to mention the potential of a higher attendance rate).  The employer, considering a new employee knows that each employee costs their salary, plus childcare and parking.

It seems that mothers are more likely to take time off than fathers after a child is born.  Parents are more likely to take time off for the birth of a child than non-parents.  This puts future mothers below future fathers, who are both below eunuchs, in the predicted longevity and reliability of the employee.  If, however, every employee was given 1 year of "life-experience leave," an employer would know, regardless if used for one child, ten children, or to travel Africa by bicycle, that each employee would take a year off.  Mothers, parents, and the childless become equal employees.

These types of solutions fix the issues that we are currently struggling through.  Yet, they do not address the root cause of these issues.  Society, it seems, wants male engineers and female elementary school teachers.  Accordingly, boys are pushed to be engineers who watch sports, and girls are told to be the second income and primary parent.  I think teachers could improve this by having more rigorous training, but more importantly, if education was open to men in the primary grades.  I think parents could encourage this by accepting their children as individuals, rather than stereotypes and vessels of vicarious living.  I think communities could support this by letting the football fields fall into disuse while attending the Academic Decathlon.  In reality though, I think none of this will happen because our society does not like STEM subjects as they are perceived as "hard."

Once we accept that, as a society, we cannot do things that are hard, women can't do pull-ups, nerds can't be athletes, and we can't think through solutions to encourage everyone to meet their full potential.

Time Slips

I do not like to discuss my age.  I like to let people perceive my age based on my actions.  This makes my age yo-yo in unusual ways based on the person I am with.  It also seems to eliminate a good deal of discrimination.

If people do not know one's age, they listen to opinions and give responsibility based on their assessment of one's ability to perform.  Once a person's age is known, I find that it clouds judgement.  I seem to be judged both too young and too old to do various tasks when my age is known.  When it is not, I seem to be given tasks, contracts, responsibility, respect, and friendship commensurate with my experience.  It just seems a lot more reasonable to be "timeless."

Age though, affects what people have experienced.  In order to be timeless, I have to strip details about my life that would define my age.  Having an older brother, growing up in rural Alaska, being a divorcee, and being something of a fuddy-duddy have all helped me appear older than I am.  Being energetic, enthusiastic, and without a fixed address have helped me seem younger.  Whichever aspect of my life someone wants to key into, they assign me an age that fits their model.

While I like many of the benefits of this, it has peculiar effects on how I see myself.  Today, for example, I went from something of a peer, to "whoa, you must be old."  I was not aiming for either role, but "old"?

The other day my graying beard was observed.  While I am not particularly thrilled to have gray hairs (which seem to prefer my right side), I am not particularly bummed about it either.  I am more bummed by my receding hairline, but, with a good stylist, I mostly forget about having "plenty of forehead."  I do not mind them, but when they betray where I am in life, I find a desire to escape them.

I continue to hide behind my timeless mask as much as possible, and while this does separate me from others, it also allows me to make friendships I have been the wrong age for.  Overall, not acknowledging an age, whether aging me or preserving my youth, has been positive.

Other masks, I resent.  Like age, I hate being judged for my personal life by others, particularly when it affects how I am treated.  In the IT Crowd, Moss has a website that tells him how to talk about sport with jocks (and enthusiasts).  I cannot begin to care enough about any sport to discuss it with people.  Maybe running, but only my personal experiences.  I cannot muster the energy to care how fast Olympians run.  This is mostly acceptable, because I wear being a nerd on my sleeve.

That said, I grow weary of even my nerd mask!  No, I do not like football, but I have also never been all that into Star Trek.  I think The Presidents of the United States of America said something like, "when you're a rock star, people expect you to hang out with rock stars," when they disbanded.  Oh, how I feel their pain.

When you're a geologist, geologists expect you to drink to excess.  When you're a vegan, people expect you to be insufferable. (How do you tell if someone is a vegan?  Don't worry, they'll tell you.)  When you work in the mining industry, people expect you to not be environmental.  At some point, we form our lives around fitting into, or defying, the expectations of others.

To fit these stereotypes (or defy them), I have developed a quiver of masks that I hide behind.  Behind them, I feel safe.  Safe, but often lonely.  Behind my masks, I avoid unwanted trouble and attention, and it makes the days pass with less trouble and attention.  Unfortunately, the days still pass.  A four month contract comes to a close.  A winter taken to reflect melts into spring.  My timelessness gets wrinkles, and one day, I will be old, and when that happens, who will it be?  Will I have grown comfortable in the harsh light of who I am, or will there be a mask there, worn from years of overuse?

Loving Nonexistence

An almost hipster friend of mine once wore a t-shirt that read something like, "I've heard of bands that haven't been formed yet."  Arcing along the lines of the first liar not having a chance, the message conveys a sense of urgency to discover.  What about discovery is so exciting, I cannot say, but when it comes to bands, often the personal discovery of a band comes too late.  I discovered The Civil Wars, then started hearing them in sound tracks, and on NPR.  Then, they broke up.  The first time a person hears the Beatles, the cloud of disappointment over loving something that no longer exists looms dark on their voyage.

The Weakerthans, though still together, seem to be only updating their Twitter feed, leaving not much to love in the present.  Their previous albums are time capsules that I find myself revisiting, and whenever "One Great City" comes on, I am reminded of discovering the band for the first time.  The song is an ode to a home town, an expression of love for a city that can only be shown through a proud disgust.  The people of Seattle, for love of the Emerald City, complain about the traffic.  The people of Winnipeg, apparently, each in their own muttered way, proclaim, "I hate Winnipeg."

Like an old friend whose flaws you know better than they do, you cannot help but hate the town you are from, or living in.  If ignorance is bliss, then love is spite for flaws that are too obvious to ignore.  We lust in ignorance, a pre-love that builds around something that could never have existed.  We love in full knowledge, but blind ourselves with an image of what it never was.  Either way we are trapped loving something that does not exist.

Music and home towns are easy examples.  Relationships, pregnancy, and child rearing seem to have the same effect.  The recently single find fantasies to justify love that never existed, and the new parent soon fools themselves into the glory, forgetting the pain, of days gone by.  At the heart, we love memories and fantasies because they are ours to control.

Travelling is much the same way.  When on holiday, it is convenient to think that the experience was in some way real.  That the traveler experienced the place, people, or culture.  In actuality though, knowing a culture means to be assimilated by it, and once that happens, we are blind to it.  Stories of gang violence and abject poverty seem unreal, but to the people in them, the alternative is just as unimaginable.  The traveler never experiences their destination, and they may stay for years, building a facade of pliable love that exists for something that never was.

The fantasy genre, and maybe fiction as a whole, exists for our love of things that do not exist.  When we fantasize about castles and dragons, we generally leave out the smell of chamber pots and open sewers.  During the years in Middle Earth that Tolkien describes, he skips over the messy details of life, Sam only once waxes on about the Shire, and Rosy Cotton.  George R. R. Martin is perhaps better at creating the grey area of life, but even when evil and good blend to an uncomfortable hospital beige we can freely love (and hate) that which does not exist.

Unlike my friend, I will probably never have heard of bands before they exist, and most of my hobbies are innately involved with following (e.g. following trails), and yet, I find at the close of every day a feeling a little like the title of The Weakerthans' second album, "Left and Leaving."  I have left a moment in time that I will love, or love to hate, in my memories, and the day is leaving me to love in dreams of things that will never be, leaving me the transition from what never was, to what never will be.

Dignity

A few days ago, though it is difficult to keep track of time in camps, there was a NPR piece about the economic conditions in Greece.  A Greek man, either through a translator or directly, stated that while his job does not pay enough to cover his total expenses, at least he has a job, because a job is dignity.  I am paraphrasing this, but the basic idea remains, having a job is having dignity.

A coworker retorted that the idea of jobs as dignity is what caused the economic problems in Greece.  I took the bait, replying that I think, when you consider the entire situation, a job is probably necessary for dignity, and that it was probably the inflated credit rating from joining the EU that got Greece into economic trouble, not equating dignity and employment.  The conversation essentially died, but I continued to think about the idea of work as dignity.

Life in a camp lacks dignity.  As anyone who has had to use port-a-potties for an extended period of time, these destroy dignity.  The one I use here is cleaned weekly, and on Tuesdays, my bathroom situation becomes "less nasty, more splashy."  This is not dignity.

Yet, without employment, is there dignity?  A homemaker certainly has dignity, and is am important part of many households.  There is still an income in this.  There is a home, electricity, running water, etc.  These services that we have equated to basic rights are dignity, and these cost money.  I think it is likely that what the man in the NPR interview was saying was that with his job, he can afford (most of?) these services, which provide dignity.  What happens though, when one cannot afford this type of dignity?  What happens when an entire generation in entire nations cannot?  What will happen in the United States if the government continues to not spend money on necessary programs, and the economy continues to languish?

I have discussed these questions with various friends.  If, for example, I was not afforded the paycheck that accompanies my unfortunate restroom status, what would that mean.  Eventually, I would be faced with either homelessness, or with moving in with someone.  Conversely, if a friend or family member of mine was forced with this choice, I would gladly offer my home to them.  That said, in standard thinking, this means a period of months, and, in fact, my brother has extended this hospitality to me before.

In Greece though, these problems are not a problem of months, but of years.  Nay, likely decades!  If, for example, friends were to pool resources for 10 years, at the end of that period, would they want to part?  Pop culture has celebrated these arrangements in the television show Friends.  In fact, the idea of "roommates" is the basis of multiple television shows.  Frasier, Chuck, Firefly, and I am sure many others have some aspect of people being forced into a life together in order to maintain dignity.

Beyond the economic benefits to one or more members of the household, the environmental benefits are clear too.  Multifamily homes have smaller environmental footprints than single-family homes.  Thus, it may be possible that in the pursuit of personal dignity, these, dare I say, communes solve other problems that confront society.

For me, I see many ways that long-term, stable, relationships could form between people in the form of pooled resources.  I see a response to micro-sized apartments, shrinking or slow economies, and dwindling natural resources.  I see, a way for me to have dignity that includes a flush toilette.  Yet, it seems, that our collective dream of the future must shift from GM's Futurama, to something different, something that places universal dignity over consumption.

App Advice

A year ago I heard about an app that tracks your sleep patterns, and can adjust one's alarm clock to harmonize with the body's natural cycles.  Ten years before, a climbing buddy wanted to design an alarm clock that would do exactly that, but his idea, as I remember it, used an elaborate set-up of infrared cameras.  Curious about an idea that re-entered my life as a 99 cent creation, I downloaded it.

The sleep cycle alarm has been a failure for me.  I generally do not set an alarm if there is flexibility in my wake-up time, furthermore, the few times I have tried to use the alarm, the phone has fallen out of bed (which never seems to happen when I am not using a sleep tracking alarm).  While this should not be a problem, it seems that the app, recording either the best sleep of my life, or my death, has decided that either way, there is no reason to bother with the alarm.

The sleep tracking aspect was fun for a while.  I would tuck my phone under my pillow, feeling warmed by an eight hour visit from the radiation fairy, and drift to sleep.  My movements were recorded, and plotted against time, and any noises I made, above a certain threshold, were recorded as well.  Nothing entertaining ever came out of the noise recordings, just light breathing and an occasional cough.  The chart of my sleep cycles matched nearly perfectly with my how I rated the restfulness of my sleep.

If I awoke feeling well rested, the chart was smooth, and my bed easy to make.  If I awoke feeling groggy, the chart would be rough, and my bed would be messier.  Since I felt good or bad depending on how I slept, and if I felt bad, I had to spend more time making my bed, I was acutely aware of the restfulness of my sleep.  Regardless, when I turned off sleep tracking in the morning, the app on my phone would dutifully ask how I slept.

Eventually, my groggy mind started to perceive a surly tone in the question.  It was never a problem on 5-star nights, but the single-star mornings, I think the app was programmed to take on a different tone.  It was no longer a dutiful nurse at a sleep clinic trying to diagnose one's condition, but rather the jerk from summer camp who put tacks in your bunk.  My mind started to paint the app in an even more vindictive light.  The app took the role of the devil on my shoulder, but rather than imploring me to do something sinful, was lambasting me for being tired.

"You didn't sleep well?  Yeah, probably because you went to bed later than you were supposed to.  Even if you had slept well, it would not have been enough sleep.  Is Wikipedia really that interesting"?

The app, all in my mind, would continue to become more belligerent, and I feared not sleepiness, but the imagined guilt and attitude my telephone would berate me with if I did not sleep well.  If I had a hard time falling asleep, I would stop the recording, delete the bad section, and try again.  I knew that my phone "knew" what I was up to, and I would loose sleep knowing that my phone was neatly tucked under my pillow, dreaming up some rude comment for the morning.

I had to stop using the app.  I have successfully stayed away from apps that "help" me with any type of tracking.  I use the calendar, the normal alarm clock, the internet, but not anything that "tracks" something for me, and my relationship with my phone has improved.

Recently, a friend downloaded a calorie journal to her phone.  In addition to recording the calories she has eaten, it sets consumption goals, and calculates calories spent during exercise.  The app is fairly aggressive, because if you go over the consumption goal on Tuesday, the calorie goal for Wednesday is reduced by the overshot.  Almost instantly, her phone took on a sinister air in my mind.  She did a 3000 calorie workout, and went over her consumption goal by 100 calories.  Still running an over 1000 calorie deficit, the app docked her next day's consumption goal to illustrate its disappointment.

"You overate yesterday," I heard it saying in its judgmental tone.  My friend and I both argue back, for I was implicated in this purported gluttony in an even larger way, "We walked all day up to a mountain pass!  We had to cross an icefall"!

"Nope," her evil calorie app exclaims!  "You," it continues, "do not get ice cream today, because you ate a cookie yesterday."

I know I will concede to it, or try to sneak my snacks in outside of the all knowing gaze of the advice giving app.  And while I will admit that these guilt inciting pieces of programming may be useful for weightloss or sleep disorders, I think apps have a long way to go before I can trust them with any information they may judge me for.

Texas, Florida, Shame

National Public Radio published that researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, have found that online ranters prolong their anger.  This seems to hold true with the cliche that the longer one complains about it, the longer it hurts.  As such, I held off writing about Texas passing laws that abridge a woman's reproductive rights.  Then, I held off on posting about the ruling that the murder of Trayvon Martin was legal.

I doubt that the hurt this type of legislation and legal precedence will ever truly stop hurting though, no matter if I complain or not.  So I will enter in my own lamentation, though my thoughts are not poignant through my words, or my position in life.  I will, instead, seek the succinct approach of offering two simple questions to addressing these travesties of justice.

In Texas, would a law be passed to deny a man to the full rights of reproductive health?

No, because the Texas lawmakers are misogynists, and so too, likely, are those who elected them.  No law, to my knowledge, has ever been passed to ban vasectomies.  In civilized nations, in fact, vasectomies are paid for by national health insurance.  In Texas though, the guiding light for law making is the subjugation, or continuation of the subjugation, of women.  Laws like this make it clear that a Texas man is not great, nor powerful, but is simply a bully who feels powerful when he attacks, belittles, or berates others.  Shame on Texans.

In Florida, would a minority, black or otherwise, be found not guilty of murder if they armed themselves with a deadly weapon, stalked a white person, was urged by public safety officials to stand down, then killed a child after instigating a confrontation?

No, because, apparently, six of six Floridians are racist, and condone the murder of other races.  How many Floridians would it take to get one, just one, who felt that the rule of law forbade the murder of children, regardless of their race, or affinity for midnight Skittles?  The jurors in this case represent Florida, every citizen therein, and have set the legal precedent that what was once premeditated murder is now self-defense.  Shame on Floridians.

The blame does not rest entirely on the blight on human civility that are the people of these two states, but on all Americans.  We, Americans, citizens, patriots, we are the oppressors and the murderers.  We have decided to side with the strong over the weak, to oppress rather than empower, and we have the cowardice to call it protecting life and freedom.

Shame on us.

American Vanity

Internet privacy is an important idea.  Unfortunately, corporations, not any government, were pioneering ways to track people long before the internet was in every home.  Owing to corporations, there is no internet privacy.  In some ways, I agree, this is a terrifying prospect.

My credit card companies know that I am wont to show up, unannounced, in a foreign country, and buy something in a grocery store.  More or less, I do not need to tell Visa that I am heading overseas, they know I will pop up in a random place, and start buying fruit and vegetables.  Conversely, if I want to buy furniture, Visa is going to need a DNA test to prove that yes, I am interested in owning a bed.  They know my preferences better than I do.  I remember a credit card company advertising the "service" of monitoring every single purchase to protect you from fraud.  The ad I recall had a handsome man describing himself to the audience as a "t-shirt and jeans guy," who decided to get married and thus bought a tuxedo, at which point, the credit card company called him to verify his identity.  Society, it seems, bought the service side of this spying.

As consumers, it seems, we gain piece of mind and increased services if we let Visa, Mastercard, and American Express know us better than ourselves, by spying on our every moment.  It is accepted as common place that to enjoy the full warranty on one's new blender, Osterizer needs to know your annual household income.  Yet, when it comes time for the Census, the American people seem to be hesitant to tell the government the number of people living at the address.

By completing the Census, schools, roads, airports, and social programs get funding.  Libraries and museums may open or close in the neighborhood, but these are not, apparently, services as worthy as the ninety-day warranty on a coffee pot.  What fear of the government could possibly be worth sacrificing livelihood for?  I doubt, in fact, any fear would be worth it.

Fearing one's government is not actually about fear, I think.  Rather, fearing the government is about the vanity of thinking one's life is something special.  I do not want to condone the NSA or CIA spying on anyone.  Yet, as a society (and it seems universally human to do so), we have come to the conclusion that we need to employ spies to keep us safe.  However, we fancy that our secrets are too dear to have them found out by a stranger sitting on the outskirts of DC, or Salt Lake City.  When it turns out that clandestine services do spy on people, particularly Americans, rather than asking why, it seems that we react with vehement fear of our secrets being found out.

The reality about it is that you, and everyone you know has secrets that are far too boring for that spying to be worth it.  An NSA file on me would be short, boring, and on a tape drive gathering dust for lack of use.  I would like to think I matter, that I travel enough, or have poignant enough blog posts, to have a detail of NSA agents following my life and times.  In fact, if the agents' viewing of Faux Social gets counted as a "page view" by Google's servers, I would be happy to pepper in juicier words like explosive, jihad, and McVeigh just for my own vanity. -Oman-

I do not think that this will work.  To me, the internet is a public domain, I think about it like a busy street with storefronts, and people moving about.  It seems totally preposterous to think anything you do there is "private," yet, like the busy street, most of what you do is "anonymous."  This is not anonymous like voting, but in the numbers of it.  When I shop at Amazon, they and I know exactly what I perused, then did or did not buy.  A store with security cameras could do the same.  I feel anonymous not because Amazon does not know who I am, but because we are strangers.  In the company of strangers, we are free as if anonymous because there will be no repercussions for our actions, no need to blush, lie, proclaim, or explain in the realm where everyone is a stranger.  Yet, like a police officer walking the beat, well trained people may be able tell the difference between a stranger and a potential bad guy.  -Anthrax-

Thus, in my view, I do not think Americans (or anyone) should be actively monitored in public (including the internet), not because it is an issue of privacy rights (which it may be), but because I doubt it is really worth the money.  If all of the money invested in monitoring Oman went into improving the lives of the poor there, how many people would choose extremism?  If  the money Americans spent on lipstick and fighter jets went into schools, libraries, healthcare, and financial security, would there be gangs and religious/political extremism?  If Afghanistan had access to a port, electricity, phones, internet, and literacy, rather than a century of imperial domination, would it have the Taliban?  There is no one fix, but the real problem is that militarism cannot solve social crises, and Americans are worried about the vanity of being spied upon, more than they are about foreign policy.

-Terrorist-

Microcosm Societies

Before I had ever lived in a camp, I read Microserfs by Douglas Coupland. The title is far more clever than I ever gave it credit for while reading it. It is a play on Microsoft, on feudal social structures, and general computer nerd-dom, which, I suppose, is as far as I took it while reading the book. Living in camps though, the idea of microserfs, the peasants of the smallest microcosms of a society, becomes fascinating, far from the confines of computerized LEGO programming in Silicon Valley.

Like Coupland's imaginary startup, a camp has its visionaries, its leaders, its middle class and its serfs. The social structure is a rigid caste, and the only thing that keeps the society functioning is that there is the promise of life after camp. People come to a camp to pay for what they do when they go home. To pay for lives that do not include the people they spend most of their time with. It is a weird dynamic. Imagine a water cooler conversation where no one will ever know anything about anyone else, where no one did anything over the weekend, and where there are not plans for the coming weekend. One functions in this environment because they have to.

In all camps, there is a hierarchy. It is essential that people have a leader, as anarchism simply does not get a job done. These duchesses and feudal lords can be brutal or kind, just as any others. They may plan for the winter, or their fiefdoms may starve. It is impossible to know before one has been in the camp what the leadership is like. Leadership though, is strange. In the Medieval period, these microcosms worked because an army backed the leader, and the leader backed the army. A symbiosis occurred at all levels of the chain, where the over- and underlying social strata agreed where everyone was. In a camp there is no army, instead, there is the upcoming Visa bill.

We are all Visa's indentured servants in these microcosms. Maybe a person has no debt, maybe a person always pays cash, but in the end, we owe now or in the future, and we know that we must fill our role in order to make that payment. It is the army of creditors that keeps a camp in check, there is no symbiosis.

This, makes something of a leadership vacuum. The camp leaders lead only by directing the work, yet s/he who directs the work does have power. If the leader is a fan of a football team, days when that team plays may end early, the basketball enthusiasts lose out. If the leader likes to run in the mornings, the morning meeting will be later. If they like an early dinner, workers will be early to their jobs, but back at the mess when the food is served. The power comes from the little things.

Who gets the power? How do they keep it? Like in any political struggle, the key players start to show their hand, and the knights, rooks, and pawns move into position. The power positions in a camp are the same as chess, and society. The king is all powerful, but crippled by the burdens of leadership. Their second, the queen is more powerful, s/he faces the conundrum of Lady Galadriel, to be pure and good, a champion of the pawns, or to become all powerful dark sorceresses. In either case, the queen may, intentionally or not, seek to usurp the king. Lastly, are the bishops. These are the hidden players, they control the conscience of the serfs, and thus, wield power that the king and queen can only demand. Pawns are the first to choose sides.

In minerals exploration, the pawns are usually the locals. They are infinitely replaceable, yet impossible to control. They see the whole camp establishment as outsiders. Often, race or ethnicity complicate relations between the monarchy and the serfs. They have nothing to lose in their meager existence, and so they are eager to choose sides with the person who gives the most present, and often petty rewards. If the bishop offers a workday that is 10 minutes shorter, the bishop will win the pawns. Yet, the pawns are the downfall of s/he who controls them. For the locals want things that are often contrary to the desires of the more loyal, more skilled knights, who will triumph against the pawns every time.

Knights in the camp society get the work done. They have a platoon of serfs behind them, but they get samples submitted, they log core, they run the computers, they collect the data, and deliver the goods. In the camp power struggle, the knights will win the battle. Yet, an exploration campaign, like a war, is not about a battle, but the compound effect of many battles. In order for one to win the war, a strong position must be held through many skirmishes. For these, one looks to the rooks.

Rooks, in the camp society are consultants and technical experts. The knights can win the battles fought today, but the rooks win the battles that will be fought tomorrow. The rooks are motivated by entirely different things. Rooks are motivated by professional reputation, by what happens outside of camp, more than within. From the top of their battlements, a rook can see what tomorrow will bring beyond the confines of the short field campaign.

From my tower, for I fancy myself a rook, I can watch the battles ebb, and the tides turn. I see racial and ethnic tensions flare, and the knights rally around their banner. I have time to sit, and ponder, in this microcosm society, who are the allies I want to maintain when I leave this camp? Who will bring me the most benefit when I deliver my fealty? It will never be the bishop, s/he lacks the wherewithal in my networks. It may be the king or queen, or with enough ambition, I can usurp even these leaders. So I, and the other fortresses watch, listen, and wait.

All of this, requires that outside force. The creditors, whether they be from the Bank of America, or the Society of Economic Geologists, we all seek the value placed on us by those outside camp. In this way alone, we are truly a microcosm of society. The technicians are microserfs, not only because we are a microcosm, but because they are more insignificant than the feudal serf. They are nameless, and ephemeral, they are but leaves on a tree, inconsequential today, and forgotten by fall. The brave knights, who fight for the banner of their fancy, they are no more influential in society. They are not minuscule because this is a camp of 50, but because this is a country of 300,000,000. This microcosm functions not independent of society, but dependent upon society.

While I wile away hours with an iPod, and an endless cylinder of rock, I contemplate why people work. Why people live in these camps the way they do. I watch the power struggles, and I come back to the same idea again and again, they do this because they will leave here. I wonder then, what would a truly micro-society look like? What will be the dynamics of the Mars One team, when they land with no intention of returning? What will keep them going? There is no creditor, there is no army, there is no future, just today, for the rest of their lives. In this strange world, I wonder, will there be microserfs?

Living in Elbonia with DRMs

Readers of Dilbert will recognize Elbonia as the fictional mud-filled country, and its totalitarian neighbor to the north, where Dilbert's company outsources work.  Nonreaders of Dilbert now probably know enough to gather that one would not want to live in Elbonia.  Like the characters of Dilbert, I have no desire to ever visit Elbonia, let alone live there.  However, like the profit driven corporation, I send myself to deal with whatever evil stands in for the mud in whatever place stands in for Elbonia.

My current Elbonia is Tok, AK, but most of the places I have lived in the last year or so remind me of Elbonia in some way.  I dream of escape, yet My beard is getting thicker, and I am starting to fear that I will never get all this mud off.  The only hope I have in these camps are the reminders of civilization I bring with me.  Unfortunately, all of my chocolate has melted in my 90 degree tent, and DRMs are preventing me from escaping with multimedia.

Apple, for various reasons, has been frustrating me for a long time now, so one day I decided that I should cut my final tie with the company, and move on from iTunes.  Still wanting to pay for my music, I tried Google Play, and discovered that in places with limited and slow internet, it really isn't a good medium.  I then tried Amazon, which is as convenient as iTunes, perhaps more, because you can buy music, rent movies, and ship garden tools to Florida if the mood takes you.  Amazon even has less restrictive DRMs than Apple, provided you are using a Windows or Android operating systems.  Playing iTunes files outside of iTunes proved too difficult to bother with, and thus, like a Dilbertian corporate slave, I went back to the most restrictive product to have the easiest access to the products I legally own.

Then, I bought a laptop with Windows 8.  Windows 8 was buggy, difficult to use, and credited with slowing down the sale of new PCs because of its general horribleness.  When it crashed, I switched to Ubuntu.  On an open source operating system one should be able to access their music, but not their iTunes music, nor download their Amazon music (though Ubuntu is installing with a link to Amazon on the dock).  Thus, while stuck in Elbonia, I am confronted with the realization that the things that remind me of a better place, are actually just reminding me of Northern Elbonia, where instead of a totalitarian state, it is a totalitarian corporation supported by the state.  Or, it all just came full circle, and I am in the cubicle maze with Wally and Alice.

In the end, only a few things are inaccessible to me here, while I choose if I want an operating system that doesn't work (Windows 8), or one that doesn't do what I want (owing to DRMs).  While I consider this, I have often considered that if I had stolen the media I cannot access, rather than paying for it, I wouldn't have any of these problems.

The Tallest Mountain On Earth

I have no understanding of why this is, but many people do not want Mt. Everest to be the tallest mountain on Earth.  Why would it matter whether or not the highest point on the planet is also the tallest mountain, I cannot fathom.  Really, I cannot really understand why the "height" of the mountain really matters to people who are not climbing it, after all, the height of the mountain and how impressive it is are not really the same thing.

Colorado mountains, for example, are beautiful, but they do not have the jaw dropping base-to-peak elevation of many smaller mountains.  The Colorado Rockies are also, as a generalization, less rugged than other peaks.  That said, a Colorado 14er has a more rarefied atmosphere than an Alaskan peak at 12,000 feet, regardless of cold, glaciers, ruggedness, or base-to-peak, so climbing to 14,000' is harder than to 12,000', all else being equal.

What the anti-Everest crowd key into is that Mount Everest is part of a mountain range, and therefore, "cheats."  How a natural system can cheat, I am not exactly sure.  I am also not sure what is so problematic about plate tectonic created ranges versus mantle hotspot created volcano chains, but I am not inside the mind of those who wish to find obscure measurements to discredit Everest.

The first step in discussing the elevation of a summit is how one defines elevation.  The traditional method is to measure from sea level.  This is useful for humans because we can stand at sea level.  The breathable atmosphere is taken to be about 1 atmosphere of pressure at sea level.  It can be, with only minor complications (the oceans are not flat, think tides), easily measured.  Perhaps best of all, it provides a common point from which one can measure the elevation of other things.  Other points that might be useful to use would be the shore of the Dead Sea (the lowest point not covered by water, -1371'), the Bentley Subglacial Trench (the lowest point not covered by liquid water, -8,382'), and the Challenger Deep (the deepest point on the sea floor, -35,755' (or deeper)).  Choose any of these other datums, and Mt. Everest remains the tallest mountain.

Using any datum on the surface of the earth, the highest point remains Mt. Everest, and the elevation of every summit simply increases (or decreases) by the amount that the new datum lies below (or above) sea level.  The one datum that changes the highest point calculation is the center of the planet.  Owing to the fact that Earth is not spherical, Chimborazo (20,564') in Ecuador is 3967.1 miles above the center of the planet (beating out Everest by 1.3 miles).

Using a standard datum (e.g. sea level) makes surveying (and science) possible.  Some people do not think elevation should be measured from a standard point.  The most common way to measure a mountain from a non-standard datum is prominence.  The goal of prominence is that a peak with high prominence will, generally, be more impressive than a peak with low prominence (if you want the full scoop on prominence, check Wikipedia, or Peakbagger).  Mt. Everest has the most prominence of any mountain (even if disregarding sea level), but as with any moving datum, prominence does have some drawbacks, and the "tallest mountain" crowd will certainly find some nonsensical way to discount this standard method of measuring mountains.

Elevation, as measured by those seeking the "tallest mountain" is commonly the base-to-peak elevation.  I have often considered the base-to-peak issue.  The first problem is actually defining the base.  In my mind, the base of a mountain, to illustrate how impressive it is, would be the highest elevation of a col that connects it to another peak.  I seem to be alone on this, and the base seems to be the lowest point where the mountain is no longer the mountain, but the valley, or gentle slope, in the case of Denali.

Using the base-to-peak measure, there are mountains that are taller than Everest, including Denali.  Denali has a base-to-peak elevation of something like 18,400' to Everest's 13,500' (ish).  Denali's base-to-peak is, of course, much taller than Hawaii's Mauna Kea (13,796', above sea level and base-to-peak).  However, the claim goes that Mauna Kea does not begin at sea level, but rather at the sea floor.

Measuring a mountain from the sea floor is tricky business.  First off, it seems meaningless because one can never gaze from the undersea "base" to the summit (or climb from base to peak).  Second, the scale changes dramatically.  The sea floor is dominated by gentle changes in elevations that would never seem related on the surface.  Mona Kea, for example, if you count all of the volcanism on Hawaii as "Mona Kea," but exclude the Mauna Loa side, stretches out for as much as 100 miles.  Above sea level, humans would never count being 100 miles away from a mountain as being "on" the mountain, yet in the world of submarine "mountains," this is a standard practice.  Using GeoMapApp to plot the bathymetry (and elevation), Mauna Kea's steepest, largest slope has the gentle rise of a slug's tail.

The elevation profile from approximately -5000 to 4000 m over nearly 80 kilometers distance of Mauna Kea's supposed base-to-peak elevation.  Note the volcanic plateau clearly visible at about sea level.  No vertical exaggeration.

Assessing Mauna Kea from other angles reveals even more unimpressive base-to-peak elevation profiles.  From the east, the volcanic plateau that Mauna Kea sits on becomes more evident.

The gentle rise of the Hawaiian volcanic plateau (from 0 to 60 km), and the gentle slopes of Mauna Kea (from 75 to 120 km), separated by the clear plateau (from 60 to 75 km).  Vertical scale from -5000 to 4000 m, no vertical exaggeration.

If Mauna Kea were a mountain above sea level, most people would judge it as having an impressive 13,000 meter base-to-peak, sitting on top of a 20,000 foot plateau.  If all of this was above sea level, plopped in Louisiana, it would be the tallest mountain on earth, and the volcanic plateau would be the highest plateau on the planet, but most of it is submarine, so, just like the off-shore base of Carstensz Pyramid (the highest island high point), it does not count.

The last problem with this measure of Mauna Kea, is that it ignores the existence of the other five volcanoes on Hawaii, like Mauna Loa, elevation 13,679' (120' lower than Mauna Kea), which is said to be the biggest in terms of basal area and volume (which may need to be considered at another time).  Looking at the broad saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, the base-to-peak elevation can be measured as little as about 6500', impressive, but hardly the most impressive peak on the planet.

The 2000 m (6500') base-to-peak elevation of Mauna Kea's south side.  Vertical scale from 0 to 4000 m, no vertical exaggeration.

If measured from the lowest point on the sea floor that lava from Mauna Kea has reached, to the highest point on the mountain, Mauna Kea reaches an impressive 33,500'.  This height towers above Mt. Everest's height above sea level, and Everest's base-to-peak.  However, if submarine mountain bases are in play for largest mountain, than volcanoes will never overcome the mountain building of plate tectonics.  In the same way that the Himalaya tower above the Hawaiian volcanoes, coastal and submarine mountain belts built through plate tectonics tower over the Hawaiian seamounts.

The island nation of Tuvalu is expected to be the first nation to be destroyed by sea level rise.  Though not home to lowest country high point (a title belonging to the Maldives at just under 8'), Tuvalu's 15' high point is a sand dune that has already been over topped in a storm surge.  However, if bathymetry is taken as elevation, Tuvalu becomes not an island nation, but a mountain top nation.  It seems strange that a nations crowning a 15,000' mountain will be the first to be destroyed by a sea level rise of mere inches.

The mountain top nation of Tuvalu will likely be the first nation to be overcome by sea level rise.  Vertical scale -4000 to 0 m, no vertical exaggeration.

Tuvalu, is not a great example of the massive mountains built by plate tectonics, as it too is volcanic.  Mount Lamlam rises 1,332' above sea level, marking Guam's highest point.  This unassuming island high point does not seem like it would be a candidate for tallest mountain in the world, but the Mariana Trench runs just off Guam's coast.  From the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam, Guam's base-to-peak elevation is a stunning rise of up to 37,248', almost 4,000' taller than Mauna Kea.  If measuring from the Challenger Deep to the top of Mt. Lamlam is a stretch (the Mt. Lamlam massif rises above the Challenger Deep, but the peak arguably rises only out of the Mariana Trench), even conservative estimates rank Mt. Lamlam as a 10,000 m peak, putting the peak in contention for the title of tallest.

Guam's inconsequential Mt. Lamlam, possibly the tallest mountain in the world.  Vertical scale from -10,000 to 0 m, no vertical exaggeration.

While Mauna Kea is an impressive volcano, changing the definition of "tallest" to distract from what a mountain is does not respect the peak.  Denali is not taller than Mt. Everest, nor is Mauna Kea.  Each peak is impressive for what it is.  There are plenty of unnamed peaks in Alaska, and throughout the world, that are majestic, and staggering in scale, regardless of how they compare to the other peaks of the world.  The tallest mountain on Earth is Mt. Everest by any rational measure, all the other mountains are spectacular in their own way.