Best. Faux pas. Ever.

Full story here.

Expat Americans Gain Voice?

Representatives Maloney and Wilson have created the Congressional “Americans Abroad Caucus.” Apparently, it will “provide a forum for discussion … and a means for utilizing the on-the-ground experience of overseas Americans.”

The idea is the brainchild of Lucy Laederich, an American living in Paris who also works with the widespread and quite active American Women’s Clubs around the world.

Now, in my experience American expats tend to be weird. Like very, very different from your average American. Example: a singer friend of mine (we were just barely 18 at the time) was once told by an American living in Japan to make sure and hire a Thai hooker in Bangkok: “They train their throats and tongues to give blowjobs, just like you train your voices to sing. It’s incredible.”

So, initially I’m intrigued. What will a group representing such colorful characters decide to advocate? Will we actually start ulitizing expats’ experience (this could be incredibly useful, if it can be done more than is already the case). What sort of Representatives will join, and which won’t? (As of March 1, three had joined in addition to the two founders.)

Also, who knew there are 4-6 million Americans living abroad?

Lanza’s Pseudo-Scientific Musings

Last week Wired News published an interview with Robert Lanza, a respected biologist who recently published an article in The American Scholar titled “A New Theory of the Universe.”

Wired Science’s response calls Lanza’s piece and interview “kind of dopey,” which may actually be too generous. The central idea of his article is not new, the reasoning to support it is almost nonexistent, and his understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Lanza is concerned with the scientific quest for a “theory of everything:” a hypothetical way to unify all of the sciences in one grand, all-encompassing, (hopefully simple) theory. The biggest difficulty in finding such a theory has been physicists’ inability to reconcile two of the most powerfully predictive theories in their field: quantum mechanics and special relativity. String theory — notoriously complex and almost entirely un-testable — is currently the best prospect, and many physicists think it a very poor one indeed.

The gist of Lanza’s article is that biology, not physics, is best placed to provide a unifying theory. More specficially, he says that life and consciousness are the key to understanding the universe. First sign of a weak argument: he leaves “life” and “consciousness” undefined, despite how crucial they are to his theory.

Big Outstanding Questions: If all life experiences consciousness, as Lanza implies with comparison to the glowworm, is it really possible for something to be entirely unobserved? Do glowworms (or other “lesser” life forms) really experience consciousness in any way similar to humans? And why should we buy the assertion that “The universe of space and time belong [sic] uniquely to us genome-based animals”? The genome as the unifying factor is entirely unsupported and I don’t buy it.

Adam Rogers at Wired Science does a good job in pointing out several of the other major weaknesses of Lanza’s paper, only one of which I’ll elaborate upon here. He correctly laughs off Lanza’s superficial understanding of Zeno’s arrow, but he dismisses the reference by saying calculus solved the paradox centuries ago. He is only half right. The arrow paradox has two aspects: one involving the impossibility of motion between two “instants” in which the arrow is static; and another inolving the uncertainty principle, wherein motion and location cannot both be precisely measured at the same time. Calculus has addressed the first aspect, but not the second — Andrew misses this point. There is a more complete explanation here.

Adam also glosses over Lanza’s weak discussion of unknowns in quantum theory:

But another support for biocentrism is the famous two hole experiment, which demands that we go one step further: Zeno’s arrow doesn’t exist, much less fly, without an observer. The two-hole experiment goes straight to the core of quantum physics. Scientists have discovered that if they “watch” a subatomic particle pass through holes on a barrier, it behaves like a particle: like a tiny bullet, it passes through one or the other holes. But if the scientists do not observe the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of a wave. The two-hole experiment has many versions, but in short: If observed, particles behave like objects; if unobserved, they behave like waves and can go through more than one hole at the same time.

(emphasis mine)

It is true that, if a single photon is observed along its path, it will be seen to pass through one of the holes just as a particle would. Lanza neglects to mention that it is also true that the path of the particle –even when it is observed — depends on probability patterns that are determined by wave interference from the two slits. However, it is misleading to say that, lacking an observer, a single particle will go through both holes at the same time. This may be the best way to think about the problem, but only one photon will register at the end of the detector, even if the particle is not observed along its path.

The most striking weakness of Lanza’s article is its near-theological faith in the centrality of biology to reality as we know it. Essentially he seems to be saying that, since physics has so far failed in its quest for a unifying theory, biology is the last place to look. He offers no way to test most of his assertions (“Our thoughts have an order, not of themselves, but because the mind generates the spatio-temporal relationships involved in every experience.”) and seems to hope we will take them on faith. He further throws out assertions that are still, centuries after being articulated, subject to considerable debate (“Without perception, there is in effect no reality”) and fails to explain how he can conclude that they are now facts.

Even so, Lanza correctly points out many of the failings of modern science and provides an impassioned plea for a new direction. I only wish he had more solutions to offer.

Fa**ots, Ni**ers, and C**lter

I hate — HATE — to pour out more virtual ink about that “horse-faced” blonde pundit, but it seems to me both sides are addressing her CPAC incident poorly.

This incident is not about the use of the actual word, or even really about First Amendment rights. I, for one, agree with John Cloud in Time: the woman has a perfect right to say what she wants to say (we also have a perfect right to boycott her works, protest her syndication, etc), up to and including the ultimate prohibited speech: ni**er. Andrew Sullivan mentioned the real issue that no one wants to talk about, though he buried it several paragraphs into his response:

“[She was] trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It’s how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest.“

(emphasis mine)

This is the real underlying issue — the reason the gay community is really angry, the reason the audience at CPAC laughed and applauded: “gay” (and its nastier 6-letter cousin) is still an effective, widely used insult.

Unfortunately, precisely because a “gay” label is still an insult, it is also an argumentative albatross; few are willing to risk focusing on its central role in this incident, even though doing so might pull some small shreds of redemption from an otherwise empty partisan slugfest. Most have so far focused on “What she said” or “the word” or the “hate speech.” Let Ms. Coulter say the worst words, if she wants, but don’t let them obscure the role of deeper prejudice that is the real concern.

UPDATE (6:30 PM): See? (via Towleroad)

I am neither Greek nor memetic…yet

This endeavor is an experiment, as so much else in my life right now. I’m a 20-something college grad living the dream…as a defense analyst, in our nation’s rarely fabulous but always entertaining capital. You should expect some snarkiness, contained cattiness, and minimal intelligence. The rest I’ll figure out as I go.