Why Government Is Important: Big Brother = Big Bother??

Note:  Although I'm a registered democrat, my viewpoints are more independent and progressive (and skeptical).  I am open to debate and intelligent discussion, but NO vulgar language or finger pointing!!

Let's face it:  It's election year and the politics are charged.  No one likes being told what to do, I know that.  That's the idea behind making smaller federal governments and less regulation. 

However, I urge my readers to remember about human nature and extremes:  remember Communism (without the bad connotations)?

The idea of Communism (coming from "community") was that everyone supports each other.  A great example is a college dorm's fridge: everyone puts food in the fridge (without labeling) and then everyone takes whatever they want out.  The idea is good if everyone supplied their own product (one person only got milk, the other only got veggies, etc).  However, as we know, it didn't work that way in practice because it's precarious and risky: people fend for themselves and rarely have the larger interests in mind (at least according to today's status quo), and if one person forgets, doesn't buy, or just plain doesn't want to put something in the fridge, no one has that specific good available.

The same thing happens in American politics:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the conservatism (possible correlation with republican parties?) ideal is small government complemented by neoclassical economics:  Capitalism is our blood.   Let the markets regulate themselves due to supply and demand and let the money filter through to the consumers.  Again, in theory, it's great.  However, as we can see today and in history, corporations are only out to make money.  Period.  This is not an ethics debate; we all need money to survive.  The income inequality and uneven distribution of wealth is ethically questionable, but I'm saying how the role of government is important:  Without legal regulation, I'm sure many companies would go to great lengths to get a short term profit even if it hurts in the long run because they need the money to continue functioning.  It's not easy.  I don't say that corporations are satanists because I can understand the hard decisions they have to make.  They need money today to function tomorrow.



As a result of these tendencies to make penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions, federal regulations are needed to set limits, regulations, and incentives to help corporations function efficiently to both profit, make long-term investments in projects that will make them last (like environmentally conscious protocols that will comply with future environmental regulations that will come due to public demand sooner or later), and properly contribute to our society as a whole.

Personally, I believe a hybridization of capitalism and socialism is the best way to go (this already seems to be happening in many European countries):  Long term public needs like education, medicine, public transportation, environmental regulations, and R&D should be nationwide (socialized) and covered EQUALLY with federal subsidies, taxes, and have national standards that are supported through non-biased scientific research.  The equal coverage is crucial so people understand the true costs of a product; if oil production wasn't subsidized, I'm sure renewable energies would look much more attractive.  We just installed solar panels on our roof yesterday because it will pay off in the long run (we did the calculations). 

I believe that political corruption through lobbying and money from corporations should be publicly shunned if not illegal.  Other products made to increase standard of living (in other words, "stuff" that isn't necessary for survival) like techno gadgets, entertainment, leisure, etc should be managed by MANY small, private firms to let supply and demand regulate their efficiency and competition so they don't have so much leverage against policy-makers.  

Consumers:  Remember that YOU control the prices.  The more of a product you demand (i.e. buy), the more the market will make of it.  The less you demand it, the producers (and eventually policy and regulation) will compensate (look at cigarettes as an example).

So when we go to vote in November, remember:  keep the long term goals in mind, be skeptical, and read both sides of the issue before casting your vote!

Followup on Fracking

After reading this post, I found out that the full list of chemicals used in the fracking process can be viewed in this federal report that came out in April of 2011. 

There is also a study plan published by the EPA in November 2011where the public can learn about the fracking procedure and the EPA's plan on investigating the possible connections between fracking and water contamination

Now the public can make an informed decision on whether to support fracking or not.  Better late than never (or uninformed)!

Seriously, North Carolina? Seriously?

I am outraged about a new proposed law in North Carolina (< link to actual legal text); I feel as if this proposed law is infringing on free speech. Ok, not quite, but it is very similar. Basically it wants to limit how scientists are going to calculate sea level rises. Here's an excerpt from the bill-

The part highlighted in blue is rather disturbing to me. This proposed law wants to define how sea level rise rates can be calculated (and by whom as well).

Any data collected prior to 1900? Throw it out the window, according to this. Apparently it's not relevant. Who the heck came up with that idea? Certainly not a competent scientist. It's always in the best interest of gaining an accurate understanding of the dynamics to increase your sample size. If the data are there, why not use it?

Also notice the part about extrapolating data linearly. What if the line of best fit is exponential?

Why are lawmakers making making decisions about how to perform the scientific process? Leave the science magic to the expert scientists in the field. They know what they are doing, and the best way to do it.

Memorial Day/Birthday Camping Trip

David and I went camping this past weekend to celebrate my birthday, and it was amazing.

My first stop was to the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Driving through, I encountered a snapping turtle crossing the road. I also saw water snakes, a garter snake, painted turtles, frogs and probably the most amazing thing was this:

I think this is a crab spider....and it's trying to eat an inchworm. Pure awesome-ness.

After that I met up with David and we drove up to the School of Conservation at Stoke State Forest, in Sandyston, NJ. It's a field resource station owned by Montclair State University, and a lot of professors do research there. I've done a few small scale research projects myself there for some different classes. I ran into a doctoral student at Montclair that I know, Paola, and she was there to collect treefrogs, so David and I accompanied her that night. She caught two northern grey treefrogs.

The next day we went to High Point State Park. On the way there I encountered another snapping turtle crossing the road. I was super excited to discover once we got to the High Point Monument that the obelisk was not closed for renovation anymore, and we could climb 291 steps to the top of the obelisk. The view was breath taking!

Our next stop was to the Mountaintop Road Fossil Beds to go fossil hunting. We had trouble finding the described "outcrops of shale and light colored rocks on the ground" that were supposed to have fossils. I managed to find a large chunk of shale sticking out of the ground, and David was able to hit it against another rock to cleave it along a seam, and WE FOUND FOSSILS!!!

Later that afternoon we were exploring around the School of Conservation, and we stumbled upon two turtles who appeared to had just finished laying eggs.

And then I stumbled upon THIS:

The skeleton of some sort of canine... AWESOME!

The next day (my birthday!) we went to Tillman Ravine Nature Preserve and hiked along the stream, and then went to see Buttermilk Falls.

Buttermilk Falls

All of this in the good ol' state of New Jersey- it's not just smelly factories and guidos at the boardwalk!

An Ecological Dilemma: A New York Times Editorial Review

I came across an editorial in the New York Times this morning about deer overpopulation.  I can really see the dilemma here:  Many people love deer, yet they (the deer...and humans as well in other cases) pose a threat to forest shrubbery, which in turn has a ripple effect on the entire habitat.  In this case, the ripple is affecting birds (Warblers in this case).  As an ecologist, I agree with the author: deer overpopulation is detrimental to ecosystems and is costing the welfare of other flora and fauna in their vicinity. 

While at Rutgers, I went to Duke Farms for a Plant Ecology class and observed the barrier (fencing) method that was brought up in the editorial, which was quite effective there.  It was also interesting at how there are plants springing up at the Great Swamp that my fellow staff members thought could be invasive since they haven't seen them in a long time, but were actually native shrubbery that was growing due to lower deer populations due to hunting.  Plus I heard gunshots yesterday there as well, although very off in the distance.

Lyme Disease is supposed to be a major problem this year, and I believe that less dear leads to less deer ticks, which in turn leads to fewer cases of Lyme Disease.  Only time will tell whether that is a true hypothesis or not. 

Yes, it may be painful to see Bambi die (kudos to the author), but the same thing would happen in nature:  Overpopulation leads to depleted resources (like food), which in turn leads to starvation until the population drops below Carrying Capacity and the plants recover as well.  Since we took wolves and other natural predators out of the picture, humans are one of the few remaining biotic pressures on the deer.  Mother Nature has no concept of ethics; that's a human thing.