The return of Harvey Grogo

Apparently the New York Post published an editorial cartoon which featured two policemen and a dead chimpanzee (which they had apparently shot) and the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

I know. Hilarious. I don't get it.

Apparently there was some tragic incident that was the basis of the cartoon. How it's supposed to relate to the stimulus bill, I can't fathom. However...

Some people have interpreted this cartoon as racist. According to various accounts, the cartoonist and his editor don't see it and are amazed by the reaction.

To which I have to say - how could you not think someone might interpret this as racist? To which I add this anecdote.

Back many years ago, a college student group published a picture book (yes, on paper) with pictures of the incoming freshmen. Sort of a field guide to the common (or garden) frosh. As a joke, they added a picture of a statuette of a gorilla. The statuette, affectionately named "Grogo", was the unofficial mascot of one of the organizations involved. They gave the picture a first name ("Harvey") and listed its home town as "Kampala, Uganda". Gorillas live in Uganda, after all, and Kampala is its capitol.

The administration reacted, naturally, bringing disciplinary action against all involved, including very real attempts to expel one student.

The picture was considered offensive in two very separate ways:

1. Some thought it was intended to equate Ugandans, and by extension Africans, and by extension all people of African descent, with gorillas.
2. Others thought it was a caricature of the then leader of Uganda, His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.

A year or two later, someone tried to slip Harvey Grogo back in to the same publication, this time with the address of Brooklyn, NY. This was no better received.

In 1994, a drawing of a monkey appeared on the cover of the same publication. Once again, the administration reacted to a perceived racist intent.

So I, for one, was not surprised that this was interpreted as a racist slur. The Post shouldn't have been, either.

Experimental Results

I've been carrying on an experiment in microbiology, and it's time to report results.

A couple of months ago I decided to try my hand at making hard cider. The grocery store had pretty good unfiltered sweet cider in the refrigerated section. Right on the label it said, "Freshly pressed - 100% Juice." Promising, I thought, so I bought several gallons, added sparkling wine yeast, and eventually bottled it.

I should have checked the ingredients a little more closely. They read:

• Apples (excellent start)
• Malic acid (a component of apple juice that adds tartness)
• Potassium Sorbate (hmm)
• Sodium Benzoate (double hmm)

After several months, I have proven that potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate, which are added as preservatives, do in fact ... preserve. No fermentation, no carbonation, and 40 bottles of juice with a decidedly off flavor.

Next year we try to find someone who will sell fresh pressed unpreserved cider.

Today we prepare the equipment for future experiments with the fermentation of malted grain extracts.

All grain or not all grain

Over the last mumble years, I've been doing some beer brewing on and off. It's fun, it's easy, you get some good tasting beer, and you can save some money (depending on what you drink it instead of - I currently drink homebrew instead of Chimay Grande Réserve Bleue to maximize my savings).
I brew from malt extract. This is barley that has been malted, then the malt extracted and concentrated to a consistency about like molasses (there's also dry malt extract, which is the same thing but dried to a powder). Add that to water, some additional grains, hops, boil it, cool it down, and add yeast - and after 4 weeks you've got pretty good beer. The yeast does the hard work, and I take the credit.
Lately the people at the local brewing supplies store have been telling me I'll get better beer if I start from malted grain, and I'll save money in the bargain. Such a deal!
But of course, you have to buy some more equipment for mashing, lautering, and sparging. And that runs anywhere from about $54 on the low end to $5,590. It only goes up from there.
So how much do I save?
According to various sources, 2/3 pound of liquid malt extract can substitute for 1 pound of malted barley (or conversely, it would take about 1.5 pounds of grain to replace 1 pound of liquid). This is highly inexact, but will do for a quick calculation. My local homebrew store sells malt extract in bulk - I can walk in with a container and they'll sell me exactly the number of pounds I need. This is cheaper than buying canned, since you're not buying a, you know, can.
So, 1 pound of bulk light malt extract costs $2.40
1.5 pounds of grain (@ $1.50/lb) runs about $2.25. That saves me the equivalent of 15 cents per pound.
In the last few recipes, I've used anywhere from 7 - 13 pounds of malt, so the savings of going all grain would be $1.05 - $1.95 per batch. I'm making 1-2 batches per month, so call it $30/year. It would take almost 2 years to justify the cheapest rig; an insulated mashing/sparging/lautering system would take 60 or more batches to pay for itself.
I'm not seeing the financial benefit. As for the better beer - I read that going all grain is most important in the pale gold pilseners and lagers. But I like stouts, which are anti-pale.
Guess I'm sticking with extract.

As long as you don't let 'em in our schools part deux

There was a particularly moment in the Nova program I feel a need to comment on.
In a reenactment of a scene from the trial, the expert for the "Cdesign proponentsists" asserted that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." In a scene reminiscent of A Miracle on 34th Street, the plaintiff's lawyer proceeded to pile article after article and book after book related to the evolution of the immune system on the stand.
A representative of the Thomas More Law Center, an organization that promotes cdesign propenentism, commented "That's a lawyer's trick, purely a lawyer's trick. Now, you know, was Michael Behe going to read every one of those books before he responded? You know, it was totally theatrics."
Was it a lawyer's trick? Well, yeah, of course it was. And a particulary effective one, in my view. One can only imagine lying in wait for just that opportunity.
But was it purely a lawyer's trick? I contend not. The witness made a statement about the lack of explanations. The lawyer brought out many pounds ("would you like your books back? They're heavy.") of paper that directly refuted the witness's statement. As a purported expert, the witness should have been aware that these articles, or ones like them, existed. And as an expert testifying in a trial, he should have been able to refute (or at least seriously call into question) the contents of those articles.
Of course, the cdesign proponentsists should understand all about lawyer's tricks, as that's what all arguments for including "intelligent design" in the public school curriculum end up being.

As long as you don't let 'em in our schools

The PBS science show Nova had an interesting program the other day titled Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. This covered the 2005 trial of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. This was a rerun of a show that was first transmitted in 2007.
The case involved a decision by the Dover, PA school board that required science teachers to state that the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection (Darwinian evolution) is only one of several scientific theories, and to point them to the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins for more information (a number of copies of this book had helpfully been donated to the school library by an "anonymous donor").
The judge in this case ruled that "intelligent design" is not science, it is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory". The Pandas book is described as a "creationist text". As a religious view, the judge ruled it was unconstitutional to teach it in public schools. The ruling, as well as the original video, interviews, and supporting materials are available on Nova's web site.
Now, a court of law is not how one proves a scientific theory. Theories should stand or fall based on how well they explain observed facts, as well as on their ability to predict new observations that are later confirmed (if they're falsified, then the theory rightly should be modified to account for the new data, or discarded in favor of a better theory).
What the show and trial did do was highlight the motives of many "intelligent design" promoters. Since natural selection does not require a god, people could come to the conclusion that everything we observe has a physical, not spiritual, cause. Without a spiritual component, the road is clear to "moral anarchy" and, of course, atheism. Which are apparently bad things.
The Nova program and accompanying site are highly recommended.

Of mice and chimps

There was a letter to the editor in two local newspapers recently (both are owned by Gannett, so I suppose that isn't too surprising) from a "research scientist" at the creation museum and Answers in Genesis. The author claims a Ph.D. in molecular genetics.

My first thought was to wonder just what a "research scientist" for an organization that states that the Bible is literal human history does, exactly. Doing research in that environment sounds kind of like doing your homework when you have the teacher's copy of the text - you know the answer, you just need to figure out what the problem is. But I digress.

The writer was responding to a column that claimed that similarities in both morphology and genetics between various animals (and people) point to common ancestry. The writer, naturally, disagreed and said these similarities were the signature of the creator (God may work in mysterious ways, but s/he's very consistent in design components).

Two statements really struck me, though:

His arguments from morphology...is a poor argument. Raccoons also have the characteristics...mentioned, but no one claims humans and raccoons share a recent common ancestor.

and then in reference to the "often quoted 95-98 percent genetic similarity between chimps and humans",

Even humans and mice share an average of 85 percent similarity at the gene level, but no one claims we have a recent common ancestor.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "recent". Like all placental mammals, current evolutionary theory certainly claims that chimps, raccoons, mice, and humans have common ancestors. Based on current genetic theories, one would also conclude that two animals who have 95% of their genes in common would have a closer common ancestor than two that have only 85% commonality. Probably much closer. "Recent" is relative.

Now, if the situation were reversed - if mice and men had more genes in common than chimps and humans - we would have a very interesting challenge to evolutionary theory.

This is your press on steroids - any questions?

So, I happened to tune in to President Obama's prime time press conference on Monday.

Normally I avoid these kinds of things as I've observed that in general speeches accomplish, well, not much (we shan't quote the Scottish play here). But curiosity got the better of me, I happened to be in front of the TV, and I didn't have anything else pressing, so I tuned in.

It was refreshing that Mr. Obama kept his prepared remarks short and to the point, allowing a lot of time for questions. His answers to the questions were long and tended to ramble a bit - he seemed to be trying to come up with complete answers to the question, and perhaps the question behind the question. I've seen people do better in this setting, but I can't fault him for actually trying to answer the questions.

But then...

Michael Fletcher of the Washington Post asked, "What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?"

Mr. Obama fixed Fletcher with a steely gaze and said, "You had a chance to ask me a question on live TV in front of the national press and millions of viewers when we have so much going on, when the country has so many problems, when people are suffering so much from our economic troubles - and you want to talk baseball? Come on - if you want to talk sports over a beer sometime, I'm down with that. But can't you ask a real question?"

Well, no, he didn't. His real answer has been widely reported. And it's a reasonable answer. But I like mine better.