gqmartinez's blog

Power Outage

2008-08-17T23:17:05-04:00

The power is out and its too dark to read indoors. I’m waiting for guests to arrive—it was supposed to be movie night, but we can find something else to do if need be—so I’m stuck at home. Outside, where its light enough to read, a slight drizzle prevents me from enjoying the first cool evening in a while. My wireless connection is down so I can’t turn on the ol’ PC and browse the net to see what’s going on. What to do, what to do.

I’m working on a novel that I could spend my time on, but I have this massive case of writers block and still need to sort out a few plot lines. I really need to be in a certain mindset to write. The novel isn’t really an option right now.

I have that post on introductory biophysics I’ve been meaning to write for Corrente (which has been thwarted once by a browser mishap) but I can’t access many of the links I want to include so I’m less than motivated to do that. I’ve been meaning to write a post on what its like, politically, being stuck in between Gen X and Gen Y. Its an interesting age group ignored by every pol since we are not stationary like college students or folks with families. I wanted to do that in the context of music but can’t access youtube (yeah, still waiting for Blackberry and Adobe to get the appropriate Flash player add-on) so that’s out the door.

[Did I mention I like to procrastinate? I thrive with deadlines and having too much on my plate. I like having a baseline stress level well above average (though I’m not sure if its really stress if I enjoy it) to keep me motivated.]

I guess I’ll just end by recommending the movie “Vision Quest”. Its a cheesey 80s movie with Matt Modine that every wrestler has watched a hundred times. While its not the greatest piece of cinematography, it is really true to what its like being a high school wrestler. It also has my favorite Madonna song in it.

Is Holding Grudges Good Governing?

2008-08-14T16:12:51-04:00

I know. I know. We don’t have the “context” and “its from Politico”, but if this is true, what do we have to look forward in an Obama presidency:

Rangel surrogates approached Obama staffers this week about the possibility of securing him a slot at the podium, making the case that it would showcase reconciliation between the nominee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s African-American supporters.

But they were told that the 78-year-old congressman’s support for Clinton earned him a place at the end of the line behind Barack Obama’s loyalists — even if Rangel played a crucial part in prodding Clinton to abandon her presidential bid in June.

One of myriad problems with Bush was his surrounding of like minded people and purging of dissenters, even former allies (Paul O’Neil, US Attorneys, etc.). This is not a trait I want to have in a president.

I’ve been saying this since the Krugman purge, but Obama and/or his surrogates have displayed a petty vindictive behavior that I find scary. Rather than truly reaching out to Hillary supporters, they spare no chance to stick it to people who didn’t support him. (Which is why the idea of Obama controlling what progressive organizations get money is truly disturbing.)

Or maybe its just a further snub at Hillary (this one’s on the record):

“This isn’t unexpected — Charlie is the New York face of Hillary Clinton,” said Baruch College politics professor Doug Muzzio. “There’s already an awful lot of Clinton in this convention and Charlie would have been a bit too much.”

Yeah, having the most powerful African American in the US (beside Obama) speak would signal “too much Hillary”.

If Obama is purging minimal opponents/critics now what’s it going to be like if he’s president? Obama supporters—tepid or enthusiastic—should be trying to prevent this behavior now rather than trying to justify it. They could easily end up at the end of the line of more loyal Obama loyalists.

PB2.0 Weekend Question

2008-08-01T13:43:06-04:00

I know. I know. I’m supposed to have linky goodness and some grand solution to all of life’s problems (other than alcohol—also the cause of life’s problems) to post, but I have a question: Should PB2.0 be an amalgamation of “professionalized” bloggers?

When I look at a lot of the A-listers from PB1.0, I notice that their “professionalization” coincided with their regurgitation of Village Values. May be a coincidence, may be related. Who knows. I know many of us have dreams of accessing the top pols and hobnobbing with celebrities, but will that lead to corruption? Does the “professionalization” of the blogosphere lead to unchecked egos? Does it force you to toe a specific line?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but I wanted to throw it out there to you more witty and intellectual types.

Party Invariance and Progressive Blogosphere 2.0

2008-07-29T16:04:17-04:00

In light of the different posts on good and bad Democrats I thought I’d post on the principle of party invariance and why I think it should be considered for PB2.0.

I’ll state up front that that all but a handful of my books are stored up in boxes so I won’t be able to give an exhaustive history of the conservative movement, which I believe is important. Instead, I’ll point you to a couple books worth reading: The Emerging Republican Majority, The Right Nation, and The Republican Noise Machine. Don’t forget to check out Off Center. These books are important in that they give some background on how the GOP came to power on the heels of the broader conservative movement.

While many in PB2.0 may decry the conservative movement, one thing is undeniable: they changed the landscape of contemporary US politics. It is my view that the most successful and potent times in the conservative movement happened between the late 1950s and the 1980s. I think this is the more important time for proponents of PB2.0 to take a look at. Sure, the actual electoral gains happened after this time, but I am of the view that the policies that were enacted were in large part due to the diligent work by the conservative infrastructure leading up to the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions. I am also of the view that the reason the conservative movement was on the ropes this year (until Obama and FKD started singing “bipartisanship”) was because they abandoned their early “party invariant” strategy and become completely entangled with the Republican Party. Hence, GOP failures in governance over the last years also tarnished conservativism. Obama’s ignorant use of “blame everyone” and “Dem cynics” gave the conservative movement much needed cover and new life. But I digress.

The reason I think the 1950s-1980s are important is because, during that time, conservatives set up their network of think tanks and began systematically challenging liberalism. The veracity of their claims is beside the point. What they did that was of utmost importance is to create a way in which to propagate their ideas. Sure, they started out small and had targeted audiences, but they eventually got to the point where there talking points were seen by both Democrats and Republicans. (Keep in mind, many of the Democrats of 1960-1980 ended up becoming today’s die-hard Republicans.) Places like The Heritage Foundation handed out their information to any and all willing to look at it, Republicans and Democrats.

By the time Reagan came to the White House, Congress was ready for the trickle down economic policies. Congress and the US populace was ready to hear about “Welfare Queens” driving limos. Etc. Bill Clinton was a liberal who had to work in a political environment that was shaped by decades of conservative organization that targeted both political parties. Today we still see the effects of the decades of work from conservative organizations: an increasingly right-wing Republican Party and an increasing number of Blue Dog Democrats. It is my view that the reason this is happening is because for most of conservative movements ascendancy they practiced a Party Invariant strategy.

By Party Invariance, I refer to the fact that they shifted the entire political landscape to a direction they favored. They didn’t go solely after a more pure Republican Party. Eventually they did, and we saw how quickly that put a halt to conservative momentum. By changing the landscape, many conservative principles have become common place within both Parties and even though Dems could have fought in the Senate while in the minority, enough Dems held conservative views to prevent filibusters. In other words, the GOP did not even need a filibuster proof Senate majority to do what they wanted. Compare that to the situation we see today, where so-called progressive bloggers are stuck in a purely partisan world where the only way to get things done is with a Senate with enough Democrats to prevent a filibuster. (Note how absurd that idea is when a large number of Democrats are already conservative and probably wouldn’t go along with some of the cloture votes.)

The obsessive focus of PB1.0 on electoral politics was a very short sighted approach. We are still left with supporting Blue Dog Dems who do not necessarily share our political philosophy. Despite electoral gains, we are not guaranteed anything. What kind of strategy is that? It’s not a philosophical strategy, it’s a strategy for power for its own sake. Incidentally, seeking power for its own sake allowed PB1.0 to consistently compromise their supposed ideals, as the Dem primary has demonstrated.

Now we can argue whether or not PB1.0 ever had principles, etc. but what is clear is that, as a movement to get things done they have failed and failed miserably. Their capitulation in Obama’s shift to the right, and increasing willingness to generally support increasingly conservative Dems (and not encouraging liberal Republicans) only further emphasizes the complete failure of PB1.0. Winning partisan elections is not the same as increasing the number of votes for issue X. The fundamental principle of Party Invariance is that increasing the number of votes for issue X has primacy over winning partisan elections. Increasing the number of votes for issue X may not always mean supporting the Democrat over the Republican.

Of course it gets a little tricky when it comes to committee chairmanships and makeup, but I think we need to move beyond being tying the progressive movement solely to the Democrats. That lets a Political Party use a political movement as a tool instead of the other way around.

To be frank, I don’t know how best to implement a Party invariant strategy. What I do know is that the internet has provided tools to allow for more rapid organizing and faster propagation of information. Questions I have are: Is PB2.0 a tool for a broader strategy/coalition? Does it focus more on organizing people or propagating information? Since partisanship helps increase traffic to sites, how does PB2.0 maintain focus on the issues? Etc.

Why Basic Science Is Important

2008-07-26T16:53:53-04:00

I have been planning a series of posts on the latest developments in Biophysics (and perhaps other science fields), but before I got to that, I wanted to pass along the commencement address of Nobel Laureate Roger Kornberg to the Stanford School of Medicine this year. I’ve heard Roger Kornberg speak on numerous occasions and have to say that this is my favorite speech/talk/presentation I’ve heard from him. Short and concise and worth the read in full.

On the origins of rigorous medical research and medical schools:

Little over a century ago, disease was attributed to an imbalance of humors, and the only treatments were bleeding and violent purgatives. Medical schools were trade shops funded by fees from the students, who gained licenses to inflict their ignorance on the general population. Change began in Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, with the germ theory of disease and the work of Pasteur, Koch, Ehrlich and others. Charles Eliot, then president of Harvard, was aware of these developments and of the appalling state of American medical education, and proposed to introduce medical science in the curriculum at Harvard medical school.

We’ve come a long way in those hundred years!

If you’ve spent time in an academic research setting this will definitely resonate with you:

If I were to ask members of this audience what were the most important advances in medicine during the 20th century, most would make a similar list: X-rays, for both diagnosis and treatment; antibiotics, which have largely eradicated bacterial disease; cell culture, which led to the polio vaccine; noninvasive imaging, especially magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, for early detection of cancer and other conditions; genetic engineering, which is the basis of most new medicines; the list could go on. These medical advances have one thing in common: They were all discoveries made in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, with no idea of any application, no purpose in the prevention or cure of disease. The lesson of the past is counterintuitive: To solve a difficult problem in medicine, don’t study it directly, but rather pursue a curiosity about nature and the rest will follow. Do basic research.

“The success of medical science has become, in a way, its undoing. We are dazzled by the knowledge we have acquired and rush to apply it to medical problems. This is understandable, but often premature. Take the human genome, the true font of medical knowledge. It’s all there, the answer to every question about human biology. The trouble is the answers are written in a language we don’t understand. It is a multidimensional and dynamic language. The products of the genome, both protein and RNA molecules, interact with one another and with the genome itself in a dance of dizzying complexity [more on this soon]. At present, we can only dimly perceive the significance. We can grasp a tiny fraction of 1 percent of what there is to know and understand. Just imagine, if the medicine of today flows from this tiny bit of knowledge, how much more would be possible if we knew the remaining 99 percent. What more persuasive call to the pursuit of basic research can there be?

“And yet this call is often unheeded. Traveling across the United States and abroad, I’m disheartened by a shift from research to application. It’s ironic. Just as the lesson of the past century is learned, it is forgotten.

“This is not only a scientific but also a political problem. The support of basic research has traditionally come from government rather than the private sector, and for good reason. The timeline is very long—basic problems take decades to solve. Only the public, with a lifelong interest, will support such an undertaking. Industry, with a short-term interest and eye on the bottom line, can hardly be expected to do so. What CEO could report to his or her board that a major investment has been made in research that may or may not become profitable in 10 to 20 years, or longer? Let me give you a specific, disquieting example. Pharmaceutical companies developing anti-cancer therapies are regularly forced to choose between a drug that cures cancer with a single dose and one that must be administered weekly and which only prolongs life by a year or two. Management invariably makes the right decision on behalf of shareholders, and pursues the less-effective drug. This is not an isolated or rare occurrence. It occurs on a weekly basis. Government clearly has a special responsibility and a unique role to play.

“Our government has performed this role admirably in the past. Some 50 years ago, in perhaps the most farsighted action of any legislative body in history, the U.S. Congress began funding basic biomedical research. The investment has been repaid many times over. How many people do you think were crippled or died of polio last year in the United States? The answer is virtually none, due of course to the polio vaccine. Imagine the savings in treatment and productivity, not to mention human suffering. Not only has the investment in medical research been repaid, but it was small to begin with. The annual budget for cancer research today is only $5 billion, less than 10 percent of our annual expenditure on soft drinks, less than a week of the war in Iraq. And yet, despite its small size, this budget has been cut repeatedly over the past decade. At a time when medical science is poised for the ultimate payoff—the cure of cancer and other dread diseases—many promising leads are being abandoned.

The current environment in medical research is bad and getting worse because of the funding situation—to say nothing of the Bush Administration attempts to get their own results. It is increasingly difficult for young, promising faculty to get funding for exciting new research, and even seasoned faculty. I’ve personally seen grant proposals that were rejected despite praise for the science and early results that would have easily been funded several years ago when there was more money. This should not happen.

Having recently received my PhD in Biophysics I have been on the front lines of academic research and have witnessed the awesome potential of medical research. But in today’s climate it is becoming harder and harder to follow up on promising leads. I plan to discuss some interesting new scientific endeavors and dig more into some of the funding related aspects in Congress. But I encourage everyone to send a note to their congresscritters in support of science funding.

If there is any interest, I can follow this up with descriptions of the latest in biophysical research. If not, I’m happy to make other uses of my time.

Today in WWTSBQ v 2.0

2008-05-24T18:49:47-04:00

Here’s the latest example of WWTSBQ 2.0:

Obama is going to be the nominee. Those who cannot endure that thought need to turn their attention to down ballot races or issues they care about.

Sorry, but last time I checked this race wasn’t decided yet. Until then, it’s pretty simple.

The media cowed us and manipulated us into Iraq. They cowed us and manipulated us into accepting George W. Bush’s 2000 election “win”. They cowed us and manipulated us into rejecting health care reform. And so on. We are tired of the media telling us what to think and determining the course of our country—because it has really left the place FUBAR.

Here’s the problem with Obama is the nominee absurdity. Since March 4th, Hillary’s gotten over 500,000 more votes than Obama. She will likely increase that number in the last three contests and will almost certainly be the candidate who will have received the most votes in this primary. Shouldn’t the de facto nominee be increasing his vote lead rather than getting his ass kicked at the polls? (Spare me the delegate “the math” meme.) That’s the argument we are taking to the Super Delegates, along with the fact that WA, TX, and NE all showed disturbing discrepancies between caucus results and primary results which unambiguously call into question the validity of Obama’s caucus wins. That’s been our plan for months and our position has only improved by these criteria. We’re not going to quit.

Perhaps those who cannot understand this should devote their time to down ballot races or issues they care about. Its undemocratic to deliberately try to suppress voter turnout with your WWTSBQ v 2.0. Undemocratic.

WV, KY, Me and Our Message to the Hillary Haters

2008-05-23T11:46:25-04:00

I interrupt work on my dissertation to join WV, KY in giving a great big cheek scratch to the media and Obama’s WWTSBQ minions in the blogosphere. Here’s my song dedication to ya’ll. (You can fast-forward to the last minute or so.)

This song has special meaning to me. When I was in high school, my so-called guidance councilor told me I wasn’t smart enough to take AP calculus or chemistry. The last laugh was, and continues to be on her. I ended up getting to take calculus (and other courses) at New Mexico State University while in high school and in my senior year of high school I was writing tests for the very class that I wasn’t smart enough to take. Now, in a few days I will be finishing all my requirements for my PhD in Biophysics at Stanford. So to my guidance councilor and everyone who told me to give up, the last minute of this song is for you!

I’m not moved by all the blogosphere blowhards talking about “the math” in the same way that Karl Rove was talking about “the math” in 2006. I’m not moved by the calls for Hillary to quit. I’m not going to give up until she decides to drop out or we take it to the convention. All your huffing and puffing is useless on me and apparently the folks in WV and KY who embarrassed your beloved “presumptive” nominee. That’s right. Despite your countless millions and a media practically on Obama’s payroll, your guy got humiliated—almost 400,000 more votes in two small states.

BTW, racism is real, quit trivializing it with your stupid claims jackasses. Just because we don’t vote for Obama doesn’t make us racists. If you gave a damn about racism you wouldn’t be trying to push bogus charges because it doesn’t help.

Remember Elko?

2008-05-16T17:03:22-04:00

How quickly we forget. Remember when proof of Obama’s crossover appeal was his win in Elko, NV:

Obama’s strength in rural Nevada speaks to the breadth of his appeal and to his campaign’s organizing efforts in Republican strongholds that Nevada’s Democratic Party has traditionally written off…

“What they found is that people in rural areas see themselves in Barack Obama. They see him as a true American success story. They see him as representing something new and fresh.”…

Haven’t heard about Elko much these days. I wonder why?

Lets take a look at county maps since March began: TX, OH, PA, MS, NC, IN, WV. I’ve skipped obvious ones. It’s pretty clear that the big deal about Obama winning rural America was not grounded on much. Go ahead and look at the exit poll numbers at those links. Take a look at Obama’s support amongst Independents from early in the cycle to now. Not very promising.

There was all this talk about Obama being a map changer. [If I wanted to increase traffic to the high traffic blogs who wanted to throw the dice on Obama because he would most likely win bigger than Hillary, I would name names. But I don’t want to give them the time they definitely do not deserve. You are all free to look up some of their statements.] But what are we seeing now? Obama losing most of those Republican counties. We are seeing his nearly 2-to-1 lead amongst Independents early in the cycle vanishing.

Now that it’s pretty clear that Obama’s “map changer” argument is going down the toilet, what is his justification? Experience? Judgment? His awesome awesomeness? I’m particularly interested in someone like BTD at TalkLeft answer that question rather than playing an underhanded WWTSBQ v 2.0 game. I’d rather BTD talk about reasons why Obama should be the nominee than him just assuming he’ll be the nominee, especially in light of the fact that Hillary is likely to receive more votes than any other candidate. It’s coming down to Super-Ds no matter what. They can change their mind, but BTD doesn’t seem concerned with making a positive justification for Obama’s candidacy. Assuming someone will be the nominee isn’t a reason to support someone, especially if your main reason for supporting Obama has been because he’s “more electable”.

Remember 1860?

2008-05-15T14:48:41-04:00

Few people I know, actually do. A piss-poor description is at Wikipedia. Since it’s the most recent thing I’ve read, I’d recommend Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Had I been around in the 1850s, I’d have been a Whig with a keen eye on the new Republican Party. If I had a pony in the 1860 GOP race, I will say, probably to the amazement of the historically ignorant, that I would have been a Seward booster (can’t vouch for that link, but read some books, too!). Yeah, Lincoln was good, but I think Seward would have been better—experience and a strong ideological base are important, IMO, not to mention a kick-ass wife like Fanny.

Anywho, before I start getting all KidOakland on ya’ll with my fondness of Seward, a look at the 1860 GOP convention is worthwhile. Why? Well, because the person (Seward) with the most votes on the first ballot didn’t end up winning the nomination. Further, he wasn’t even the VP (of course SoS was probably more important, but we won’t go there now). Lincoln won after a few ballots because he had alienated the fewest people. Yup, all this grandiose talk about Lincoln the transformational figure—he was, during his presidency—ignores the fact that he was not the front runner or the person with the most initial votes. But you know what? The guy won the nomination and the presidency, despite that.

How is this relevant? Well, I see Hillary as the Seward of the nomination who ended up in Lincoln’s position. She’s the most qualified and probably the person who would be the best president (the Seward part). But given the screwed up nature of the caucuses and delegate allocation system, she’s going into the convention behind (Super-Ds don’t count until they cast their votes). She can still win the nomination and is following through on making her case: winning the important states and tying or winning the popular vote, her same strategy since February. Further, she can win the presidency despite a contentious convention battle. In fact, Hillary’s base has expanded since February (she’s now winning white men and increasing her share among Independents), while Obama has lost ground in most demographics (exception being the near complete support of African Americans).

History is our friend if we chose to take time to reexamine it. You don’t need to have the most delegate votes going into the convention to win the nomination or the presidency. Hillary can win the nomination and the presidency. If we think things are bad now (e.g. Bush/McCain/Iraq/economy), in 1860 the country was on the verge of secession. Though the 1860 GOP convention was contested and the “favorite” didn’t even make the VP spot, the eventual GOP nominee was still able to win. All this gloom and doom talk about what will happen if Obama isn’t the nominee is silly.

WWTSBQ version 2.0

2008-05-08T14:47:51-04:00

It appears there are a couple new and upgraded versions of WWTSBQ making the rounds these days.

The first, is the “I’m [or He] The Man” narrative typified by this:

Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The advantages of this version over the previous version is that it ignores Hillary Clinton altogether. We should call this the TSBL (That Stupid Bitch Lost) narrative.

There is a slight variation of TSBL making the rounds as well called the TSBLLCTN: TSBL, Let’s Come Together Now, typified by comments like these:

…what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?

Again, no need to talk about Hillary Clinton or them pesky voters. You know, the ones (TX, OH, RI, VT, WY, MS, PA, IN, NC) who have combined to give Hillary about a quarter of a million more votes than Obama over the last two months. (Go figure it out yourself, I did it.) It doesn’t matter that over the last two months, Hillary has gained over 225,000 votes than Obama. TSBL.

The third variety comes from Hillary supporters who lament that she didn’t win states that she did win or states that, demographically, only offer her at best 65% of the vote since the other 35% is no longer on the table for any candidate besides Obama. I don’t have a proposed name for that yet.