2010 Election

This particular election is looking downright disturbing at the moment. Even if fringe candidates like Sharron Angle, Ken Buck or worse yet Christine O'Donnell (just to name a few of the more extreme candidates for Senate – the House has even more of these types) don't actually win, the mere idea that they could come close makes me wonder about the basic sense of much of the electorate. That any sizable number of people could swallow some of the outrageous stances taken by some of these people is scary. Of course the campaigns have also featured some very negative campaigning. Both sides have been guilty here; much as I don't want to see Rand Paul win, for example, I don't support attacking him for joining an irreverent club in college (all religions should be open to mockery, including Christianity and Islam, and it certainly shouldn't be necessary to be a Christian to get elected – interestingly enough, Chris Matthews, part of the supposedly "left-wing" media, apparently asked Paul's opponent, Conway, some pointed questions to that effect). But for all the faults of the Democrats, given the attitude the Republicans have been displaying recently (particularly the rabid right-wingers), it'll be a disaster for the US – and, given America's still substantial power and influence, for the world as well – if the latter win control of Congress. [Incidentally, I came across a website that fact-checks statements by politicians in both major parties – though whether a particular statement is true is one thing; whether it's really important is another.]

Unfortunately there's little I can do about any of this now. All I can do is fill out my own ballot as best I can. Here again it's mostly a lost cause, as I'm stuck with voting in Texas, which is even more hopelessly conservative than most other states (though there are a few that are worse). I hope that may change in the future, but for at least the next few elections, the Republicans can be expected to dominate statewide races; in fact if the Democrats can avoid a sweep they'll have done well. Even my congressional district has been gerrymandered to be solidly Republican (at least in some other areas of Texas, Democrats can get elected to Congress or the state legislature). Nevertheless, I will vote just to show that not everyone is enamored of the usual conservative rhetoric that dominates the state. The following are my views of the major races on my ballot following a bit of research into the candidates and their views. I probably won't vote on all the local races since I don't have time to do enough research and I'm not familiar enough with local issues (better not to vote on particular race if you know nothing at all about the candidates than to vote in a blind partisan manner). But I believe that it's important that people make an effort to vote, including doing the necessary homework, even if their candidates don't have a chance of winning. Even casting a blank ballot (essentially voting "none of the above") is better than not voting at all.


US House of Representatives, District 32
Grier Raggio (D)
The Libertarian candidate, Myers, actually is fairly sensible on many points, but like all libertarians, he has an excessive faith in the free market and its ability to solve problems, so while his positions on drugs and subsidies to oil and coal companies are spot on, his position on health care, for instance, is completely backward. Raggio, the Democratic candidate, has good (though not always very detailed) positions on pretty much all the issues they were asked about (including health care, alternative energy, carbon emissions and immigration). Though he's less bold and forthright than Myers on some issues, overall his views accord best with my own. The incumbent, Sessions, on the other hand, has pretty much nothing going for him at all. So Raggio gets my vote.

Texas Governor
Bill White (D)
Deb Shafto (Grn)
Deb Shafto, the Green candidate, is in many ways the best. Certainly I like what she has to say on the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire about renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the little she had space to say about education sounded good to, except maybe the part about longer school days. Her much longer responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire show that she's a serious candidate. I agree with the majority of her stances, including on the environment, energy, taxes, and the problems with the death penalty, so on the issues she comes out on top. On the other hand, Bill White, the Democrat, seems okay on most issues, and more importantly, he has a real chance to beat the incumbent Perry, who is hopelessly right-wing. So while I'd really like to vote for Shafto, I may end up going with White just in order to beat Perry. But certainly I'd urge anyone who for whatever reason didn't like White to give Shafto their vote.
Additional note: I looked up some accounts of the debate between the candidates, which Perry refused to attend (obviously he doesn't think the voters need to hear from him or get a chance to make any comparisons). Shafto's responses were the ones I agreed with most; White seemed overly cautious and unwilling to commit himself (he declined to rate Obama's performance, for example). The Libertarian, Glass, had some good one-liners, but she also showed that she's a extreme right-wing T bagger-type Libertarian, rather than the standard Libertarians who are at least anti-war and pro-legalization (of cannabis). She did say she'd sign a bill legalizing medical marijuana but didn't seem enthusiastic about it, while she's apparently rabidly anti-immigrant and absurdly said Obama was the "worst president ever". She also said Ayn Rand is her favorite philosopher. An obvious nut. But between Shafto and White, it's harder to decide than ever. If Perry weren't so terrible, I'd feel less hesitation about not voting for the candidate who has a chance to beat him. On the other hand, I also like the idea of voting for a candidate I really agree with on a lot of things, plus supporting a decent liberal third party (which the Libertarians clearly aren't). Still a toss up.

Texas Lieutenant Governor
Linda Chavez-Thompson (D)
Once again, the choice is between the Green candidate and the Democratic candidate. In this race it theoretically should be easier to choose the Green, Gonzales, as I have no particular reason to expect that the race will be as close as it will be for governor (most polls focus only on the governor's race, but one analysis I found said the incumbent Republican is heavily favored in this race). But judging from her responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Chavez-Thompson is a strong candidate, while Gonzales seems to be the weakest of the Green candidates for statewide office. It doesn't help that his writing is poor. So with some reluctance (as a general principle, I'd really like to be able to vote for more Green candidates), I think I'll probably have to go with Chavez-Thompson in this race.

Texas Attorney General
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (D)
The Democrat, Radnofsky, gives decent responses on most issues, and while the Libertarian seems slightly better than the Republican incumbent, he's still a Libertarian (and his response to the Dallas Morning News question on EPA standards is typical Libertarian fringe nuttiness – whereas Radnofsky's response is excellent). So I definitely plan to vote Radnofsky in this race.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Edward Lindsay (Grn)
Since there's no Democrat in this race, I'll certainly vote for Lindsay, the Green. He doesn't talk much about the environment (of course the office he's running for doesn't really deal with environmental issues directly) but he seems okay (and when asked why he's running as a Green, he states that their platform, including promotion of a clean environment, accords with his philosophy), and perhaps more importantly, in the absence of a Democratic candidate, he's the Greens' best chance at getting 5% of the vote in a statewide race. If he does get that much, the Greens will have automatic ballot access in the next state election, rather than having to go through the petition process. As Texans (and Americans) need a good third party option in the future, I would urge all sensible Texas voters to give Lindsay their votes.

Texas Commissioner of General Land Office
Hector Uribe (D)
Uribe, the Democratic candidate, has some good things to say on land use, renewable energy, and conservation, so he gets my vote.

Texas Commissioner of Agriculture
Hank Gilbert (D)
Gilbert's emphasis on the importance of climate change is enough to win my support. The Libertarian seems somewhat better than the Republican incumbent (and I like his support for hemp cultivation), but not good enough to take a chance on.

Texas Railroad Commissioner
Jeff Weems (D)
Art Browning (Grn)
This one is another difficult choice. Again, all other things being equal, I'd prefer to vote for the Green candidate, as I'd like to see the Green party become a real force in US politics. Browning, the Green candidate, seems alright from his responses to the brief Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire and the information on the Texas Green Party website. Unfortunately, he didn't respond to the more extensive Dallas Morning News questionnaire, so I still don't know a lot about his views. Weems, the Democratic candidate, seems to know his stuff. His statement that he would "be outspoken in advocating an expansion of wind and solar power" and his strong statement on global warming are points in his favor. Also, he seems to have a good chance of winning (perhaps even a better one than White has). The Dallas Morning News was enthusiastic in their endorsement of him (not that I agree with them on all or even many of their endorsements), and his opponent is not an incumbent, the incumbent having lost in the primary. So at the moment I'm leaning toward Weems, though it's a tough call.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 3
Jim Sharp (D)
Even aside from the need to bring a little balance to a court that is all Republican, judging from his responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Sharp, the Democrat (and a sitting Appeals Court judge), seems like a very solid candidate, so he gets my vote.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 5
Bill Moody (D)
The situation in this race is almost identical to the Place 3 race, except that the Democrat, Moody, is a district court judge; in any event, he looks like the best choice.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 9
Blake Bailey (D)
While the responses given by Bailey, the Democratic candidate in this race (and an attorney), are a little more abbreviated and thus slightly less convincing than those of the other Democrats running for Supreme Court, there's nothing particularly objectionable in his views. The Republican incumbent, on the other hand, when asked to name a judge she admires, named Antonin Scalia. So it's Bailey in this race.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 2 & Pl. 5
These races have no Democratic (or Green) candidates, so the choice is between Libertarians and Republicans. I am generally wary of Libertarians, as some of them are simply far right "t bag" types, like their candidate for Texas governor or worse yet the Koch brothers. However, some of them emphasize the civil libery aspect of Libertarianism, and so are more palatable than most Republicans. These two strike me as more this type. Both of them have problems with the death penalty, and the one in the Pl. 5 race also makes a strong statement on the importance of mercy (though he does make some typical Libertarian comments about big government as well). The Republican candidates didn't reply to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, and the one running in Pl. 2 didn't even bother with the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire. So if I vote at all in these races, it'll be for the Libertarians.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 6
In this case there is a Democratic candidate, and the Libertarian didn't respond to either of the questionnaires, so he's out. The Democrat doesn't really give me all that much to go on as he – and the Republican as well – decline to answer the death penalty question on the (admittedly reasonable) grounds that they may hear death penalty questions, and neither acknowledges that the court is particularly "tough on crime" (though the Republican is more defensive about it). Still, the Democrat's remarks on mercy are good (the Republican's are okay but more vague) and his reasons for running as a Democrat sound good. I haven't decided if I'll vote on this one, but if I do it'll be for the Democrat.

State Board of Education, Dist. 12
This race is also between a Libertarian and a Republican. Both are somewhat critical of the current board. Neither is quite specific enough in their criticism to show exactly where they stand on some of the current board's more idiotic moves, though the Libertarian makes the point that the board should not try to casually overrule the work of educators and experts. The Republican does suggest that maybe the board should be made up of educators, which is not unreasonable. He is also less fond of the idea of charter schools (the Libertarian is a supporter), making the reasonable argument that it would make more sense to improve the regular public schools (though as charter schools do have some virtues, I have mixed feelings on this issue myself). So while this is an important race, I may simply abstain on this one, though I might go with the Libertarian.

Texas House, District 115
Not much of a choice here. No Democrats (or Greens) running, so we're left with a Libertarian and the Republican incumbent. The incumbent sounds pretty bad, as he supports Arizona's absurd immigration law and supports Texas' lax air pollution standards over the EPA's more stringent standards. The Libertarian didn't respond to the Dallas Morning News candidate questionnaire, so he's an unknown (though if he's a typical Libertarian, he'll be great on a few issues and nutty on a lot of others). Still, it's tempting to vote for him just as a vote against the incumbent.

These are all the races I'm likely to vote on, except for a few local referendums (basically alcohol sales should be legal, but city park land shouldn't be sold unless there are assurances it won't be turned into just another housing or shopping development). Frankly I'll be happy if even one or two of the people I vote for actually wins, but in any case I will have done my civic duty.

Gliese 581 g: A potentially habitable planet

One interesting news item at the end of last month was the announcement of the discovery of a planet in the habitable zone of a star other than the Sun. This was exciting news for many reasons, though not too surprisingly a lot of journalists (and even the discoverers themselves) went a little overboard in their descriptions of what had actually been found, and even when they didn't, many readers (judging from comments some made on the articles) weren't quite able to grasp all the details. Many other people (particularly those who didn't do more than glance at the articles and those who only saw the news mentioned on TV) no doubt ended up with a completely mistaken understanding of what had been found. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there are some people who think the astronomers actually found alien life or even an alien civilization. This is far from the case, though the discovery is an important milestone in the search for alien life nonetheless.

Gliese 581 is a red dwarf star located about 20 light years from our solar system. As interstellar distances go, this is not very far; the closest star other than the Sun is 4.2 light years away, while the center of the galaxy is about 25,000 light years away. In fact most of the stars that we can see in the sky without any optical aids are farther away than Gliese 581. We can't see Gliese 581 without a telescope, however, since, like all red dwarfs, it is very faint and cool (the closest star other than the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is also too faint to be seen by the naked eye).

In 2005, a planet was discovered around Gliese 581, and since then five more planets have been found, including this latest one, giving it the third most known planets of any star (the Sun being first). What makes this latest planet, designated Gliese 581 g, special is the fact that it orbits in the middle of the star's habitable zone. This refers to the distance from the star at which a planet might be expected to have surface temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius but below 100 degrees Celsius, and thus could potentially have liquid water on its surface. The habitable zone varies for each star, being closer in for small, cool stars like Gliese 581 than for stars like the Sun. Gliese 581 g orbits at a distance of 0.146 AU from Gliese 581. One AU (Astronomical Unit) is equal to the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, and so 0.146 AU is a distance of about 22 million kilometers. It takes Gilese 581 g only 37 days to orbit its star, compared with a little over 365 days for Earth and 88 days for Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun. Since it is so close to its star, one might think that it would be inside the habitable zone, making it too hot to support life, as Mercury and Venus (though only barely in the latter's case) are in our Solar System. But as noted, the habitable zone for Gliese 581 is much closer to the star than ours is to the Sun, since it is much cooler. In fact, another planet in the same system, Gliese 581 d, is 0.218 AU from the star and orbits in 67 days, still much less than Mercury, and yet is believed to be on the outer edge of the habitable zone (like Mars in our Solar System).

Though hundreds of planets have been discovered outside our solar system, only one previous discovery was clearly in the habitable zone of its star, the planet 55 Caceri f. However, this planet is a gas giant similar to Neptune or Saturn in our Solar System, and so as it is not thought to have a solid surface, it couldn't have liquid water or Earth-like life (on the other hand, if it has a large enough moon, the latter could have liquid water and life). Gliese 581 g is believed to be a “super-Earth”, a large rocky planet with a mass of 3 to 4 times that of Earth and a diameter of up to twice Earth's. So it is the first Earth-like planet that is situated right in the middle of its star's habitable zone (other than the Earth itself), and that's what makes the discovery exciting.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that there is a great deal that we don't know about this planet. Though it is in the habitable zone, we don't actually know that it even has water in any form, nor do we know if it has an atmosphere. This latter point is important, as an atmosphere is necessary to retain heat and bring the planet's surface temperature above the freezing point of water. This is also the case on Earth, as without the greenhouse effect caused by our atmosphere the planet would be permanently frozen. Given Gliese 581 g's large mass in comparison to Earth it seems probable that it should have an atmosphere, possible one thicker than Earth's, but we don't know this for certain.

Also worth noting is Gliese 581 g's rotation period. Since it is relatively close to its star, it is probably tidally locked, like the Moon is with respect to Earth, so that its day is equal to its year in length and one side of the planet is constantly turned towards the star (and the other side is always turned away). This means that one side of the planet would be very hot and the other side very cold, though an atmosphere (if there is one) would ameliorate this to some extent. So it would actually be the band around the planet on the edge between the day and night sides (the “twilight zone”, so to speak) that would have the greatest potential for life. On a planet this size, this would still be a fairly large area, but it's not quite the same as an entire planet that is habitable. (Though it has also occurred to me to wonder if the tidal lock might not be more like that of Mercury, which rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions about the sun, rather than a 1:1 lock; if so, the temperature extremes would be somewhat less. But perhaps the tides in this case make a 1:1 lock certain – I don't know the physics and math well enough to check this myself).

I should also point out that we haven't actually seen this planet, or for that matter the vast majority of other 500 or so known extrasolar planets. There are no pictures of it, even pictures showing it as a tiny dot. This is because it is so dim compared to its parent star that the light from the latter makes the planet invisible, even to our best telescopes. Only very large planets which orbit at a significant distance from their stars and yet are hot (and so emit a lot of infrared radiation) can actually be imaged directly. So how do we know the planet exists? As a planet orbits a star, its gravity tugs on the star, causing it to move towards or away from us. This causes a slight shift in the light of the star (due to the Doppler effect). Analysis of these shifts in the star's light, tiny though they are, allows astronomers to detect planets and even determine certain of their characteristics (such as mass, distance, and period of revolution) fairly precisely. Of course this takes repeated observations so that there is sufficient data. In fact recently another group of astronomers were unable to detect Gliese 581 g in their own analysis of the data, though apparently they only used one of the data sets that the discoverers use, and the latter have stated that both data sets are necessary to detect the planet with any reliability. But while we can still say the planet probably exists, this is a reminder of how little we actually know about it.

Of course given all the above caveats, it should be clear that we don't really know for certain that Gliese 581 g is habitable, even though it is in the habitable zone, much less whether it actually has life. It has the greatest potential for having some type of life of any planet we've discovered outside the Solar System – that's what everyone is excited about – but it doesn't necessarily have any life, let alone intelligent life (and even if it is habitable for life "as we know it", it might not be habitable for us -- at least without a lot of work). In fact, there are several places in our own Solar System other than Earth which are as likely to have life based on what we know now (namely Mars and Europa), though if we were able to confirm that Gliese 581 g had water and an atmosphere it would have to be considered a more likely candidate, at least for larger life forms (it's highly unlikely that Mars has any life larger than microbes, if that, and while Europa might have larger life forms, we know too little about how life gets started and evolves to be confident of this, since on Europa any life would have to have formed under the ice that covers the moon – unlike on a watery Gliese 581 g, where it could live on the surface).

Unfortunately it will be some time before we know anything more about Gliese 581 g, other than confirming its existence. To actually detect and analyze the planet's atmosphere, we would need better telescopes, such as the proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder. Unfortunately, this has so far been a victim of insufficient funding for NASA (yet another example of why NASA should be getting more money, as I have argued before). But another reason Gliese 581 g is significant is simply that it shows there are Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of stars other than the Sun, and so we can probably expect to find more. After all, there are more than a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and even within the relatively close range of 100 light years there are thousands (though such stars are only close in a relative sense; none of our current spacecraft can travel even a few light years in less than a few centuries). Many of these stars resemble the Sun much more closely than Gliese 581, which as noted above is relatively small, faint and cool, and so any planets they have in the habitable zone would not have the tidal locking problem. Even if Gliese 581 g doesn't have life, or if it only has very simple life, we now have to consider it more likely that there is a planet out there somewhere with more, and that we will find it eventually.

A Concise Manifesto for the "Tea" Party and Other Right-thinking People

Looking again at my previous manifesto, I realized it has a problem: too many words. It might be useful as a reference for leaders of our movement when they want to make speeches, but for most of our ground troops (and you are the ones who count; after all, we are a grassroots movement, no matter how many billionaires and big corporations secretly help fund us), it is unnecessary. To follow it all would require reading and something approaching thought. Reading and thinking is for liberal losers. Therefore, we present our concise manifesto, containing all the ideas most of us will ever need (and just about all the ideas that we can keep in our heads anyway).

Government=bad
Corporations/capitalism=good
Deficits=bad
Taxes=bad
Health care reform=socialism=evil
Health insurance companies=selfless
Social programs=bad
Defense spending=good
Global warming=hoax
Fossil fuel consumption=good
Alternative energy=pointless
Immigrants=bad
Gay marriage=evil
Constitution=flawless
Founding Fathers=godlike
Barack Obama=communist/fascist/Islamic/godless/un-American