You're Violating My Free Speech!

Oy vey, where to begin. So apparently some outside group invited Heather McDonald to speak at the Athenaeum at CMC. Heather McDonald massages a lot of crime statistics to come to the racially motivated conclusion that somehow black people just commit more crime, and that's why they end up in jail. Students got pissed, blocked her access to the Ath, so she gave her speech from a different room and it was broadcast on Youtube. You can imagine how that went with conservatives, who got worked up into a tizzy about free speech (forgetting that since the government didn't censor her, her free speech wasn't violated. Their grasp on the Constitution is tenuous, at best). Now, you may be thinking, "Rachel, how the fuck did this come across your radar?" Well, the free speech brigade in the Pomona College Alumni Facebook group had their panties in a twist, and CLEARLY needed to talk about how in their day this never would have happened, liberal snowflakes, safe spaces, cry babies, etc. They got called out for racist behavior, because, well, they were being racist. That did not sit well with them, because apparently you can't be racist unless you're literally in the KKK and burning crosses (unless those crosses are art pieces that you stole from Pomona students and just burnt for fun, you didn't know what it meant, honest! You're just an uneducated engineer from Harvey Mudd! Hey-oh! Look at me, insulting ALL the Claremont Colleges here). One of the alums got real mad because he got called a racist, so he claims he called the LA County District Attorney's office, and claims that they are going to investigate criminal charges. Here is how I imagine that conversation going (much of the dialogue is paraphrased from his comments):

LA County District Attorney's Office:  Hello, LA County District Attorney's Office, how can I help you?
Jake*:  There is a free speech violation going on at CMC!
DA:  Can you elaborate?
Jake:  Some protestor's protested!
DA:  Sir, that's not a violation of free speech.
Jake:  No, you don't understand, then I was called...a RACIST!!!!
DA:...
Jake:  Can you believe it?  And then some uppity bitch called me a bro!  A BRO!!!!  That's the real hate speech.
DA:  Sir, that's not hate speech.
Jake:  But I looked it up on Wikipedia!
DA, under her breath:  Please, for the love of God, make this phone call stop...
DA, aloud:  Sir, that's really not hate speech.
Jake:  But what about when they called me a racist?  I supported Black Lives Matter, for God's sake!
DA:  Support...ed?
Jake:  Well, then they interrupted St. Bernie, and so I don't support them anymore.  They're a bunch of thugs, just like the kids that shut down this talk.
DA:  So, your support of the movement was predicated on how they treated an old white guy?
Jake:  I don't know what predicated means, but it sounds like you're calling me a racist!
DA:  If the shoe fits...
Jake:  I need to speak to your supervisor!  I'm going to get you fired.  And if you're DACAmented, I'm not going to call ICE, but I'm still going to threaten to do so!
DA:  I'm hanging up now.  Goodbye.

Jake, later:  They're totally looking into this as a criminal matter.

FIN

There's so much more, but I couldn't get it all in.

*Name not changed, because Jake's an asshole.  Fuck Jake.

Astronomy Spam!

When you're an astronomer, sometimes people send you the most delightful spam. This was sent to me, my advisor, and two co-authors (weirdly, not the other four co-authors on the paper, though). This is copy/pasted directly from the e-mail. Enjoy!

The God's Code of Nature.

=.

§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H -- > . . .
§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon / Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Test and Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
By the “theory” we were educated:
“ if we cannot observe physical phenomenon then it doesn't exist.
We can ignore this phenomenon. “
Today the situation is : there are two fundamental constants in nature:

T=0K and constant speed of photon: c-1.
=.
We cannot reach constant speed of photon c=1 but photon can
and ( thanks to Michelson ) it was observed and therefore it was accepted.

We cannot reach T=0K, we cannot straight observe phenomena in T=0K.
Any instrument does not fit. But can this mean that this continuum is abstract ?
The “vacuum fluctuations / transformations” show that T=0K isn’t abstraction
and “virtual particles” exist there and they can change situation for observation.

The “virtual particles” only seems to us abstractive.

As Niels Bohr wrote:

“ Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded

as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you,
you haven't understood it yet.”

One fundamental constant ( c-1) after many years of doubt was adopted.
Sooner or later another fundamental constant of Nature: T=0K would be

adopted too.
=======..

We don't know what vacuum and quantum of light are and therefore

is possible to say: the secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden

in " The Quantum theory of Vacuum and Quantum of Light ".

==..

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

===…

BU Astronomy has Lady Problem

There hasn't been a single woman graduate student entering the astronomy department at BU since the fall of 2011. That class had one woman. She left after the first year to go be with her boyfriend. My class entered in the fall of 2010; there were 9 women. Of these nine women, one has left by choice, and four others have been asked to leave. As with UCI, the number of women that are asked to leave is disproportionate. A higher percentage of women leave than men (in my informal tally). Why is that? I don't believe that it's because the women aren't smart enough to get through. There is something systemic going through the department. And now apparently they are raising the minimum physics GRE score to 50%. The argument is that there is a correlation between GRE scores and success in classes, comprehensive exams, and research. But it is fairly well established that standardized tests are biased towards men, and it's a correlation, not exact. I would not have gotten in had that been the cutoff when I applied. However, I have the highest GPA that the BU astronomy department has seen in 15 years. 15 years! I passed the comps on the first try. I have a published paper, and a second one in the docket. If the cutoff had been in place, BU would have missed out on an excellent student. After a rocky start at UCI, I have excelled at BU. I wish they would be able to see past the test scores, etc. and not be so rigid about this. This policy will continue the trend of not having any women in the department. The few that do get in notice that there aren't very many of us. I'm not going to lie if I get asked about it. This is bullshit and it cannot continue. Either BU will have to change its policies, or they can deal with the consequences.

It concerns me that I know lawyers that don't seem to understand the Constitution. Well, most people don't seem to understand it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. As long as the government isn't infringing upon your speech, anyone else is free to tell you you're being an asshole. They're even free to fire you.

Love Is...

Not supposed to be hard. This is not to say that it doesn't take effort to maintain a relationship, but the back and forth, will-they/won't they of movies doesn't work in real life. Rarely do you break up with someone multiple times and still have that person be a good match for you. Generally, you break up with someone for a good reason, and you should never look back. Good relationships should make you the best person you can be, and they should elevate you. They shouldn't make you miserable or unhappy.

I Like Pink. I Like Princesses. I'm an Astrophysicist.

Deal with it.

This video has been getting lots of shares around Facebook, which is not surprising, given that I know a lot of ladies in science:

While I don't have problems with the product, I've been getting more and more prickly about the presentation. See, every time people try to talk up how awesome science is, they have a tendency to put down things like "pink" and "princesses." It makes things that are traditionally "feminine" into something that's bad, like there's something wrong with it. That the ideal state is "masculine." And that's pretty bad, too. And as someone who likes those things, it makes me feel like I'm not a "real" scientist.

I've always been traditionally "girly" and "prissy." As a baby, my mom would try to get me to play in the dirt. I didn't want to get dirty. When I had the ability to pick out my own clothing, it was strictly pink and skirts and dresses until 2nd grade, when I occasionally started to wear stirrup pants and bike shorts under giant, baggy t-shirts(it was the early 1990s; please don't mock my sartorial choices). I refused to wear jeans until I was 12 or 13. When people asked me my favorite color, I would say "Pink, blue is for boys." (I eventually grew out of that, and I wasn't getting that attitude at home, so clearly, there was some socialization going on.)

When it came to toys, maybe choices were less gendered than they are now, but when I was very young (pre-school age) all of the toys my parents had for me were gender-neutral. Legos, train sets, giant colored blocks, this set that you made towers with and then dropped marbles down the track (my mom LOOOOVED the noise that made!). I concede that it is entirely possible that my parents actively avoided the gendered toys, but I have to believe these items still exist for children. There were also toys like Lincoln logs and tesselation blocks, which I wanted so badly but never got. I really liked these toys, but I also really liked playing dress-up in my sparkliest, most princess-y outfits. My mom wouldn't buy me Barbie dolls, although family members did, so they weren't verboten. As I got older, I tended towards these more feminine toys. I had a lot of barbies and barbie accessories (including Disney princesses!), American Girl dolls, and one of my favorite games was Pretty Pretty Princesess.

Despite all these gendered toys that I preferred as I got older, I still managed to do science. We had elementary school science fairs, and my projects in 5th and 6th grade were pretty kick-ass. Ask me about my 6th grade project on the fat content in ice cream. I was doing extremely sophisticated sampling for a 6th grader. Even though I didn't play with "science" toys, my parents still encouraged me to keep up my interest in the subject, while simultaneously not keeping me from the more "girly" things that I enjoyed. I think that's what's missing from the discussion. Rather than discouraging girls from liking pink and princesses, we should let them know that it's ok to simultaneously like math and science. This requires parental guidance, but I'm guessing that the people who are buying their kids educational toys and who are interested in these issues are able to put that kind of effort in their parenting. There's really no need to put one thing down to build something else up. Just keep an open conversation with your kids about these issues, and they'll turn out fine. And if it turns out they like princesses AND science (or even just princesses), they'll know that there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Fuck Everything

Fuck Republicans. Fuck the Tea Party. Fuck rape culture. Fuck victim blaming. Fuck the patriarchy. Fuck misogyny. Fuck classism. Fuck racism. Fuck sexism. Fuck all of the other "isms." Fuck the little asshole football players in Steubenville and Maryville who get away with rape because they're local Gods. Fuck not taking "no" for an answer. Fuck the fact that the government shutdown is costing the people I care about their livelihood. And it's costing me mine.

I Don't Care About Your Food "Sensitivities"

Note: If you have food allergies that can cause death, this does not apply to you. This does not apply to you if you've gone to the doctor and had allergy tests and you have a real food allergy. I understand that those are nothing to fuck around with. This is for the morons that claim they have some sort of "sensitivity" that has no basis in reality.

Here's the thing--your food issues are just not that interesting to me, so stop posting about them on Facebook (and yes, I could just filter things, but this is my blog and I'll rant if I want to). I find that people with genuine allergies don't spend all that much time telling people about them. If it's germane, they'll bring it up, but they don't spend all their time on Facebook detailing the effects of their "sensitivities" on their bodies. If you're doing it at home, it's just as likely that the placebo effect is taking place. You think you'll feel better if you cut out gluten, and then lo and behold, you do! You must be allergic to gluten! And now you're going to tell EVERYONE about how gluten is the devil and if only they'd stop eating it they'd feel SOOOOOOO much better. Yeah...I think you're full of shit.

It's also insufferably boring. Like, don't you have ANYTHING else to talk about? Weather? Politics? No, we can only discuss you're crippling wheat allergy that gives you vague symptoms. You feel "fatigued." I'm so sure that's the gluten. Try getting more sleep and then get back to me. It causes "inflammation." What the fuck does that mean? No seriously, how can you tell if you're "inflammed?"

In conclusion, I don't give a fuck about your food issues. If you've cooked something interesting, by all means let Facebook know. I love cooking! I'd love to see what you made! But I don't care about how it affects your bowels, your knees, or your overall health. You're probably just making that up.

Proposition 37

As a scientist and a foodie, I am happy Proposition 37 failed. While I understand that the campaign against it was funded by Monsanto (a company with policies I would consider questionable, at best), it was not a good proposition. The argument for it was funded by an anti-vaccine nut, and the parallels are obvious. Study after study has shown that GMO foods are no different than "regular" food (and I put regular in quotes for a reason), however the argument says that just because we say something's safe now doesn't mean it's actually safe. Scientists don't speak in absolutes, which is frustrating to the public and leaves room for them to grab on and present a counterargument.

Now, what exactly is the difference between GMO food and what we consider "regular" food? a few dozen years. Much of the food we eat has been genetically modified in some way or another--that's what cross-breeding is. Why is your tomato uniformly red, rather than tasty? They were bred that way. Tomato breeders found that certain tomatoes turned red more uniformly, and genetically selected those. Those tomatoes have a genetic mutation that we've selected for. We also do the same thing with pest-resitant crops. In the early days of agriculture, our ancestors would notice that some crops just weren't tasty to bugs, and select for those. How is that different than finding a gene that makes our plants taste icky to bugs and inserting it straight in the DNA? It's the same process, just quicker. I'd rather that than ingest questionable amounts of chemical pesticides.

That's my scientific reasoning, but I'm also interested in food and the quality of my food, so I do understand why people are against Monsanto. Monoculture is highly damaging to the environment, and the way our food is treated is terrible. Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet for everyone to eat organically and locally. And while you can argue about overpopulation and how the best way to handle it is, the reality is that right now we have 7 billion people to feed.

Mark Bittman and Michael Pollan argue that if only people knew what they eating and how bad it was for them they would shop solely at the farmer's market, eat only locally sourced, organic food, and spend time crafting home-cooked meals for the whole family to eat together. This is just not realistic for many people. It's hard for me, and I have the luxury of money and time. My farmer's market is on Thursday afternoon until sundown, and only runs from June until October. I have to plan ahead and leave work earlier than usual. In the summer, that's fine, since the sun sets late here in Boston. Come October, it's a no-go. For a person with a desk job, that might not work. And then there are the food deserts. Some people don't even have a reasonable grocery store, much less a farmer's market. Some people work two jobs and don't have time to cook. Yes, it might be cheaper in the long run to make home-cooked meals, but you don't account for the time it takes. That's time someone could be getting paid.

We need to seriously think about how we use our resources in the United States. If you really want to fight Monsanto, we need to entirely overhaul agribusiness. If we stop subsidizing corn and soy, food prices across the board will go up. The price of food in other countries is significantly higher in other countries than it is in the US, which I think many people here are unwilling to pay. Yes, let's educate people about food, but let's also make it easier for people to make good choices. Let's address the growing inequality between the rich and the poor so that everyone has the opportunity to eat in a sustainable manner. Let's all eat more vegetables and less meat to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced. We need to change the way we think about how wasteful we are as a country, not just when it comes to food but in regards to everything. Do you need a new car every year? A new iPad? New clothes that you're going to toss after three months because they're no longer "in style"? Addressing these questions is hard, and won't be fixed by slapping a vague label on a can of spaghetti-o's.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject, if you're interested:
GMOs are OK
Why Activists Need to Stop Stoking Scientifically Baseless Fears About GMOs for Political Purposes

So, I fell off the wagon a bit, but I'm back. This week I plan to eat vegetarian all week, except for the remaining pizza that I made yesterday. I thought I was going to make it Wednesday or Thursday, but somehow didn't get around to it until Saturday, so I have two days worth left. It's got one chicken sausage on the whole thing, so I guess half a chicken sausage during the week is better than eating meat every day.

Also, this whole being an adult thing sort of sucks, but that's a post for another day.

Vaccines

I wrote this for facebook, but I thought I'd put it here, too.
I have three main issues with the vaccine "debate."
1. It compromises herd immunity, both delaying vaccines and outright refusing them. As Brokk said above, delaying vaccines leaves children vulnerable for a longer period of time. Some parents don't finish the scheduled course, leaving children open to contracting these diseases, as well as passing them along to others who can't be vaccinated for various health reasons.

2. It's based on faulty science. This is why I don't think it's unfair to lump delayed vaccine and anti-vaccine people into the same category. Additionally, delayed vaccination is a way for anti-vaccine people to move the goal posts. Jenny McCarthy originally started with the vaccine/autism link. When that was disproved, she went to delayed vaccination. The idea that babies' immune systems are overloaded with antigens is false. From the CDC: "From the time they are born, babies are exposed to thousands of germs and other antigens in the environment and their immune systems are readily able to respond to these large numbers of antigenic stimuli.  An infant’s immune system is more than ready to respond to the very small number of antigens in vaccines."
Many people don't want to vaccinate because of a gut feeling, or Andrew Wakefield's report on the connection between autism and vaccines (which he completely falsified), or they don't want to see their special snowflake child suffer from the pain of a shot the kid won't even remember, or vaccines aren't natural and being exposed to the actual disease provides better immunity. That would be like someone coming up to me and saying, "I know evidence falls pretty squarely in line with the big bang theory, but I don't believe it." Note this is not the same as going to the doctor and saying, I have these symptoms, I think they might be associated with xyz. I have not had issues with poor medical care and misdiagnosis, so it's hard for me to speak to that, but it's not the same thing. Discussion is fine, blatant disregard for science is where I draw the line.

3. There is an incredible amount of privilege inherent in even having a discussion about whether or not to vaccinate. The reason that we don't have diseases like polio in the US is because of concerted vaccination efforts. To not vaccinate (or delay vaccination) because everyone else is vaccinated is selfish and eventually destroys herd immunity. Diseases like whooping cough are on the rise because of this, and the people that get sick and die are not just those who chose not to get vaccinated. The elderly, babies, and individuals who CAN'T get vaccinated because their immune systems are compromised are also affected, and the ones more likely to die. In countries where vaccination isn't prevalent, these diseases still affect the general population, and these diseases are deadly.

I have had more vaccines than most people, since I have done a lot of international travel. I get a flu shot every year. For me, there is nothing to think about. When I take the T, I don't know if the baby next to me has been vaccinated. I don't know if the woman next to me is immunocompromised. Being vaccinated protects them. Being vaccinated protects my elderly grandparents. I hate getting shots. I refuse to get my blood drawn. But since vaccines aren't just for my health, I do it anyway.

Failure!

I utterly failed at reading the New Yorker. I read half a New Yorker, a bunch of trashy magazines, and I finished a book. So I did a lot of reading, but not that much of the New Yorker.

This week, I will eat healthy and exercise 20 min a day (at least). I will also try and get my apartment back on track, cleanliness wise. That's a lot to do.

Week 2 Results

This week I resolved to clean my apartment so that it would be clean when my parents get here tomorrow. I thoroughly cleaned my kitchen and bathroom, including mopping the floor. Normally I just sweep, but I felt a good mopping was in order. I also busted out my generic magic eraser, which did not work as well as advertised. I put some OxyClean on the outside of the microwave door, since that's the only thing that really breaks down grease. I wonder if I could OxyClean my baking sheets? I swept up so much dust that my allergies are terrible, and I vacuumed my carpets. I also shredded about two years worth of credit card bills, hole-punched and put away a bunch of loose recipes, and stacked my New Yorkers into two neat piles. There are still a few things that I just hid instead of putting them away, but I'd say that overall the apartment looks pretty clean.

Since my parents are getting here tomorrow, I don't know if I'll be able to get anything done, but I'll try. Since we're going to the Cape for the weekend, and it will probably rain, instead of spending time online, I will try and read 2-3 New Yorkers.

Resolution, Week 1 Results

In which I update you on my summer project. This week I decided to put away my clothes after wearing them, instead of throwing them on the floor. I would consider this a success. Some items were easier than others to deal with; pants and shoes, specifically. Shirts were more difficult, since they require more folding. I think the key is to put away all my clothes within 24 hours of doing laundry, otherwise I Just have a giant pile of clothes that needs to be put away, so what's a few more? I say within 24 hours, rather than right away, since I air dry some of my clothes, which takes a bit of time. All in all, I think I succeeded in keeping this week's resolution, and hopefully I'll be able to keep up the momentum. I should be able to, because my parents are coming to visit next week, which brings me to

WEEK 2 RESOLUTION:
Clean my apartment before my parents get here. This will include putting away the laundry I just did today and keeping the floor clean, amongst other things. Mainly, getting my living room organized.

Summer Project

I have decided to start a project for the summer. We'll see how it goes. Every Monday, I will write up a weekly resolution, and then Sunday write up how it went. I think weekly resolutions are good, because you can do anything for one week. Hopefully, the habits will continue in subsequent weeks.

This week, I am going to pick up my clothes every night and not toss things on the floor. This means that first I'll have to put my laundry from last week away. Hopefully, I"ll have a clean floor every night when I go to bed.

Ugh.

I feel misanthropic and hate a lot of people right now. I would like to write about it, but a) it's kind of late, and b) I think that I would have to censor myself.

It looks like I picked a good time to get the hell out of Boston, though.

Comps, BU Style

Dear Rachel:

I am very pleased to inform you that you have passed the comprehensive examination, which serves as Part 1 of the PhD qualifying examination. The second half of the PhD qualifying examination is an oral exam based on a research project directed by one of the Astronomy faculty. You should complete the oral exam within about one year from now.

Congratulations on your acheivement, and best wishes for your continued progress toward the PhD degree.

Yours sincerely,
Alan P. Marscher
Professor of Astronomy

Suck it, Irvine.

Conversations I Have With My Parents

Yesterday, I had the following phone conversation with my Dad:

Me: Idle chatter about Mother's Day.
My Dad: Oh, by the way, your grandmother is in the hospital.
Me: Wait, what? Is she ok?
My Dad: She's fine; she'll probably lose a toe.
Me: The whole toe?
My Dad: Maybe just part of it.
Me: ...

Conversations of this type (important information casually dropped into conversation) are fairly common. Here are a few more examples.

This is from when I was in elementary school, or possibly middle school. You can see they go far back.

Me: Hi, Daddy.
My Dad: Hi, Rachel.
Me: Idle Chatter.
Me: When are you coming home?
My Dad: I'm in Denver for the weekend; I'm not coming home.
Me:...

A few from college.

Me: Hello?
My Mom: Hi, Rachel. I just wanted to tell you that your dad had skin cancer removed from his nose just now. He's fine.
Me: ...

Me: Hello?
My Dad: Hi, Rachel. I just called to see how you are.
Me: I'm fine. What are you doing right now?
My Dad: Standing on the side of the road, waiting for the tow truck.
Me: What happened to your car?
My Dad: It got totaled. I'm fine.
Me: ...

Weather

According to the media, the east coast is experience "Snowpocalypse." Again. Some more. I'm not sure how many snowpocalypses an area can have. This is outrageous, and not just because the weather sucks and it's cold, snowy, rainy, icy, slushy, and just generally miserable, all at the same time. Having spent 25+ years in Southern California, I have heard all manners of commentary on the weather. Most of these comments come from people that have not grown up with gorgeous weather, and thus are just not used to it. Comments range from, "There are no seasons" to "It's too hot all the time." Someone once said, "The sky doesn't have enough clouds here." It was September. Many people also comment on how Californians lack drainage or the ability to drive in the rain, and that when it rains they act like the world is coming to an end. At least we don't name our storm systems, though. It's very true that it doesn't rain that much. That's because it's a chaparral, which is the second-driest ecosystem after desert. So rain is rare, and when we do get giant storm systems, things are a little harried. However, this is nothing compared to the hell-hole that is the east coast during stormy weather. Despite New Englanders alleged love of "seasons," winter seems to catch them off guard. I almost didn't get make my flight home because traffic came to a standstill due to a mild dusting of snow. It seemed like everyone was confused by the white stuff falling from the sky. Not that Boston drivers are that great to begin with, but the snow exacerbates their inability to drive. This surprise and despair is continuing well into the winter, with every new storm met with comments about how the east coast is being pounded by winter weather again, and will it ever end? That's the thing about winter. It's cold and snowy, and generally lasts from December to March. If you complain about lack of seasons in one place, you forfeit your right to complain about the presence of seasons in another place. While I understand that this winter is worse than usual, winter itself is not really a surprise. If you want sunshine, move to California.

Name

It really irks me when my close friends spell my name incorrectly, especially when they e-mail me. It's in my freaking e-mail!!! Also, Rachel is the most common spelling. ARG!