Let’s get the obvious out of the way: Vote. Ask your friends and colleagues if they are registered to vote. Tell them that you are voting for Bernie Sanders and why. Be informed so that you can answer their questions.

Beyond that, many of you may be feeling extra inspired to volunteer or simply go the extra mile in your support. After all, campaigns matter. You want to make the most significant concrete impact on the national conversation as possible. Here are 10 ways you can go above and beyond and help your favorite candidate (Bernie Sanders) win the ground game.

1. Ask your neighbors if you can mow their lawn, walk their pets, clean their house, or babysit for $$$. Donate the money to your favorite candidate. (Bernie Sanders) I wouldn’t recommend telling them where the money is going unless you are sure that they are Bernie fans. 😉
2. Sell some of your stuff on Craigslist or eBay, and donate the money to your favorite candidate. (Bernie Sanders) For that matter, sell your blood plasma.
3. Figure out how much money you spend going out for breakfast/lunch/coffee during a typical month. Figure out how much you would save by packing your own food or brewing your own coffee. Do so, and donate the savings to your favorite candidate (Bernie Sanders) at the end of each month.
4. If you have family or friends who are fans of Bernie Sanders, make their holiday/birthday gift a donation to Bernie’s campaign in their name.
5. Make a point to use cash, and collect the spare change that remains at the end of each day. Donate this money to your favorite candidate (Bernie Sanders) at the end of each month.
6. Going out drinking with friends? Tell them about this great new place called “My Living Room” where you’ve got a full cooler full of great drinks you paid less than $8 a pop for. Figure out how much you saved in drink costs, taxi, etc. and donate them to your favorite candidate. (Bernie Sanders) You can call it your “Getting drunk cheap for Bernie“ party.
7. Are your kids begging you to buy them a toy/treat/ticket? Manipulate them into donating that money instead to your favorite candidate. (Bernie Sanders) “Madison, I know you want that pony, but did you know there are children who can’t afford to see doctors, who’s parents were taken from them and thrown in jail because of institutional racism? This $100 could get you a pony, or you could put that money toward helping those other kids get their parents back.” Your kid learns about charity and democracy, and you don’t have to pick up pony shit. #WinWin
8. Stop smoking. Stop drinking alcohol. Drink water. Donate the savings (including your healthcare savings) to your favorite candid… fuck it. Give Bernie that sweet sweet cancer-free $$$.
9. Ask your boss for a raise. Tell your boss that income inequality is at it’s most severe since the 1920’s. Tell them to be part of the solution. Donate some of the difference to Bernie so that we can all get a raise.
10. Shop cheaper, cancel expensive subscriptions to TV/publications/cell phone, eat out less, I think you get the picture… Donate that money to Bernie.

You may be disappointed. You may have expected suggestions that didn’t involve money. During the civil war, you could pay $300 to avoid being drafted into the military. It’s not the most just of policies, but the $300 was usually far more valuable than the soldier.

Of course, you can go to your local campaign office and make phone calls from a script, but the reality is that your money is way more valuable to a campaign, especially Bernie’s campaign, than your time. If you want to volunteer your time to a campaign, use that time making or saving money, and let the campaign use that money to build infrastructure, buy ad time, pay skilled staff, and demonstrate legitimacy and staying power.

The absurdly determined top 10 GOP candidates will debate on Fox News debate tonight at 8pm Central time. There’s plenty of BINGO and drinking games floating around the internet, but for most, keeping track of them all while watching the debate is virtually impossible. Here’s my design with improved playability and an added element of skill:

Rules:

1. Fill out a blank BINGO card before the debate begins. No editing during the debate.
2. All options must be candidate specific. For the “________:” options, fill in a candidate of your choice, again, before the start of the debate.
3. There is no free space, so choose the option you believe is most likely to happen for the center square. There are more options than the 25 spaces, so choose and arrange wisely. Do not use one of the options more than once.

This way, you only have to keep track of 2-3 options for each candidate while they are speaking. Statements in quotes must be said verbatum by the indicated candidate.

Here are your options:

__________: Complains about format/time (Not split debate)

__________: Criticizes split debate format

__________: Attacks Hillary Clinton (not just mention)

__________: Attacks Obama (not just mention)

__________: Speaks in the third person / says their own name

__________: Name drops Benjamin Netanyahu

__________: Criticizes the Republican Party

__________: “2^nd amendment”

__________: Mentions Bernie Sanders

__________: Speaks Spanish

__________: “Greatest nation/country in the world”

__________: “Department of Education”

__________: “I am not a” doctor/scientist/mind-reader/expert/etc.

Donald Trump: Brags about his financial success

Donald Trump: Says that he likes someone

Donald Trump: Says that someone likes him

Jeb Bush: Refers to his dad or his brother

Jeb Bush: Tries to be funny, probably fails

Scott Walker: Mentions Midwest or Wisconsin values

Mike Huckabee: Uses a southern cliché (guns, grits, gravy, BBQ)

Mike Huckabee: Uses Freedom of Religion to defend freedom to oppress

Mike Huckabee: “Disagree”

Ben Carson: Mentions God or his faith

Ben Carson: Uses his authority as a doctor to criticize Obamacare

Ted Cruz: Mentions Reagan

Ted Cruz: Compares Democrats to Stalin/Hitler/Mao

Marco Rubio: Talks about his parents

Rand Paul: Uses a rhetorical question (What right does the government have to set speed limits?)

Chris Christie: Describes himself as telling it like it is, telling the truth, or being honest

Chris Christie: “I’ve said this before”, “As I’ve said before”

John Kasich: “God fearing” or “good Christian”

John Kasich: “Here in Ohio”

Print your blank card: BINGO

In 1961, to mark the centennial of the Confederacy and oppose the Civil Rights Movement, the South Carolina Legislature passed a law requiring that the Confederate flag be flown atop the SC capitol building. In 2000, this was amended to move the flag to a flagpole in front of the capitol. The law states that a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature is required to change that statute, and includes the following stipulations:

“This flag must be flown on a flagpole located at a point on the south side of the Confederate Soldier Monument, centered on the monument, ten feet from the base of the monument at a height of thirty feet. The flagpole on which the flag is flown and the area adjacent to the monument and flagpole must be illuminated at night and an appropriate decorative iron fence must be erected around the flagpole”

“[The confederate flag] is square measuring fifty-two inches on each side”

“[Government officials] shall replace the flags at appropriate intervals as may be necessary due to wear.”

“The provisions of this section may only be amended or repealed upon passage of an act which has received a two-thirds vote on the third reading of the bill in each branch of the General Assembly.”

There is some confusion as to whether a simple majority vote or 2/3 majority is required to repeal this law. However, even a majority of legislators has historically been tough to come given that a majority of South Carolina voters supporting the flying of the flag. Now that governor Nikki Haley has called for removing the flag, I would like to see her take immediate action.

Anytime you try to control speech or expression, either to prevent or require specific speech, you dive head first into absurdity. The law is full of loopholes, and our hands are anything but tied. Governor Nikki Haley has plenty of options. Here are a few of my proposals:

1. Add more flags

Ah, the power of dilution. There’s no doubt that the Confederate flag is a big part of the state’s heritage. So is the Union Jack, revolutionary war flags, and various other symbols. Perhaps there are some flags that represent abolitionism or civil rights that could be included, but I don’t know of any.

When Christians try to display religious symbols on public grounds, the common solution is to allow all religions to post displays. This inevitably leads to an absurd collection of displays, and finally, the appropriate exclusion of all religious displays. Perhaps there is a lesson here that we can apply to the confederate flag.

2. Tiny flag

The flag must be “fifty-two inches on each side, inclusive of the white border, with a St. Andrews Cross of blue…”. It is perfectly within the bounds of the law to simply make the border very, very wide.

3. Block the flag with something better

The law does not require that the flag be unobstructed, and there are a variety of creative ways to obstruct this symbol of destruction. I would recommend an elegant sculpture, perhaps made of a spiral of sheet metal that spirals around the flag pole. On the surface of this sculpture could be inked images of South Carolina’s history, great leaders, especially those who campaigned to abolish slavery and fight for civil rights. Let’s literally cover the flag with symbols of love, equality, and justice.

4. Improve access to the public rag

It has to be flown high on a flagpole, but no law can force us to respect it. The governor could assist us in taking out our frustration by building a safe ladder or set of stairs by which the public can approach the flag. It will make for a nice rag with which we can wipe our boots off.

5. Just take it down

Nikki Haley could simply ignore the law. Executives often take this authority as a retroactive veto. She could redirect or eliminate funding for maintaining the flag, and remove it for being too ratty. She could take advantage of the “reasonable” and “appropriate” language in the law to argue that the current climate of hate and racial prejudice makes the flying of the flag no longer sensible.
She could also simply defy the law. Pro-life legislators have certainly had no problem flagrantly defying Roe v. Wade. She might be impeached. So what? Even if she is impeached and convicted for doing the right thing, she will hardly be leaving office in disgrace. Doesn’t South Carolina honor its history of rebellion?

6. Desecrate it (fire, paint, bullets)

Sure, the flag has to fly there, but all we need the governor to do is loosen the security around the flag pole. I’m sure plenty of South Carolina’s citizens will dispose of it where it stands. They could even destroy the flag in a way that honors their southern pride. What could be more South Carolina than shredding it with assault weapons?

7. Make it artsy

While we are honoring southern history, let’s widen the display’s scope and make it look a little more artistic. For example, we could make the flagpole a lynching tree. We can honor the tradition of lynching black people while honoring those confederate soldiers who gave their lives to preserve the right to control and take the lives of others. The flag could even be hoisted by leather whips and hung from shackles. So many possibilities…

Tasteful? Of course not, but no less tasteful than the flag itself. The flag needs to be taken down. It is a symbol of treason, racism, and slavery. “Southern pride” is used as a code for racism as much as “modesty” is a euphemism for slut shaming. If you found anything I wrote here more offensive than the legally required, prominent flying of the confederate flag, displayed a stone’s throw from the body of State Senator Pinckney, his family and mourners, then fuck you.

I want to also point out that everyone arguing that the flag should be taken down because it is “offensive” is misguided. We don’t have the right to not to be offended. Lots of people are offended by guns, and many more are offended by Congress. The flag needs to be taken down because it is a symbol in clear contradiction of what the state is supposed to be providing its citizens. The government of South Carolina is subject to federal authority and is required to protect civil rights, two principles which the confederate flag explicitly contradict. It is a symbol of hate to the rest of the world, so familiar, that it is synonymous with the nazi swastika among neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Let’s not quibble about legislative procedure. Take that shit down.

Now that I’ve tackled Israel/Palestine and the Bible, let’s get to something important: college athletes.

The NCAA has been long criticized for the shocking discrepancy between the billions in profits taken in by universities for football and basketball and the lack of any monetary compensation to the players. Players may not be compensated for the use of their likeness on TV, advertising, or video games, and they may not accept gifts. Instead, Division I student athletes receive compensation in the form of full-ride scholarships and a “college education”. However, since many athletes come from very poor means and have little savings, many receive inadequate medical care, (kind of important for athletes) are unable to visit their families, and some even have difficulty feeding themselves.

Some of the most shocking problems are finally being addressed in that the “cost of attendance” is being expanded to cover $2000-$5000 for miscellaneous costs in addition to tuition, fees, books, room, and board. That is an extremely small stipend, but it’s a step in the right direction.

I fail to see how student athletes can’t be seen in the same light as students in the sciences. Grad students, and sometimes undergrads, are paid a reasonable stipend because we do research which brings clout and grant money to the university. Grad students in the humanities don’t get such a stipend. Student athletes also go above and beyond their academics to bring clout and money to the university. What’s wrong with giving them a legitimate stipend that you can live on?

That seems like an easy problem to solve, so what I really want to talk about is the more difficult problem concerning student athletes that few seem to be talking about. When it comes to the major sports like basketball and football, the “student” aspect is a joke.

Division I athletes spend over 40 hours per week in practices and training for their sport. It’s a full-time job that often conflicts with academics and serves as a major distraction. Because student athletes are not chosen for their academic prowess, they often struggle to maintain minimum eligibility. They often choose the easiest classes, and barely pass. Some can’t even read or write.

Then there are the double standards and cheating. No university wants its main moneymaker losing eligibility because of a stupid exam that no one cares about. Universities turn a blind eye to lax academic standards and reports of academic dishonesty. It’s nothing new. One of my professors told me that, when he was in grad school proctoring an exam, he caught a future Superbowl MVP blatantly copying off a cheat sheet. He reported the incident, and University did nothing. This is an obvious symptom of the status quo. Would you care, as a fan of college sports, if your favorite team’s best quarterback cheated on a math exam or didn’t attend biology class? I don’t, and I’m a smug academic with a stick up my ass.

So, what’s going on here? Student athletes are compensated in the form of a sham degree. If you consider college to be a mere transaction for which a degree is the goal, this may look like a good deal to you. However, if a former Division I athlete comes to me looking for a job, I ought to seriously question the validity of his Bachelor’s degree.

It’s sort of like hiring someone to help you load a truck in exchange for a letter of recommendation that testifies to their laboratory skills. They may have good lab skills, but the job has nothing to do with those skills, and it played no part their hiring. It is obviously more accurate and honest to give them a letter of recommendation that says they were good at loading the truck.

So, here’s my central thesis: Why not let student athletes major in their sport?

Let football players be football majors. Let basketball players be basketball majors. Let those majors be accredited. It sounds to me like a useful major with an obvious career track, which can’t be said for every major. Let them take classes in sports psychology, physical education, and sports history, but most of their course credit would come from games and practices. There’s no doubt that it could lead to a career in professional sports, not obviously more daunting than a career in music or art history. Furthermore, there are plenty of careers for coaches, personal trainers, and physical education instructors, which is an obvious tract for athletes to pursue already.

Division I teams will likely require that all players major in the sport. That’s fine. Great music programs usually stipulate that only music majors are eligible to audition. Coaches could then demand the same taxing practice schedules without cutting as drastically into academics. Students will therefore be less inclined to cheat. Most importantly, their degree accurately reflects how they spent their time in college and the scholarship that they earned in the first place.

The other tension that would be relieved is on the university academics. Colleges want their degrees to be meaningful, and they know as well as anyone that practicing 40hr per week significantly detracts from coursework. Universities may now, if they wish, set a time limit for university-sponsored extracurricular activities. If you want to play Division I basketball, then you’ll just have to make it your major. If your university is Division III, there’s no way that student athletes should be spending that much time practicing anyway. As a chemistry major, I certainly tried the patience of my chemistry professors with all the time I spent in music ensembles and political organizations. If I had committed >40hr per week to other organizations, my professors would have been right to demand a greater focus on my major, or insist that I change my major to music.

Football and Basketball majors would still be required to take liberal arts courses that the university requires for the same reason all student are required to do so. Perhaps that will take some creative course selection and extra tutoring, but certainly an athlete that can earn a full ride scholarship and bring in billions in revenue is worth the effort. Extra tutoring tends to be provided to any student willing to seek it out, and athletes will have more time to take advantage if their academic requirements are limited to the liberal arts. It’s not nothing, but it will be a dramatic shift toward lightening the load.

Finally, it frees the student athletes to enjoy college life. One of the most valuable parts of college is being part of the community, and I’m sure that being a Division I athlete confines you to practice and classes with little time in between. Even at a Division III school like my undergrad, athletes rarely participated in any other extracurriculars, and the ones that did found it very taxing.

What are the down sides? Many student athletes gain full-ride scholarships, or even just admission because of their athletic prowess, despite their lack of academic ability. These are people who don’t hope to become professional athletes, but earn a ticket to college that would have never been possible without their being an athlete.

If you require that Division I athletes be full-time athletes, you remove this free ride to college, at least in the form of a different degree. However, if you don’t have the grades to go to college for communications, I don’t think that you should be going to college in the first place. If someone was given a full ride scholarship to play the piano, wouldn’t it be odd if they accepted the scholarship and then majored in marketing? Sometimes that would cause the student to lose the scholarship, and that’s my point.

There certainly are college athletes who might be offended by this idea. These are students who sacrifice sleep and social life to commit fully to their team as well as their major. They are true student-athletes and admirable for their work ethic. However, we already have a name for these types of students: double majors. Calling them such would change nothing, and give them nothing but more recognition for their hard work.

It seems so simple, obvious, and honest, I’m amazed that I can’t find any good examples of it being discussed. Let me know if you have heard of such a thing, or if you have any objections that I didn’t think of.

Growing up, he was my favorite actor and the epitome of comedy. I can think of no better tribute to the late artist than what I consider his best work, his appearance on Inside the Actors Studio. Legend has it that a member of the audience laughed so hard that she had to be taken to the ER. This appearance is even more appropriate since it represents the sort of improv, every day comedy he was best at. Enjoy.

https://www.cloudy.ec/v/f5c7091004bcc

I’ve been sick, knocked on my ass for the whole week, hence the lack of posts. However I saw this on IFLS, and wrote an explanation while I catch up on lab work. Science!!!

Watch the video first, or my explanations won’t make any sense…

1. Friction increases when a finger gets closer to the center of mass because more mass is supported by that finger. Hold your fingers at different angles, and it won’t work because the coefficient of friction for each finger is different.
2. Angular momentum is transferred to the shortest radius where the spin is more favored. If you think it’s because the mass is unbalanced, try something uniform. It will behave the same as the phone.
3. Water bending due to static charge is an example of diamagnetism, an induced magnetic attraction in the presence of a magnetic field. It’s sort of like high-fiving someone with an open hand, the force of which causes his hand to curl around yours. The negatively charged cup repels electrons to the opposite side of the water molecule just a tad, inducing a more polar, and hence, more attractive ;), water molecule. This is why the negative static charge works better than a regular old magnetic field. However, very strong magnets can also cause water to bend like this.
Unfortunately, his explanation of the polar water molecule is incorrect. He is incorrectly describing water like a salt with equal numbers of positive and negative charges. Water molecules are free to re-orient themselves in line with a magnetic field (and they do), but that is not the complete cause for the curvature.
4. Speaking of magnets, cereal contains iron, a lot of iron. Check the label. That’s not some exotic form of iron that is blended into your food. It’s small filings of iron metal. You can even extract the filings by blending the cereal into a paste and attracting the filings toward a powerful magnet.
5. You all know that hot air rises. Do you know why? Gas molecules at higher temperatures move more quickly, bumping into each other and spreading out like the most hyped up rockers in a mosh pit. That causes this high temperature area to be less dense than low temperature gasses, and the low temperature (higher density) gasses sink due to gravity and push the hot air upwards.
As the bag burns from the top, the hot gasses and air rise, while air remains cold underneath the flame. However, as soon as the flame reaches the bottom, the zone of hot air extends all the way to the plate, and cold air quickly rushes in to take it’s place. The small fragments of unburned bag are propelled by this rush of cold air. Remember, it’s not just that hot air rises, it’s that cold (denser) air sinks to take its place.

I’m not wild about science education videos that simply seek to induce an “isn’t that cool?” response without any follow up. That’s not to say that he should have given full explanations. However, he should have ended each segment with “what would happen if instead I…”. If the point is education rather than giving away the answer, thinking about problems in terms of experimental design is very effective. This video simply reinforces the perceived inaccessibility of counterintuitive phenomena.