The truth about reciclying

The other day, as a procrastination exercise, I cleaned up the desk at my office. The job consisted, essentially, in throwing away many drafts of my papers and organizing some other people's papers, for future reference. My desk now is quite tidy, and I am proud of myself. I ended up throwing into the bin approximately 1500 pages, among preprints and handwritten sheets. How come so many pages? It turns out that while producing a paper (and especially when a deadline approaches) I tend to print a lot of versions of the current draft---more or less, one draft per day---so after submitting I end up with ten or more copies of the same work. There is also the issue that I have problems reading from the screen, and prefer to read something by printing it and making annotations on the paper.

So I am pretty much unable to do ecological research. I always remember Alan, who is quite an ecological guy in his research: he hardly prints anything, he gets cool software tools so as to do everything directly on his laptop, and, perhaps most importantly, he seems to be quite consistent in these habits. He doesn't even use the air conditioning in his office, although this is a more arguable point. I wish I could be more sensitive in this issue; I tell myself that nothing is better than actual paper, and how annoying is reading from the screen. Still, I am unable to change my habits. I don't feel bad at all. The reason is very simple: recycling is useless.

Of course recycling is a very reasonable idea, in principle. However, I have come to realize that in the current state of the world, it is a rather useless effort. That is to say, the state of our planet is so critical that individual efforts (such as separating your trash, our concrete contribution to recycling) end up being essentially useless. We need more decisive actions, both from individuals and governments. Here's a simple idea: if wasting trees and paper is a problem, then a truly determinate action would be adding huge taxes on paper and ink so as reduce their consumption (and hence, their waste). Just like what some scandinavian countries do with alcohol. Wasting paper is just so easy, as paper is cheap and nobody cares about buying more. It is easy to think of similar ideas in other settings.

Needless to say, individual actions such as separating you trash are positive. We should continue doing them while bearing in mind that they're little effective---the overall sum of little efforts is still too small in the context of the problem. I have realized more clearly the environmental problems we are facing after visiting the US. It was shocking to me to see the different sense of proportion people have there. Distances are so huge; your social success seems to be represented by the size of your car. Sadly, waste also comes in absurd proportions. It seems to me that the positive environmental actions of an average European family in a week (separating thrash, riding bikes, using public transportation) are lost by the negative effects of a single American SUV which is used the whole day.

There is also the point of people feeling good about themselves when doing ecological efforts. That's a different story, though.

Race and Ethnicity

These days I attend a summer school in the US. The organizers have conducted a demographic poll among the participants, a poll that I found quite unusual. In fact, the poll concerns the race and ethnicity of each attendant. The organizers claim that this is information useful for the National Science Foundation (NSF). I have thought a bit about it, and I am still shocked by the kind of questions in the poll. Independently of sociological definitions, why on earth is it important to classify people by their race and ethnicity? It must be that I understood very little about the US and its culture. (Or that I am too used to the European way of thinking.) This is even more extreme in the case of the summer school I am attending, which has attracted participants from both Europe and the US almost in equal proportions; in some sense, this sort of questions would have been more understandable if the audience were mostly composed of US citizens.

Let's take a look to the questions and their possible answers. The first two concern the country of citizenship and residence of each participant. These are questions that I find completely normal. Then you should indicate your race; options included: white european, pacific islander, asian, african, native american, mixed race, and other. I chose mixed race, with the absolute understanding that we all belong to some mixed race, whatever race means. Afterwards, you should indicate your ethnicity; options included western european/north american, north asian, central/south american, eastern european, among several others. This seemed to be a geographical concept, and so I naturally chose central/south american. The last question asked whether I am the first member in my family to attend college. The answer was no. 

I have no problems to answer this kind of questions nor I find them racist in any way. I just find them quite odd to use this kind of information in some sort of government-related statistics (the background of participants in NSF-sponsored events?). My first thought was that this poll looks like something used like 30 or 40 years ago, not something I expected to see in 2011. I thought that in the in the US everyone was an american, independent of their origins or ancestors. So I wonder: what is the point of reminding everyone that, at the end, there is indeed something that makes us all different? What is the point of collecting information based on those differences? Will someone find that information useful in the future? 

An intellectual bully

I follow Michael Mitzenmacher's blog My Biased Coin. Mitzenmacher is a professor of Computer Science at Harvard, and does research on a field completely unrelated to mine (he works on potentially useful stuff: data structures, network algorithms, probabilities/randomness, information theory). In his blog, MM writes about his research results and other general topics related to life as a professor and researcher. As such, he has recently written about the serious financial situation at Harvard: the huge debt they have now, the cut-offs they should do, etc.

By reading this post (and the comments therein), it seems a huge deal of the responsability for the current crisis at Harvard is due to former president Larry Summers. It seems that Summers invested too frenetically on buildings and new faculty, and the effects of that careless debt are only seen now. Apart from that, it seems that Summers is a rather controversial character (described by some as "an arrogant, intellectual bully") who during his administration brought division at different levels in Harvard. Summers resigned to Harvard presidency in 2006, and took a professorship there afterwards.

While I could not care less about Harvard's financial situation, and I am sure universities and corporations in the US are full of crazy spenders such as Summers, there's a detail that concerns us all: early this year, our beloved Barack Husein appointed Summers as Director of the White House's National Economic Council.

The idea of having a guy like Summers in charge of the US financial recovery initiatives then sounds a bit disturbing. Granted: it could be that the guy is indeed an asshole, but a very competent one for economic matters. (After all, Barack Husein appointed him, so he should be good by definition, right?) However, there's compelling evidence that indicates that Summers is an idiot (or, that thinks that everyone else is an idiot). Indeed, Summers recently claimed that US economy is indeed improving because the number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels!

How about that?

Capsule of Absurdity No. 4

On how one of the longest chains of absurdity arrived to an end. A happy one, I guess.

In this special installment of 'capsules of absurdity' I describe the story of how of I didn't travel to present a paper to the US. It is a bit long capsule, so please bear with me.

Earlier this year I coauthored a paper in an important conference in my research domain: LICS (Logic in Computer Science). The conference was held in Pittsburgh, at the end of June. My boss decided I would go to present the paper. Presenting a paper in LICS as a first year PhD student is a rare thing, as far as I understand. One of my coauthors was attending the conference too, so I wouldn't be so alone in such a top event.

Apart from the obvious academic arrangements, in order to enter into the US I needed a visa. As a Colombian, I need a visa to enter into almost every known country in the world; even to Panama, a former state of Colombia! (For some countries, indeed, even if you're passing through an airport to catch a connecting flight you might need an 'airport transit visa'.) Having to get a visa for going everywhere is perhaos the most annoying consequence of being a Colombian. Because of the fame we have, visa procedures are absurd by default, and unavoidably humiliating.

The US visa is especially tricky to get. That's a fact. Some people say it's simply luck, and I agree with them. The main reason is that too many Colombians want to go to the US, so visa applications are usually analyzed by consular officers in a matter of seconds. To give you an idea: the consular section of the US embassy at Bogotá receives around 1500 visa applications daily; it is one of the busiest consular sections in the world (third, I think). I wasn't applying at Bogotá's embassy; since I live in Bologna I had to apply at the consulate at Florence. Some friends (both Italians and Colombians) had told me the procedure was annoying and long (half a day), but that after a couple of days I'd get my visa.

So on April 30 I went to the US consulate in Florence, and applied for a 10-day visa: enough time to present the paper, attend the conference and perhaps jumping to NYC. The visa procedure consists essentially of an interview with an officer. Since I have experience on getting visas for academic reasons (UK, France, Italy) I was pretty confident. The first part of the interview went OK; I had to answer rather routine questions (why do you want to go to the US, what are you doing in Italy, who's paying for the trip). The second part of the interview was different. The officer started to read my application forms, and he was curious about my degree in computer science (yes, apart from asking you whether or not you were part of the nazi holocaust, the visa application includes a set of questions on your education). He asked:

US: Here it says you were born in Bogotá, but that you got your degree in X university in Cali. I know X university has a main campus in Bogotá. How come you didn't return to Bogotá to get your degree?

Me: (Two seconds shock.) Well, I had lived in Cali for more than 15 years, as my family moved from Bogotá to Cali when I was little, so studying in Cali made sense at the time.

The officer made an unconvinced face and started to type at a very quick pace in his computer. Afterwards, he asked:

US: Where do your parents live?

Me: In Cali.

That was the trigger for even more schizophrenic typing. He did so for about ten minutes. After the typing, I was ready to hear that everything was OK and that my visa had been approved. To my surprise, he said instead:

US: Your visa application is not approved nor refused. We need to do an additional administrative process with Washington DC regarding your case.

I was like: WTF??? The only thing I could say was:

Me: But what's wrong with my application?

US. Nothing's wrong, really. We just need to do an administrative process.

He told me I would get contacted when the procedure was completed. According to him, this takes from 2 to 4 weeks. Only then, I should send my passport: they would print and stick the visa on my passport, and mail it back to me.

I was in state of shock for the rest of the day, which included the worst lunch ever in Florence train station. All what I thought were essentially four things:

1. This is the most abourd thing that has occured to me in life.
2. Damned Cali! Mentioning Cali twice was enough for him to relate me to the Cali Cartel.
   
3. How come this guy knows my university has two campuses in Colombia?
4. They're gonna look for 'Jorge' in some database in Washington. That must be the most time consuming database query ever.

Back in Bologna nobody could believe the story, in particular those co-workers who had gotten their study visas in less than two days, in the same consulate. I will never forget the surprised face of my boss. Argh.

I had no option but to wait the 2-4 weeks for my visa. Sadly, I didn't get my visa in time and the coauthor who was attending LICS presented our paper. Of course I wrote emails to the consulate asking about my 'administrative procedure' (they have an efficient customer service I must say) . The answer was the same every time:

Your administrative process is still pending. We will contact you once your visa is ready.

Once I couldn't attend the conference I almost forgot about the whole thing. The only exception was at the end of each month, when I always remembered about my US visa application. I 'celebrated' the occassion sending the usual question to the consulate. Every single time I received the same answer:

Your administrative process is still pending. We will contact you once your visa is ready.

In October I decided to ask a more inquisitive question:

I assume my administrative process is still pending. But, what if I want to go to the US and my process is pending?

This time I got a slightly different answer:

You assume correctly: your administrative process is still pending.

The situation was the same until early November, when I received an email confirming the administrative process was completed and my visa was ready to be issued. It was funny, as I wasn't sure about the length of the visa they'll give me. Usually, one gets a visa for the exact number of days you'll stay in the US. (The longest tourist visa that the US issues is 10 years; for Colombians this duration is reduced to 5 years.) At this time, I was wondering about the following:

1. What if they give me a visa for ten days in December 08?
2. What if the visa goes exactly for the period I asked, that is, what if it expires in July 08? (A visa for travelling in the past!)
3. Would the US consulate behave as the Italian police, which issues stay permits that are already expired, so that once you get your "new" permit you have to renew it right away?

Oddly enough, due to the randomized character of the US visas for Colombians, even an expired one would be more than good for me. This is because once you're granted a visa, renewals should be easier, and because some countries take US visa as a "reference" when issuing theirs. So, for instance, if I am not wrong, having a valid US visa excempts you from needing 'airport transit' visas in the UK.

So I mailed in my passport to Florence. There'sa protocol to follow fot this: to send your passport to the consulate, you have to do it though a special courier service that acts as an intermediate between you and the consulate. It's supposed to be fast, safe and expensive. It was all of those, in the Italian style (that is, not excessively fast). The week after I sent my passport to the courier, they confirmed the passport was already in the consulate. The day after, however, I got the following email from the consulate:

If you're still interested in the visa, you need to send us your passport.

Complete panic: the consulate had lost my passport! I wrote back immediately explaining the case, and asking for confirmation on the courier's information. Long hours waiting for a reply. It finally arrived and it was something like

Oh, yes, here it is. Sorry about that.

This week I finally got my passport back. And I got a visa that is useful in the future! All I need now is a paper in a top research conference, again. Very unlikely, I am afraid.

It is very important that I actually use the visa I was granted. It turns out that, if I don't do it, the visa won't get easily renewed. Then any given consular officer could be tempted to ask someone in Washington whether or not I deserve a renewal.

Here comes the sun

(Image taken from CNN.com)

The sun is shining today. Both metaphorically and literally. Indeed, after a few Copenhagen-like days, today the sun has returned to Bologna. The day is really splendid. There a few clouds, of course, but the fact that you can see some different perspectives can inspire you, and perhaps make your day. Also metaphorically the sun is shining today, after Barack Husein's clear victory last night. I think this is a so desired day for many people in the world; I would even dare to say that the enthusiasm outside the US is as big as it is today for more than 62 million people in the US.

Of course, just because today there's a shining sun it doesn't mean that there will be no more clouds around. After seeing both speeches last night this is even more certain. The speech by Obama was clear and inspiring, and at the same time, it was a statement of the huge challenges to come. I enjoyed the honesty in his words. But rather than digging on Obama's address, it is perhaps more insightful to pay attention to McCain's speech. I would like to comment on two particular moments.

First, when he opened his intervention mentioning Obama and the fact he had conceded him the presidency, McCain supporters started to boo Obama in several times. They interrupted McCain, who disapproved such a reaction. In my view, the face expression of McCain in that precise moment is priceless: it is a clear, authentic sign of disgust. Perhaps only in that instant, when hearing such an overwhelming negative reaction against the president-elect, John McCain realized the monster he had created by appealing to one of the most aggressive and nasty political campaigns in history.

The second moment that I find remarkable in McCain's speech is when he mentions Sarah Palin as the future driving force of the republican party. That lady certainly attracted a number of people who believe in conservative policies. The reaction to Palin's mention is almost the opposite to Obama's. Unfortunately, this campaign has put Palin in the top places of the political scenario in the US, and I am sure she will be the face behind powerful right-wing sectors interested in a new conservative agenda post-Obama.

Once again appealing to my weather metaphor, it is clearly a relief that the most influential person in the world is someone who not only can express himself properly, but that can bring inspiration to others in times of difficulty. Also, the fact that his vice-president is familiar with foreign policy issues (and that speaks his mind when he feels like doing so) is a killer combination. We should try to enjoy this sun while we can. We should also remember that even in the most splendid of the suns there are those little gray clouds that stand there. There will be always radical people like Sarah Palin that will play hard, not only against people like Barack Obama, but also against any manifestation of common sense. To conclude, let me provide a compelling example of this. According to Palin and her supporters, global warming is not man-made. I am sure that most of them would agree with Tina Fey on the fact that global warming is "just God hugging us closely".

(Almost) Everybody loves Obama

This post is tangentially related to the forthcoming US elections. I could have written a proper post on how I find this election historical and exciting, and on how hopeful I am in an eventual Obama administration. Also, I could have cited and commented on one of the many of the polls that say that the citizens of the world would elect Barack Husein as president of the USA. I could have done that indeed. Rather, here I prefer to comment on the country that is desperately wishing a McCain administration. Yes, you guessed it: that country is Colombia.

In fact: the government, the media and every semi-informed person in Colombia is convinced that a Republican in the office is the most convenient thing for Colombia. Their reasoning is rather primitive, and above all, stupid: the Colombian opinion tends to believe that a McCain administration will make effective a free-trade agreement (FTA, Tratado de Libre Comercio - TLC, in Spanish) between US and Colombia. You might ask: what's the deal with that?

Before answering let me explain a bit on the relation between US and Colombia. Colombia is important for the US as it represents the focus of the drug problem. Since the term 'war against drugs' was coined (around 30 years ago) Colombia has been understood and treated as the main producer of the drugs that are available in the US. The diplomatic and commercial relations between the two countries have been shaped accordingly. Not surprisingly, Colombia is the second largest recipient in the world of financial and military aid from the US. The most recent initiative for this ---the so-called Plan Colombia--- was approved during the Clinton administration, and maintained during Bush's. What started as a cooperation plan against drug production, slowly moved towards the direct use of US aid to combat the guerrilla. This is something that, to be honest, makes absolute sense, given the proven participation of such groups in the drug business. Naturally, the 'war against terrorism' made it easy to shift the focus of the planned aid.

So, during the last eight years or so, the relations between US and Colombia were mostly based on issues related to the Plan Colombia. There was also a minor commercial component. This is something fundamental for Colombia but certainly irrelevant for the US, as you might imagine. Up to now, there exist some small agreements that make trade somewhat flexible, but these are temporal and full of conditions. (It is worth mentioning that in the legal side, main Colombia exports to the US include flowers and coffee.) So there was a need for a more open agreement eliminating the trade barriers between the countries.

The above of course sounds logic and even necessary. The problem is that the agreement that both governments approved is simply terrible for the majority of Colombian interests. Just think in the following: once the Democrats took the majorities of the congress, they made several changes so to make the thing less unfair. One of the many problems with the agreement, in my view, is that it advocates a notion of commerce that is so wide that it is outrageous.

A couple of examples are useful at this point. One of the things the agreement regulates is the amount of hours of TV produced and aired by Colombian broadcasters. In other words, by means of the agreement, Colombian TV channels should buy and air a fixed amount of movies and TV series made in the US. This is because unregulated TV production in Colombia could potentially affect US companies (!). This is not symmetric, as you can imagine. A second example is the following: thanks to the agreement, US pharmaceutical laboratories and companies would have the right to patent native medicines and fauna and flora present in Colombia. So, for instance, if someone discovers that a certain plant is beneficial for some disease, US laboratories not only could patent that plant and the procedure to extract a medicine out of it, but also Colombia would be forced to buy them that medicine from the US (!)

In this way, the agreement covers a wide spectrum of what can be considered as commerce. Of course, there are portions of the FTA that are convenient for some components of the Colombian economy. The incipient Colombian software industry is one of them. Flower producers would get benefits as well. The position of the government is rather clear: the FTA is far from perfect, and we need it desperately for those who will get benefits of it, regardless of the fact that (i) Colombia is not ready for such an agreement (for instance, we don't have proper highways from/to main ports); (ii) many interests would be affected; (iii) we have no other big commercial partner in the world.

So, this takes us again on why the Colombian government and media really wish another Republican administration. They ignore that the Democrat majorities in the congress will prevail, even in the (hopefully unlikely) case that McCain comes into office. They must think that a scripted speech from Sarah Palin will make the FTA a reality. In fact, for more than a year Democrats have systematically delayed the study of the act enforcing the Colombian FTA, just to make George W really upset. Colombia has become part of the bipartisan discussions and tensions by accident; Nancy Pelosi is a really hated person in Colombia. They have claimed arguments related to human rights violations to justify this position (heavily supported by the Colombian opposition and many leftist Non-Governmental Organizations). The reality is that a FTA is something tremendously unpopular among Americans, specially nowadays. Obama knows this and hence opposes to the FTA, at least in the current terms. He also proposes to shift the focus of the Plan Colombia. Republicans claim that the FTA is necessary to support a 'loyal ally' in the war against terrorism, and that Plan Colombia should be maintained untouched. This is McCain's position. This topic was quickly mentioned in the third presidential debate; this short, predictable mention was largely discussed and analyzed in Colombian newspapers. The same newspapers that gave huge coverage to McCain visit to Colombia, and that only now realize that Obama perhaps could win.

To conclude, if you think that everyone in the world wants Obama as president, think twice. Apart from the neocons and creationists, a significant amount of Colombians might like to have a 72-year old war veteran as president, and a hockey-mom that sees Russia from her balcony as vice-president. Let us simply hope for the best next Tuesday.