First Final down, fall 2007

Workout notes Jogged about 3 miles to the Riverplex (good footing most of the way) but I was overdressed (goretex top, two high-tech shirts) and got sweaty.

I then walked 1 mile on the indoor track in hopes of drying off in the dry Riverplex air (12:16) but I went just a bit too fast for a good cool down; there was a cute woman in spandex shorts who was jogging slowly and well,

Then I did (or rather attempted) some yoga and my teacher gave me a ride home.

One (of many) things that I don’t like about winter (or pre-winter, anyway) is all of the gear that you have to wear, and then dry out afterward.

(Larger version)

But seeing that cute woman in spandex reminded me of this article, which talks about how the human spine evolved and lordosis (the tendency for the back to arch and the butt to sway backwards)

The report published in Nature by Whitcome, Shapiro, and Lieberman reports on a longitudinal study of 19 pregnant women to show how the center of gravity moves forward as the pregnancy progresses and also identifies male/female differences in lumbar curvature or lordosis.

They make the point that this assembles into a neat evolutionary adaptationist story – females have more lumbar lordosis than males (sexual dimorphism) and this appears to be helpful for the unique demands of a pregnant upright biped. Katherine Whitcome is a research fellow, Liza Shapiro is a very experienced specialist in primate spinal evolution, and Daniel Lieberman has been very much involved in understanding the importance of long distance walking in human evolution. [...]

The article doesn’t mention that there are numerous other reports about sexual dimorphism in the human lumbar lordosis – about half of the studies found no statistical difference between males and females and the other half found a small difference. [...]

Most mammals have a lumbar spine whose architecture tends to passively resist the force of gravity when positioned in a horizontal or diagonal position. In humans and such ancestors as Morotopithecus, however, the spine mechanics are reversed so that quadrupedal stances are very tough on the spine. Only fully upright stance is comfortable. [...]

These findings further support the point that position that bipedal walking – full time bipedalism – may be very ancient in the hominoids.

The article itself is well worth reading.

There is another article about this at 3-quarks daily.

Snark: via Stupid, Evil Bastard. This is a response to a recent announcement by the Pope that atheism is causing the world’s evils.

Larger Version

Politics
Redstateupdate on the last Republican debate (Iowa)

Daily Kos I was in acerbic mood and got into it with some Clinton supporters at the Daily Kos. I made the mistake on going onto one of their diaries and attacking; I should have just blown them off like most everyone else did. But she is taking a beating there.

More December politcs

Workout notes part II I did some yoga; peacock feather (forearm stand) is getting better; hopefully I’ll be able to discard the wall in about a month or so.

Politics I haven’t seen the Republican debate as yet, though I saw excerpts. I’ll go to youchoose and try to see at least some of it.

But for entertainment purposes, I’ll post a clip of good old Alan Keyes: (hat tip to Tennessee Guerilla Women)

So, you won’t have the discipline to study math and science without god? Tell that to perhaps the most atheistic group in America, elite scientists and mathematicians!

I have to admit: I find him highly entertaining.

Of course, the Republicans have gotten into a hissy fit over religion; in particular Mitt Romney (the Mormon) vs. Mike Huckabee (the Baptist). Of course there are all sorts of issues, such as what to make of the moronic claims made by their respective “faiths”:

This is Jacob Weisberg, writing last year in Slate:

Nor is it chauvinistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves. There are millions of religious Americans who would never vote for an atheist for president, because they believe that faith is necessary to lead the country. Others, myself included, would not, under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu. Such views are disqualifying because they’re dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.

By the same token, I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism. The LDS church holds that Joseph Smith, directed by the angel Moroni, unearthed a book of golden plates buried in a hillside in Western New York in 1827. The plates were inscribed in “reformed” Egyptian hieroglyphics—a nonexistent version of the ancient language that had yet to be decoded. If you don’t know the story, it’s worth spending some time with Fawn Brodie’s wonderful biography No Man Knows My History. Smith was able to dictate his “translation” of the Book of Mormon first by looking through diamond-encrusted decoder glasses and then by burying his face in a hat with a brown rock at the bottom of it. He was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don’t want him running the country.

One may object that all religious beliefs are irrational—what’s the difference between Smith’s “seer stone” and the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea? But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud. It’s Scientology plus 125 years. Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world’s greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor. The Church of Latter-day Saints is expanding rapidly and liberalizing in various ways, but it remains fundamentally an orthodox creed with no visible reform wing.

I won’t argue for or against most of Weisberg’s claims, but I think there is something to what he says about the time factor working against acceptance of Mormonism. Of course, it’s also a matter of familiarity; few people think as critically about the tenets and stories of the monotheistic religions as they do about the beliefs of Mormons, because their family and neighbors and friends and the majority of people around them either believe the monotheistic religions, or don’t judge them to be a semi-modern “con game.”

But Weisberg overstates the idea of moderation in the monotheistic religions. It’s true that by the late 19th century, there was little support for a literal interpretation of the Bible. But literalism has grown around almost all religions, and some of the moderation that came from religious communities making peace with the Enlightenment have retreated. Nowhere is that more clear than in the Republican party since the 1970’s. For many voters, it’s just that literalism that they are looking for, but only of their own faith, which is overwhelmingly more literalist varieties of evangelical Protestant Christianity.

Yeah, to be frank, “I don’t have a dog in this hunt”, so to speak. But watching two people to compete to be the bigger superstitious kook so as to appeal to even bigger, more ignorant superstitious kooks is very entertaining! Yes, I know that Hucakbee was supposed to have apologized to Romney during today’s debate; I’ll have to watch and see.

Since we are on kooks, I’ll post a tidbit from Crooks and Liars:

Following up on an item from yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), easily among the top five looniest members of the chamber, successfully forced a resolution onto the House floor, putting the House on record stating that Christmas and Christians are important. Last night, as expected, it passed easily.

As it turns out, not everyone was impressed with King’s spiteful stunt. When the Christmas-is-important measure came up last night, nine Democrats voted against it. Moreover, 10 voted “present” — including one Republican — which is exactly how King voted on the Ramadan and Diwali resolutions.

King is more than a little peeved, and went on quite a tirade on Fox News this afternoon. (video available at ThinkProgress)

“I recognized that we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we’re coming up to Christmastime…. It’s time we stood up and said so, and said to the rest of America, Be who you are and be confident. And let’s worship Christ and let’s celebrate Christmas for the right reasons.”

I found it interesting that King kept talking about “we” during his diatribe — “we” have to stand up, “we” should worship Christ, “we” have to celebrate Christmas. Who is “we”? Americans? Fox News viewers?

And people wonder why I bring up the term “theocracy” when I talk about these nutjobs?

The horse race: who is backing who?
I’ll include some polls taken from places that I hang out; to be honest I don’t have a big enough readership to have a poll of my own.

Cosmic Variance (a physics blog; includes Republican candidates as choices)

C. V. Poll:

Who is currently your favorite candidate for the 2008 Presidential elections?
Selection
Votes
Hillary Clinton (D) 13% 89
John Edwards (D) 10% 69
Rudy Giuliani (R) 2% 16
Mike Huckabee (R) 2% 11
John McCain (R) 1% 8
Barack Obama (D) 40% 268
Mitt Romney (R) 1% 7
Fred Thompson (R) 1% 7
Other 29% 198

Of course I loved that Obama has the lead. That Huckabee got any votes at all is shocking to me. Oh yes, as far as the “others”, I’ve seen people talk up Gravel (ok, a few), Kucinich (a few more) and Ron Paul (very noisy supporters…that is a shock! )

One reader posted a link to a betting site. Some interesing numbers there:

they call the odds of the Democratic nominee winning at 1/4, the Republican nominee winning 10/11, and the “unity party” is listed at 60/1
(this means, that you need to bet 4 dollars on the Democrat to win 1 (bet 4, if you win you get your 4 back plus one more)

Here is a sampling of the odds that they have; I’ve given the top few for these categories:

Among the Democratic candidates: For the Democratic nomination,

• Clinton 1/6
• Obama 12/5
• Al Gore 5/1
• John Edwards 8/1

For the Republican nomination

• Rudy Giuliani 7/4
• Mike Huckabee 9/5
• Ron Paul 5/2
• Mitt Romney 4/1
• John McCain 5/1
• Fred Thompson 6/1

To win the Presidency

• Hillary Clinton 3/1
• Rudy Giuliani 5/1
• Barack Obama and Ron Paul 6/1
• Fred Thompson 8/1
• Mike Huckabee 9/1
• John Edwards 14/1
• John McCain 16/1

Daily Kos (Democrats only)

dKos Reader Poll. 12/12 — 8:44 a.m. to 3:05 p.m. PT. 14,804 respondents.

2007
Dec12 Nov Oct Sept Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan

Edwards 39 33 31 39 34 36 40 39 42 38 26 35
Obama 30 27 16 21 29 27 22 24 25 26 25 28
Kucinich 8 9 5 6 4 3 2 2 2 4
H. Clinton 8 9 9 11 8 9 6 6 3 3 4 4
Dodd 2 7 21 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
No F’ing Clue 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 5 8 6 * *
Biden 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Richardson 1 1 2 1 6 5 8 13 8 6 5 4
Other 1 3 6 5 7 9 6 5 9 8 * *
Gravel 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0

Two clear front runners; note that Obama supporters and Edwards supporters have taken a few shots at each other, but the Democratic candidate that gets the most flack is by far Hillary Clinton.

Democrats Of course, there was another dust-up; this time Hillary Clinton’s campaign attempted to bring up Barack Obama’s self-admitted drug use. Of course, they tried to blame this on a rogue staff member.

The Obama team response:

UPDATE: The Obama campaign responds.

“Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the ‘fun part’ of this campaign, and now she’s moved from Barack Obama’s kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton’s campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he’s talked about the lessons he’s learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people,” said Plouffe.

This incident got front page attention at the Daily Kos:

In the course of a hotly contested primary season, it’s natural for the rhetoric to become increasingly heated and the attacks more direct. And apparently when a campaign is losing ground every day to their opponent, some think that trotting out a Republican line of attack will stop the bleeding. Such was the case earlier today when the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire said of Barack Obama:

The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama’s openness about his past drug use — which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire — with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was “young and irresponsible.”

Shaheen said Obama’s candor on the subject would “open the door” to further questions. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”

It’s hard to say which is the most offensive part about this “concern” from Shaheen. Perhaps that he ignores that it was Obama himself who opened the door when he wrote his autobiography, and that he has used that chapter in his life to convince young people that drugs are a waste of time [...]

The Clinton campaign issued a statement saying:

Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.

So, the comments were not authorized or condoned, but then again, they weren’t condemned, were they? And will Billy Shaheen, who is no political innocent, pay any price for his comments? Or was this a directed hit from a floundering campaign?

Remember how carefully Hillary Clinton speaks.

One other note about Hillary Clinton: some of her supporters are whining about what Chris Mathews said about her:

MATTHEWS: I think—I think that, for, rightly or wrongly, when people think about Hillary Clinton and their emotions are exposed, they feel that she thinks she’s better than us, morally as well as intellectually.

I think, when people think and feel about Obama, they feel that he makes us better than us. He makes us feel better than we thought we were. He makes us feel generous, tolerant, upbeat, fearless, future-oriented. Just to be for Obama makes you feel better. Being for Hillary makes you feel subservient to her, because she’s perfect. She has had to deal, as she put it, with “evil men.” She’s had to deal with people who are inferior to her, morally, all her life.

That’s my hunch. You like the feel of being for Obama. You don’t like the feel of being for Hillary. That’s my hunch.

That’s really great policy analysis Chris. Hillary Clinton makes you “feel subservient.” Wow. Thanks so much for the informative fact-based reasons for your support for Obama and your near daily hysterical rants against Hillary and in defense of your anxious masculinity.

Ok, I’ll forget about the feminist nuttery of this blog for a moment. I certainly agree with what Mathews said about Obama. But, to be honest, one of Clinton’s best traits is, in my opinion, that she comes across as being likable, at least when you see her talk.

And, if you believe the books you read (her book Living History) or A Woman in Charge by Bernstein, many men must agree since she has had good male friends for most of her life. So Mathews’s criticism is one criticism that I must reject.