Post April Fools…

Workout notes 10 miles (2:26 worth) after yoga; Bob Michael Bridge (the Illinois River was beautiful), Goose loop, Springdale Cemetery, Glen Oak Park.

Ouch! Friendly Atheist delivers a sharp kick to Governor Hucakbee’s favorite “side kick”:

Misguided to Speak to Poorly Educated

Chuck Norris will be giving the commencement speech to graduates of Liberty University, with founder Pat Robertson surely in attendance. [...]

Evoultion Higher organisms do not have a “cost of complexity”:

Biologists have long puzzled over the relationship between evolution of complex traits and the randomness of mutations in genes. Some have proposed that a “cost of complexity” makes it more difficult to evolve a complicated trait by random mutations, because effects of beneficial mutations are diluted.

“While a mutation in a single gene can have effects on multiple traits, even as diverse as the structures of brain, kneecap and genitalia, we wondered how often random mutation would affect many traits” said lead author Gunter Wagner, professor and chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale. The phenomenon wherein mutation in a single gene can have effects on multiple traits is known as pleiotropy.

This study showed that most mutations only do affect few traits. Further, the effect of an individual mutation is not dampened because of its effects on other traits.

Observing 70 skeletal characteristics in the mouse, the researchers identified total of 102 genomic regions that affect the skeleton. They concluded that substitution in each genome segment affected a relatively small subset of characteristics and that the effect on each characteristic increased with the total number of traits affected.

“You wouldn’t expect to make a lot of random adjustments — at the same time — to tune up a car,” said Wagner. “Similarly, it appears that tuning up a complex trait in a living organism is well coordinated and the effects of pleiotropy are more focused than we thought.”

Other authors on the paper are Jane P. Kenney-Hunt, Mihaela Pavlicev, Joel R. Peck, David Waxman and James M. Cheverud. Funding for the research was from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Humboldt Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Austrian Science Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust.

Election:

A Sutton cartoon (Comix Nation) pretty much nails it.

Larger image here.

Is this long campaign hurting the Democrats? Maybe not:

[...]She recognizes that she probably will not win the nomination. But a couple of possibilities are at play here. One is that lightning will strike, and she will become the nominee. Or, perhaps more plausibly though counter-intuitively, she is actually helping the party by staying in.

That’s because her message about disenfranchisement seems to have taken hold. As Ms. Williams noted, there are still 10 contests to go, with perhaps 43 millions votes to be counted. To short-circuit the process would anger many of her supporters, especially those who have not yet voted. Thousands of people are coming to her rallies now, and her campaign has organized events in post-Pennsylvania states where people are thrilled to be part of a process from which they are normally excluded.

On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are both going to a state Democratic dinner in Butte, Montana. Normally, about 600 people show up. This year, 1,500 had planned to attend. But once Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton confirmed they were coming, 2,500 more tickets were sold in less than 15 minutes. “This will be the biggest political event in Montana in generations,” said Kevin OBrien, a spokesman for the state party.

One person whom the disenfranchisement argument may have impressed is Mr. Obama, who has not called for Mrs. Clinton to step aside. While some of his surrogates have, they have backed off in recent days. It is almost as if a tacit understanding has emerged between the two candidates that the process must play out — not to the detriment of the party but perhaps for the good of the party.

This theory doesn’t take into account reports that as Clinton aides try to woo superdelegates, they are discussing the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Obama’s controversial pastor from whom he has tried to distance himself. But it may partly explain why the Clinton campaign has ceased its daily political conference calls with reporters, which only stirred the pot with the Obama campaign. (Update: Shortly after this column was posted, the Clinton campaign held a conference call to discuss a new ad that criticizes John McCain.)

It may not be apparent to the casual viewer of the news, but Mrs. Clinton is no longer dropping negative bombs on Mr. Obama. She has shifted her attacks, some of them quite trenchant, to President Bush and Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. [...]

But then again, she remains Hillary Clinton and is saying idiotic stuff like this:

en. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor’s endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.”

Hmmm, and yet Obama has come from way back to kick your butt? This is how good your judgment is, Senator Clinton:

Bill Richardson isn’t taking any more gruff either:

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation — particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack — driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president. [...]

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did. [...]

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

At least Clinton is attempting to take shots at John McCain.

McCain doesn’t seem phased:

The McCain campaign is not mincing any words in response to Clinton’s latest ad attacking the Arizona Senator on the economy. Senior Adviser Steve Schmidt tells reporters, “with ads like that, it’s more likely the call at 3 a.m. is ‘Senator, you just lost another Superdelegate.’”

Ouch!

But others have taken better shots.

Elizabeth Edwards really goes after McCain on health care.

Elizabeth Edwards Responds: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?posted on The Wonk Room
The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator’s proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors. [...]

his is more straight talk from Elizabeth.She is good.

She is really good.

Senator McCain likes to start speeches with a litany of questions that, presumedly, less plain-spoken politicians would refuse to answer. Well, here are some questions he does not ask but, as that plain-spoken politician, he might want to answer:

1. Under your plan, Senator McCain, would any health insurer be required to sell you or me (or those like us with pre-existing conditions) a health insurance policy?

2. You say your plan is going to increase competition to the point that it actually lowers costs. Isn’t there competition today among insurance companies? Haven’t costs continued to go up despite that competition?

3. You say that under your plan everyone is going to pay less for health insurance. Nice words, I admit, but they are words we have heard before. You must know when American families calculate the actual cost of health care, they have to include those deductibles and co-pays and not just the cost of the insurance. Are you talking about cheaper overall or just a cheap policy that doesn’t kick in until after thousands of dollars of deductibles have been paid?

4. Isn’t the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or might be needed for a long time. We all live in the real world; those of us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments. The insurance company makes money when it doesn’t have to pay for our health care. (I suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for nuns.) Doesn’t your plan really encourage insurers plans to compete to avoid people with cancer or other high-cost diseases? Don’t you think that the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required coverage, that doesn’t exclude the care we actually need, would be better?

I am not confused about your reputation: you are the straight-talker, you like to say. This is about health care, Senator McCain. Doesn’t the American voter deserve some straight answers to these questions? As one of those with a pre-existing condition, I sure would like some straight talk.– Elizabeth Edwards

McCain: not a good choice for President, especially at this time. My reasons for saying this? Well, one reason is that he doesn’t have a good grasp of the issues, especially the defense ones! Yes, part of it is his lack of understanding as I pointed out yesterday. And part of it is his point of view:

(Disclosure: In the 2000 Republican primary season I went on numerous conservative and religious radio talk shows to argue for McCain against the Bush crowd and against the Republican right. McCain returned the favor by writing a great endorsement of my book AWOL-The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes From Military Service, And How It Hurts Our Country. It makes me sad I can’t support McCain now.)

The problem is that McCain doesn’t see himself as a civilian. He was, is and will always be defined in his own mind by the code of military service. This would be a great quality in a general or perhaps in a peacetime president, but will be disastrous in wartime. There is a reason our founders wanted America’s military to have dispassionate civilian leadership.

McCain thinks of himself in terms of honor, service and sacrifice. These laudable abstract spiritual ideas are a terrific quality in officers leading last stands or in medics attending the battlefield wounded. But honor, service and sacrifice are the wrong code for directing national policy. [...]

That said, the reason we have civilian leadership of our military is that the military code of honor is great for the military, lousy for the world of civilian decision making. It is even lousy for the military — if the military code is adopted by the nation’s leaders.

McCain would bring both a historical perspective and psychological needs to the presidency. Simply put, McCain does not want to be the president that presides over today’s Iraqi equivalent of the mass exit from the rooftop of Saigon’s American embassy.

McCain comes from a generation of military people deeply hurt by another war-gone-bad, a war McCain paid a huge personal and heroic price for. But what if another Vietnam-style debacle is preferable to a catastrophe? What if that catastrophe is driven by the next president’s stubborn refusal to admit failure, or even admit his own historic mistake in voting for the Iraq war? What if military-style honor cannot be served? What if the Bush error is so big there can be no happy endings? [...]