The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: my review

I admit that I bought it some time ago and read it quickly; I just got through with a slower rereading of it.

What it has The book basically starts out by countering the idea that religious beliefs are somehow entitled to a certain amount of respect just because they are religious beliefs.

Dawkins then goes on to discuss the God Hypothesis and what he means by that.
In a nutshell, by “god”, Dawkins is referring to a supernatural entity that either currently acts or has acted in some supernatural way to effect the outcome of otherwise natural events (e. g., a deity that resurrects dead people, heals illnesses in a supernatural way, causes bullets to miss people (or vital organs), etc.)

He then critiques arguments for the existence of such a deity and find them wanting; he argues that life, as we know it, strongly argues against there being a designer.

He talks about religion and where it might have come from (from a evolution via natural selection point of view) and then does the same thing about morality. Then he talks about what he finds wrong with religion and how, in some sense, subjecting a child to religion can even be child abuse.

How I read his arguments

Here is what I see as his major point: “faith”, as in believing in something without having any evidence for it is inherently bad, at least for an adult. That is, “blessed are those who have not seen but believe” is, well, nonsense.

It isn’t bad for, say, a kid to do so, as kids who do accept their parents instructions on faith (“honey, don’t play in the street”) tend to live longer.

This is where Dawkins thinks that the faith “meme” came from; those who listened to their elders survived at higher rates and therefore passed on “faith” genes.

True, many of us take medicines without understanding the biology of it, and I don’t know everything about the computer that I am using. But I know that studies have been done on the safety of the medicines and those who have done the studies have passed rigorous examinations and peer review processes.

One of the most entertaining aspects of the book for me is how snippy he is! Time and time again, he lampoons some of the Panglossian utterances that we’ve heard made again and again: “Oh, you got cancer? It must be part of God’s plan.” “Oh, the 9-11 attacks were bad, but did you see God’s hand in this? Only 3000 died in the towers; that was a miracle!”

The latter was from an e-mail that I received.

Anyhow, I had to smile at reading responses that I wish that I had given.

Dawkins also takes on the “morality” canard and points out that both atheists and believers give similar responses to the standard “moral dilemma” questions, which seems to indicate that even theists don’t really get their morality from a different source than atheists.

Also, think about this example: remember the weird Bible passages that call for people to be stoned to death for doing things like working on the Sabbath, talking back to their parents, engaging in homosexual activity? Remember the ruthless slaughters described in the book of Joshua? How about the murders committed by Samson?

Most of us can see these things as being grossly immoral; clearly can’t be getting that reaction from the Bible. Hence we must be using some other source.

What I wish Dawkins would have said when asked “where do atheists get our moral values from”: I usually say: “we get our morals from the same place we get our medicine, technology, computers, laws and science!” Pretty simple, isn’t it?

What Dawkins leaves out: Dawkins admits that people explain to him that they don’t believe in an “old man with a beard” type of god. Dawkins goes on to say that he knows that, but a god that requires “faith” is a priori bad. Dawkins also mentions pantheism and blows it off as “sexed up atheism”.

Dawkins also blasts agnostics: after all, few of us are really agnostic with respect to all of the other gods and religious deities out there.

But here is the point: many people (albeit a minority of people) adhere to a religion but don’t really believe in a physics changing deity!

My evidence for this: check out the latest Pew Survey on Religion in the United States. 40% of Americans do not believe in a personal god, including 37% of Catholics, 46% of Eastern Orthodox, 58% of Jews, 34% of mainline Protestant church goers and even 20% of Evangelicals!

Note also that I took belief.net’s “What kind of Christian are You” quiz. I answered every “what really happened when the Bible reported Jesus did miracle X” with a “secular reason” response. I still was scored as a “left leaning traditionalist Christian”.

Even funnier, my sister (who is a Christian) scored in the same category as I did!

My point: there are people who go to church for more than social reasons who don’t believe in miracles. Why?

My guess is that I will call the “grand metaphor” or “grand myth”: sometimes, being grounded in some standard myth (e. g., the Jews being lead out of bondage, Jesus standing up for his principles to help others, even onto death) can help someone through rough patches of life. No, no deity will come in and miraculously save you, but it can calm you down and help you do the right thing.

Religion can teach useful techniques too, such as prayer, meditation and yoga (the latter is good for bad backs!); no “faith” is required.

Also, it appears to me that the public, in general, is quite accepting of this view of religion (see Obama’s, Edward’s and Biden’s answers; Clinton panders a bit)

So, my conclusion is that Dawkins while talking about the God delusion really doesn’t talk about a religion delusion.

Dawkins doesn’t really attack religion that is subordinate to reason on matters of reason. The reason I talk about “matters of reason” is this: oft-times, our reason can show us the right thing to do, but sometimes we need the moral courage and moral strength to do it. Religion, when properly applied, can help provide the latter (though it doesn’t have a monopoly on that).

Obama’s response to bloggers about his FISA position

From my.barackobama.com

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

Obama has had a history of telling his supporters that he disagrees with them.

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts’ nomination. I don’t get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it’s precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

* Barack Obama’s diary :: ::
*

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations — blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully – and voted against – the Iraqi invasion. He isn’t somehow transformed into a “war supporter” – as I’ve heard some anti-war activists suggest – just because he hasn’t called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn’t become anti-choice because he or she isn’t absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn’t become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive “checklist,” then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won’t go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won’t change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won’t have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won’t have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won’t have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that’s tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it’s harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it’s harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of “framing,” although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we “unilaterally disarm” in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of “disagreeing without being disagreeable,” and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone’s greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

And he posted a follow up:

Let me start by saying how much I appreciated all the energetic responses to my previous post. Time didn’t permit me to respond immediately, but I personally read most of them – positive and negative – and found them thoughtful and challenging.

Rather than belabor some of the points I made in the original post, let me just offer a few quick reactions to some of the responses to my message.

* Barack Obama’s diary :: ::
*

I completely agree that the Democrats need to present and fight for a clearly stated set of core convictions, and that we have not done so as effectively as we need to over the past several election cycles. We can insist on being principled about the ends we are trying to achieve (e.g. educational opportunity and basic health care for all Americans, honest and accountable government, etc.), without sacrificing our commitment to open debate, intellectual honesty, and civility. I think its the right thing to do and I also think it will help us win.

I also agree that it is the job of Democratic elected officials to help shape public opinion, and not just respond passively to opinion thats been aggressively shaped by the Republicans PR machinery. I am simply suggesting, based on my experience, that people will respond to a powerfully progressive agenda when its couched in optimism, pragmatism and our shared American ideals.

Finally, some of you wondered whether I wrote the post myself. I did.

Again, thanks for the comments. I look forward to continued dialogue in the future.

Video: On the Waterboard: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded.Evidently it is worse than it looks!

more about "Video: On the Waterboard: Politics & …", posted with vodpod

Jesse Helms: please don’t overlook his lifetime of bigotry

But my reaction to this news:

Former US Republican Senator Jesse Helms – a leading conservative politician – has died aged 86, officials say.

He died early on Friday of natural causes in Raleigh, North Carolina, his former chief of staff said.

Mr Helms had served five terms in the Senate representing North Carolina before stepping down in 2003.

He was dubbed “Senator No” for blocking many policies he saw as contrary to his conservative view of the world.

Mr Helms was chairman of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, becoming the first lawmaker to address the UN Security Council.

Mostly, he was known for his bigotry, including anti-gay bigotry

In 1993, when then-President Clinton sought confirmation for an openly homosexual assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Helms registered his disgust. “I’m not going to put a lesbian in a position like that,” he said in a newspaper interview at the time. “If you want to call me a bigot, fine.”

as well as racial bigotry.

POLITICS OF SEGREGATION

The strategy that helped Republicans sweep to power last November is one that Jesse Helms perfected decades ago. “Jesse Helms understood before anyone else that the proverbial angry white male feels the most aggrieved, and is therefore the most likely to vote,” says Larry Sabato, a professor of government at the University of Virginia. “Jesse Helms was an angry white male before most of his compatriots were. He should have been lucky enough to be on the ballot in ‘94. He would have won easily.”

Unlike many of his Republican counterparts, Helms has changed little over the past 50 years. Long before Rush Limbaugh, Helms pioneered the use of television to rally public sentiment. While Ronald Reagan was losing primaries to Gerald Ford, Helms mobilized the religious right and built one of the most profitable political fundraising machines ever. And long after die-hard segregationists like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond began courting black voters, Helms fueled white fears by opposing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whistling “Dixie” while standing next to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and supporting apartheid in South Africa.

“His racial politics are deeply held convictions, not simply politics of convenience,” says Christopher Scott. “He has a view of a fundamentalist Christian society in which everyone is not welcome. If you could pick up the South Africa of 20 years ago and transplant it to America, that’s what he would do.”

Born in Monroe, N.C., in the fall of 1921, Helms grew up in a segregated world not unlike the one of apartheid. He dropped out of college to work full time as a reporter before discovering the two arenas that would shape his career: broadcasting and politics. He learned about radio as a Navy recruiter during World War II and stuck with the emerging medium as news director of a fledgling station in Raleigh. And he was an “unofficial” researcher for conservative Willis Smith, whose 1950 Senate campaign is still considered one of the meanest and most racially divisive in the country’s history. (One of Smith’s ads featured a doctored photo of the incumbent’s wife dancing with a black man. Helms has denied any involvement, but a newspaper advertising manager later told Helms biographer Ernest Furgurson that Helms personally cut up the photos.)

Of course, the press will overlook his lifetime of bigotry as they have in the past:

In his piece this week Broder made much of Helms’ divisive campaigns in 1984, against Gov. Jim Hunt, and 1990, against Charlotte mayor Harvey Gant, when the conservative Republican played the race card with jaw-dropping audacity.

Yet Broder watched those same races like everyone else in the political media, and wrote nothing condemning Helms’ race-baiting tactics. In 1987 he wrote a column about Hunt, revisiting his loss to Helms, but never detailed any of Helm’s racist maneuvers. (There was a passing reference by Broder in ‘94 to Helms and how “No one in current politics has played the race card more flagrantly than he has in his campaigns.”)

Since then, when Broder did write about Helms’ work in the Senate, it was usually to poke him gently about inside-the-Beltway questions of process (a Broder specialty): trying to pass a “nonsensical amendment” having to do with art funding, his staunch opposition to the United Nations, and his leading role in defeating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Even when Helms for years held up President Clinton’s nomination of Roger Gregory to be the first African-American judge to the 4th Circuit bench in Helms’ North Carolina (a district that represents more minorities than any other in the country), Broder did not question Helms’ racial motivation.

Broder was right about the press treating Helms’ retirement announcement with kid gloves, overlooking some of the senator’s hateful rhetoric over the years.

For more, see this article.

Well, I won’t overlook the fact that this “person” was nothing more than an Imperial Wizard in a suit. I am just sad that he didn’t live long enough to see Obama elected President.

Galva 4′th of July 5K 2008

Workout notes 6 miles of walking total; my 5K race was 31:33 (10:11 pace) via 9:59, 10:12, 10:22, 0:59. The last mile had an uphill to it so it wasn’t the slowdown that it might appear.

I passed many people in the first mile, only 2 in the second and had a net of one in the third (I passed two, but one got me back). My knees were ok; my daughter said that I looked like I was walking but “almost ready to break into a run”.

Olivia stayed with Barbara who walked 54:35.

The day was as perfect as it gets for a summer day; it was almost chilly in the early AM.

As far as why we picked this race: they had a $12.00 “no shirt” option whereas the race day registration for the local Firecracker was $30.00 (the preregistered fee was a reasonable $20.00).

Actually I liked this small town event; the course wound through neighborhoods and then featured an out and back along a corn field. The lead runner was a college runner on vacation; he had something like a 1 minute lead with about 1200 meters to go; his finish time was 16:16, which was a “no competition” time. The first woman was 21:20 or so (a typical small country 5K winning time around here).

As for me: I just don’t have that “extra gear” that comes with speed work; I had people to chase but I couldn’t seem to get myself past “10K” type of intensity. Ok, part of it was that I wanted to keep my knees legal.

But this was higher intensity than I am used to; I would probably benefit from doing, say, 3-4 x 1 mile at this kind of pace once a week.

After I finished, I got my camera but had no battery power left. Hence, no photos. Still, I walked the last half mile or so with Barbara and Olivia; Barbara was next to last with 54:35 (173 finishers). I was 127 though I didn’t see any walkers ahead of me.

As far as the Galva race itself: I can recommend it; it is reasonably well organized and there is a $5.00 pancake breakfast afterwards. There is also a .5 mile (800 meter) race for the kids that starts 30 minutes earlier.

Update Paul Appell provided me a link to the newspaper article on the race.
These things tend to get nuked after a while, so I’ll reproduce it here:

Galva, Ill. -

A record field of 176 runners and walkers took to the streets Friday morning for the annual Galva Freedom Fest 5K.

St. Ambrose University runner and AlWood High School graduate Cliff Miles ran away from the field, winning the event in a time of 16:16.

Nearly two minutes back in second place was Nathan Brown of Colorado Springs, Colo., at 18:06. The top female finishers was Teresa Snodgrass of Princeville in a time of 21:47, followed by Stacie Wetzel of Kewanee at 23:05.

The top finishers from the Galva School District were, in the male division, Trevor Foley (19:22), Derek Foley (20:53) and Chris Burrows (21:01). The top Galva female finishers were Kali Rabas (25:16), Brittany Rose (25:35) and Rosie Comer (26:12).

Here’s how the entire field finished Friday in Galva:

Female divisions
14-and-under — Kyra DeSchepper, Toulon, 24:19; Emily Swanson, Galva, 28:00; Rachel Jeffries, Galva, 28:01; Ali Brown, Kewanee, 30:23; Bailey Taylor, Galva, 32:52; Allison Lococo, Chandler, Ariz., 39:57; Katherine Kaufman, Galva, 41:45; Olivia Nanyes, Peoria, 54:39

15-19 — Jeanie Abbott, Kewanee, 24:22; Megan McIntyre, Kewanee, 25:13; Brittany Rose, Galva, 25:35; Dani Rosebeck, Annawan, 25:48; Grace Frederick, Pekin, 26:03; Emily Morland, Galesburg, 26:40; Michelle Matuszyk, Kewanee, 27:36; Auty Rohweder, Oneida, 28:49; Natalie Fargher, Kewanee, 28:52; Kait O’Riley, Galva, 29:12; Erin Ekstedt, Altona, 29:30; Mariah Carney, Geneseo, 31:34; Macie Huff, Kewanee, 44:08

20-24 — Kali Rabas, Bishop Hill, 25:16; Cindy Thomas, Peoria, 26:54; Tricia Cooper, Peoria, 27:24; Emily Ericson, DeKalb, 27:42; Ashley Foglesong, Toulon, 39:13; Denise Behnke, Kewanee, 46:56

25-29 — Janelle McFarland, Neponset, 24:44; Miranda Boss, Aledo, 27:51; Beth Millman, Kewanee, 28:17; Kim Fargher, Kewanee, 29:46; Julie Jewett, Raymond, 31:09; Kelly Boatright, Galva, 33:57; Andrea Meyers, East Peoria, 33:58; Dawn Gale, Galva, 35:40; Erin Varner, Lincoln, 37:54; April Taylor, Kewanee, 42:44

30-34 — Barb Ramage, Cambridge, 33:14

35-39 — Teresa Snodgrass, Princeville, 21:47; Stacie Wetzel, Kewanee, 23:05; Rosie Comer, Galva, 26:12; Angela Bastian, Galesburg, 26:14; Ann Thuline, Galva, 26:24; Tammy Bryan, Kewanee, 27:46; Jo Sanders, Victoria, 28:59; Tonya Lococo, Chandler, Ariz., 40:30; Misty Gross, Tempe, Ariz., 40:38; Michelle Warner, Galva, 47:08

40-44 — Ann Grimm, Dahinda, 24:11; Darcy Jeffries, Galva, 26:17; Diane Foernssler, Darien, 30:25; Julie Kaufman, Galva, 35:28; Katie Troline, Roswell, Calif., 44:10; Paige Rohweder, Oneida, 57:03; Donna Palmer, Galesburg, 99:99; Frances Stock, Galva, 99:99; Lee Ann Lovelace, Galva, 99:99

45-49 — Mary Milroy, Toulon, 25:21; Dorene Lay, Galva, 27:34; Patty Gustafson, Galesburg, 28:19; Sherri Matuszyk, Kewanee, 29:22; Donna Stohl, Cambridge, 30:18; Julie Shaver, Galesburg, 31:52; Roni Benson, Galva, 40:32; Gretchen Hickman, Galva, 46:41; Laura Wendel, Bishop Hill, 47:09; Donna Naslund, Altona, 47:26

50-54 — Mary Bergren, Kewanee, 27:19; Pam Ogden, Eau Claire, Wis., 27:19; Suzy Rehn, Woodhull, 31:10; Patrcia Gerond, Lisle, 34:59; Bonnie Bryan, Kewanee, 37:38; Linda VanDeVelde, 37:53; Carol Guthrie, Annawan, 40:18; Nancy Ekstedt, Altona, 49:35

55-59 — Karen Saatkamp, East Peoria, 29:34; Deborah Cordrey, Kewanee, 32:22; Cheryl Fredrichs, Pekin, 39:53; Cathy Herrman, Kewanee, 99:99

60-and-over — Sandra Theobald, Peoria, 32:28; Dorothy Venturi, Farmington, 34:37; Shirley Allen, Galesburg, 35:55; Jill Appell, Altona, 42:42; Jean Mann, Galva, 44:32; Janet Hand, Peoria, 44:59; Judy Kitterman, Galva, 44:59; Elaine Fritz, Kewanee, 46:02; Babs Carraway, Peoria, 54:38; Marti White, Galva, 99:99

Male divisions
14-and-under — Chris Burrows, Galva, 21:01; Nathan Stiles, Galva, 21:44; Seth Applegate, Shelbyville, 21:53; Corey Brown, Colorado Springs, Colo., 23:14; Kevin O’Riley, Galva, 24:09; Mike Bersell, Galva, 24:24; Patrick Comer, Galva, 25:33; David Hood, Kewanee, 26:13; Miles Gross, Tempe, Ariz., 41:51; Jacob Palmer, Galesburg, 99:99

15-19 — Nathan Brown, Colorado Springs, Colo., 18:06; Jason Henkins, Kewanee, 18:42; Trevor Foley, Galva, 19:22; Carlisle Peck, Geneseo, 19:29; Tyler Hannam, Woodhull, 20:51; Derek Foley, Galva, 20:53; Billy Ogden, Eau Claire, Wis., 21:04; Matthew Barr, Knoxville, 21:30; Duncan Null, North Henderson, 22:45; Nelson Kendall, Galva, 23:17; Michael McIntyre, Kewanee, 25:36; Tim Larson, Galva, 26:19; Chris Parks, Kewanee, 28:53; Danny Morlock, Macomb, 35:17

20-24 — Cliff Miles, Alpha, 16:16; Chris Kunz, Chatham, 20:13; Brett Skaloud, Chicago, 20:42; Shawn Walsh, Cambridge, 21:56; Jerryn Currie, Kewanee, 21:59; Jake Patty, Galva, 23:50; Adam Saatkamp, Peoria, 25:30; Reuben Currier, Kewanee, 26:41; Adam Ekstedt, Altona, 27:37

25-29 — Creston Fenn, Geneseo, 18:40; Shawn Kendall, Galva, 22:01; Kyle McFarland, Champaign, 22:29; Chad Jewett, Raymond, 23:58; Mike Shields, Galva, 25:50; Ben Thomas, Peoria, 28:02; Chris Meyers, East Peoria, 28:03; Wes Ekstedt, Altona, 32:37

30-34 — Brad Bagby, Geneseo, 23:32; Don Earley, Annawan, 24:15; John Olmstead, Galesburg, 25:19; Jon DeBord, Kewanee, 28:29

35-39 — Evan Sulaski, Toulon, 19:49; Steve Sanders, Victoria, 21:58; Dan Schisler, Roseville, 22:38; Shane Kaiser, Galva, 25:14; Mike Rose, Dunlap, 26:22; Pete Foernssler, Darien, 30:26

40-44 — Jim Cheney, Dahinda, 21:05; David Morland, Galva, 23:42; J.D. Smith, Dunlap, 23:47; Brad Hulick, Galva, 23:57

45-49 — Russ Johnson, Knoxville, 18:57; Chris Kendall, Galva, 21:03; Bruce Mahaffey, Kewanee, 21:39; Joe Thompson, Berwick, 23:19; Ben Stohl, Cambridge, 24:03; Alan Abbott, Kewanee, 25:40; Jay Cone, Kewanee, 26:44; Tim Brown, Colorado Springs, Colo., 30:35; Ollie Nanyes, Peoria, 31:40

50-54 — Glen Gustafson, Galesburg, 21:54; Richard Rodgers, Sterling, 22:52; Dennis Peck, Geneseo, 23:55; Mark Guthrie, Annawan, 24:04; David Benson, Galva, 24:47; Steve Rider, Kewanee, 25:43; Mike Rabas, Bishop Hill, 40:16; Ken Naslund, Altona, 47:27

55-59 — Roy Saatkamp, East Peoria, 23:49; Richard Frederick, Pekin, 26:32; Lou Padilla, Kewanee, 27:27; Wayne Bryan, Kewanee, 27:47; Bill Loane, Toulon, 28:26; David Shaver, Galesburg, 29:19

60-and-over — Paul Appell, Altona, 22:20; Terry Shields, Galva, 24:10; Roger Mann, Galva, 24:55; Father Burns, Galva, 27:54; Ron Sulaski, Princeville, 30:01; Tim Montooth, Toulon, 30:48; Keith Clemeitt, Alpha, 46:15; Greg White, Galva, 99:99

Back in Peoria, July 2008

We drove in from Joplin, MO, with little mishap. We stayed in the Microtel in Joplin; they don’t have a treadmill but they had wireless internet and they had a good (for us) breakfast.

Tomorrow, we are driving to Galva, IL, for a 4′th of July race. I haven’t decided whether or not I’ll racewalk it or run it as a “ok, here is my starting point benchmark”. If I racewalk it, I probably shouldn’t compare my time to Tammy’s as she is aiming for something under 29 minutes, and the best I could hope for (if I stay in the neighborhood of legality) is somewhere around 31; maybe 30:30.

I’ll decide tomorrow morning.

Blog Stuff My “cuss-o meter” is a low 6%, which is 40% lower than most blogs.

Created by OnePlusYou

I’ll have to compare myself to “evolved and rational“:

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

or:

Around 39.8% of the pages on your website contain cussing.This is 298% MORE than other websites who took this test.

Niksnest (which often gets comments from neo-nazis and other “white power” types reads:

Around 47.5% of the pages on your website contain cussing.This is 375% MORE than other websites who took this test.

Politics This Daily Kos article explains what Obama is doing, in terms of his campaign. It is a nice read for worried liberals, as is this article.

Obama on Iraq

Mathematics

Fun
Friendly Atheist is whining about his take home abstract algebra midterm. He gave a sample problem and the readers were able to solve it easily! Problem: how many zeros on the right for the base 10 expansion of 5,000,000! ?
Note: if you get stumped, there are several nice solutions in the comments section, though you will probably need a sheet of scratch paper.

Women and mathematics When it comes to the standard mathematics exams (say, the math section on the SAT), it is no secret that women do worse than men, at least in the United States. However there is finally some hard-core data to suggest that the reasons for this gap are more social than genetic; guess why this might be the case and then read this article.

Note that we are talking about the type of math ability that one might need for, say, passing freshman calculus.

I can say in all honesty that, in my years of teaching college mathematics, I have NOT noticed much difference between the sexes.