Aaron Schock: Blogs at the Huffington Post

Find Rep. Schock’s blog post here.

Thank you to the readers of the Huffington Post for voting me the “Hottest Freshman” of the 111th Congress. It’s about time politicians from Illinois were known for something other than bad haircuts or having the ability to walk on water.

While it’s always nice to win an election, this distinction is an amusing diversion from the serious work before Congress.

I know most of you didn’t vote Republican, but I am proud of my membership in the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. During my service in the Illinois General Assembly, on the Peoria School Board and in my short time in Congress, I’ve focused on building bridges, finding common ground and creating innovative solutions to our nation’s problems.

Some examples include ensuring government transparency; providing more funding for transportation and infrastructure; improving public education; and working to create and sustain jobs. While we might not always agree, we both have the same goal – ensuring our government works for everyone.

In that vein, I recently introduced H.R. 899, the Ethical and Legal Elections for Congressional Transitions (ELECT) Act. The ELECT Act requires that within 90 days of a vacancy in the United States Senate, a special election occurs. [...]

6 February 2009 part II

First, here is something off-beat:

Did you know that one of Russia’s main bomber is propeller driven? It sounds laughable, but actually it isn’t that much slower than our B-52

This is the Russian Tu-95 which, though no longer a strategic bombing threat (against a major military power), can still do many things. I wonder if these sort of turbo-prop planes could provide a fuel-thrifty type of airliner? After all, the Bear can travel at well over 500 mph.

Here is the B-52

Note: the video footage shows some B-52 G’s (with the taller rudder and smaller engines) and some B-52 H’s (bigger engines, shorter rudder)

Academia
If you think that professors are hard on undergraduates, read this rant directed at some graduate students. Note: I was once a graduate student, but I never reached the position of having graduate students.

This is not a professional relationship. It’s an irrational relationship. If it were a professional relationship, most grad students would have been shitcanned a long time ago because ya know that whole myth about us meany proffies stealing grad student work? It’s the man bites dog story, kiddies. As a group, grad students are time-consuming to faculty, and fully 90 percent of you aren’t worth either the time or the money we spend on you. Many who do graduate do not get jobs, and of those who do get jobs only a small fraction get tenured. That makes you a bad bet by any professional measure; it makes some worthy few of you a risky investment at best and the vast preponderance of you a charity.

Legislators and Education How do you save money in a state? Fire professors who aren’t teaching things that you’d like.

The AP reports that legislators and right-wingers in Georgia are citing budget shortfalls as the justification for trying to fire college professors who teach things they don’t like:

Upset House Republicans are mounting a campaign to purge Georgia’s higher education system of professors with an expertise in racy sexuality topics as the state grapples with a $2.2 billion shortfall.

State Rep. Charlice Byrd of Woodstock took House well on Friday to announce a “grass-roots” effort to oust professors with expertise in subjects like male prostitution, oral sex and “queer theory.”

“This is not considered higher education,” she said. “If legislators are going to dole out the dollars, we should have a say-so in where they go.”

Byrd and her supporters, including state Rep. Calvin Hill, said they will team with the Christian Coalition and other religious groups to pressure fellow lawmakers and the Board of Regents to eliminate the jobs.

I wonder how long before these idiots go after those who teach evolution?

Bailout and Stimulus

Republicans are belly-aching over Obama’s call to limit executive salary (for those firms getting tax payer bailout money)
Of course, that isn’t a surprise to anyone who has ever followed these clowns; remember that mostly what you are seeing left in the Republican party leadership are the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts.

Yes, I know; this “limit on pay” is largely symbolic:

If one is looking for silver linings in the devastation of Wall Street it may be that this sort of talent will henceforth be less demanded and less rewarded — not because of Obama’s plan to limit pay of executives living off public bailouts but because the Street has imploded. The plan itself is a bit of a ruse. If truth be told, the $500,000 seems little more than a symbolic gesture designed to reassure the public that the large amounts about to be asked for the next stage of bank bailout — likely far more than the $350 billion remaining in “TARP” (more on this in a moment) — will not simply feather the nests of those who created the mess in the first place. The guidelines don’t actually put a cap on total pay but only on salaries (usually a small portion of total pay), and even then apply only to firms receiving “exceptional assistance” — [...]

So why is Wall Street so upset about the faux $500,000 limit? Precisely because of its symbolism. It’s as if the administration is planning to subject executives of the banks that take the next dolop of bailout money to a kind of public shaming — the equivalent of a scarlet G, for greed — when the executives don’t view the bailout that way at all. Few if any of them think they did anything wrong in the first place; they don’t even view the bailout as a “bailout” but rather as a necessary injection of liquidity to keep credit markets going.

Emphasis mine. Note that this applies to the Republicans in Congress as well; they don’t see the current mess as being the fault of their actions, policies or philosophies.

Cooperation with them may well prove to be impossible:

John Cole on bipartisanship:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

Now, a bit more from the Daily Kos, just for comic relief.

Who knew? A dead woman caused the financial crisis:

Paul Kelleher: Yes, I’m calling to inform you that my mom died on the 24th of January.

Bank of America Estates representative: I’m sorry. Oh, it looks like she never even missed a payment. That’s too bad. Well, how are you planning to take care of her balance?

PK: I’m not going to. She has no estate to speak of, but you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I’m certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.

BOA: You mean you’re not going to help her out?

PK: I wouldn’t be helping her out — she’s dead. I’d be helping you out.

BOA: Oh, that’s really not the way to look at it. I know that if it were my mother, I’d pay it. That’s why we’re in the banking crisis we’re in: banks having to write off defaulted loans.

I suppose that the Bank of America could have covered this outstanding bill with some of their bathroom renovation money.

The Monkeys are Running the Zoo

Workout notes 4000 yards: 17:21 1000 (after an 8:53 start), 5 x (100 drill/swim/drill/swim with fins, 100 paddle), 4 x 250 (slow!) on the 5 (4:15, 4:17, 4:24, 4:24), 10 x (25 fly, 75 free) on the 2 (1:46-47 each).

Then 3 mile plus walk outside (46 minutes; probably about 3.4-3.5); it was an almost toasty 24 F.

Science Check out this article which is mostly a slide show about the types of worms that can infest humans. The slides…well…don’t exactly arouse one’s appetite. Hat tip: 3-quarks daily.

New Amphibians discovered in Columbia My sister sent me a link to this article about 10 new species of amphibians being discovered in Columbia.

With amphibians under threat around the globe, the discovery was an encouraging sign and reason to protect the area where they were found, said Robin Moore, an amphibian expert at the environmental group Conservation International.

The nine frog species and one salamander species were found in the mountainous Tacarcuna area of the Darien region near Colombia’s border with Panama.

Because amphibians have permeable skin, they are exposed directly to the elements and can offer early warnings about the impact of environmental degradation and climate change, Moore said. As much as one-third of all amphibians in the world are threatened with extinction, he said.

“Amphibians are very sensitive to changes … in the environment,” Moore said in a telephone interview. “Amphibians are kind of a barometer in terms of responding to those changes and are likely to be the first to respond, so climate change … impacts on amphibians heavily.”

Amphibians also help control the spread of diseases like malaria and dengue fever, because they eat the insects that transmit these ailments to people.

“Moderate Senators” attempt to cut NSF funding from the Stimulus Package. That’s right: a couple of so-called moderates are trying to cut the money going to science out of the stimulus package:

Tonight, an AP article reports that senate “moderates” are working on a compromise stimulus package that cuts $88B from the nominal senate version. Doesn’t sound so bad, until you read the fine print. Here’s what they plan on cutting:

Nearly 20 senators from both parties met twice during the day and reviewed a list of possible cuts totaling 88 billion. They included elimination of at least $40 billion in aid to the states, which have budget crises of their own, as well as $1.4 billion ticketed for the National Science Foundation.

Geesh! We’re talking more than $800B of stimulus and the very first thing on the chopping block is basic science. That demonstrates just how low basic science is regarded. It looks like education is also being cut.

From the AP article:

Senate moderates seeking to pare back Barack Obama’s economic plan are rekindling their efforts in hopes of building a bipartisan vote that eluded the president in the House.

A group of nearly 20 moderates from both parties — more Democrats than Republicans — huddled off and on all day Thursday in hopes of cutting as much as $100 billion from Obama’s plan, which ballooned to $937 billion on the Senate floor, with further add-ons possible during a long day of votes Friday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., displayed impatience with the moderates, led by Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., at a midday news conference, but he lent them encouragement as he sent senators home later Thursday.

“It’s gotten more encouraging and that’s because the leadership has indicated that they have some appreciation for the work that this bipartisan group is doing,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “It’s still got life. It’s still breathing.”

A roster of $88 billion worth of cuts was circulating, almost half of which would come from education grants to states, with an additional $13 billion in aid to local school districts for special education and the No Child Left Behind law on the chopping block as well. Some $870 million to fight the flu was among the first items to go, but other items divided the group.

There is the big problem: basic scientific research, including the type that is often ridiculed by the ignorant among us, is what drives these major advances.

Oh well; the silver lining is that this is the first stimulus bill and more will be eventually be coming; we don’t have to get it ALL in this one but we do need to get this one out.

I sure hope that the Senators know what they are doing.

President Obama Fights for a Stimulus Plan

To see the video, click the link:

President Obama’s speech to the Democratic Caucus.

Here is the text: (click here to access a pdf file which shows what is at stake in each state)

It’s great to be here with so many friends. I’m glad to see the House Democratic Caucus is getting by just fine without my Chief of Staff. I want to thank John Larson for inviting me here tonight. This is John’s first conference as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, so we’re both new at this.

I want to acknowledge the great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has proven to be an extraordinary leader for the American people. I want to thank Nancy, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and the entire caucus for your hard work in passing an economic recovery plan that is so desperately needed for our country.

You acted with a discipline that matches the urgency and gravity of the crisis we face. Because you know what’s at stake. Every weekend you go home to your districts and you see factories that are closing and small businesses shutting their doors. You hear from families losing their homes; students that can’t pay tuition; seniors who worry about whether they can retire with dignity, or see their kids and grandkids lead the better life that must be America’s promise.

So you went to work, and you did your job. For that, you have my appreciation and admiration. As we meet here tonight, we know there is more work to be done. The Senate is still acting. And after it has its final vote, we will still need to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills. I urge you to complete that work without delay.

Look, I value the constructive criticism and healthy debate that is a foundation of American democracy. I don’t think any of us have cornered the market on wisdom, or that good ideas are the province of any party. The American people know that our challenges are great. They’re not expecting Democratic solutions or Republican solutions – they want American solutions. And I have said that to those who have criticized the plan.

But what I have also said is – don’t come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis.

We’re not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that in eight short years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can’t embrace the losing formula that offers more tax cuts as the only answer to every problem we face, while ignoring critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, the soaring cost of health care, failing schools and crumbling bridges, roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV – if you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction.

The American people are watching. They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay and distractions. They did not vote for the false theories of the past. They did not vote for the status quo – they sent us here to bring change, and we owe it to them to act. This is the moment for leadership that matches the great test of our time.

If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Home will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction.

This isn’t some abstract debate. Last week, we learned that many of America’s largest corporations are planning to layoff tens off tens of thousands of workers. Today, we learned that last week, the number of new unemployment claims jumped to 626,000. And tomorrow, we’re expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs we lost last year.

For you, those aren’t statistics. They are constituents you know and families that you care about. Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude deserves the scrutiny that it’s received, and you will get another chance to vote for this bill in the days to come. But I urge all of us to not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right.

So just as past generations of Americans have done in trying times, we can and must turn this moment of challenge into one of opportunity. The plan that you’ve passed has at its core a simple idea: let’s put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done.

This plan will save or create over three million jobs – almost all of them in the private sector.

This plan will put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges; our dangerously deficient dams and levees.

This plan will put people to work modernizing our health care system, not only saving us billions of dollars, but countless lives.

This plan will put people to work renovating more than 10,000 schools, giving millions of children the chance to learn in 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs – and to all the scientists in the room today, you know what that means for America’s future.

This plan will provide sensible tax relief for the struggling middle-class, unemployment insurance and continued health care coverage for those who’ve lost their jobs, and it will help prevent our states and local communities from laying off firefighters, teachers, and police.

Finally, this plan will begin to end the tyranny of oil in our time. It doubles our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels in three years. It saves taxpayers billions of dollars by making federal buildings more energy efficient, and it saves the average working family hundreds on their energy bills. After decades of empty rhetoric, that is the down payment that we need on energy independence.

You know, there’s a lot about running for President that is difficult – I don’t miss sleeping in a different bed every night, or not seeing my kids as much as I’d like. But the best thing about being a candidate is that you get to see the country, and you get to know the character of the American people.

Over the last two years, I visited almost all fifty states. I’ve been in so many of your districts. I’ve passed through towns and cities, farms and factories. I know that people are hurting. I’ve heard their stories, and I’ve sensed their deep frustration. But I also know that these struggles have not diminished the strength and decency of the American people.

We hold within our hands the capacity to do great things on their behalf. It starts with this economic recovery plan. And soon, we will take on big issues like addressing the foreclosure issue, passing a budget, tackling our fiscal problems, fixing financial regulation and securing our country. We must not approach these challenges as Democrats – we must overcome them as Americans. That is why we must work in a serious, substantive, and civil way to build bipartisan support for action.

I promise you that my door is open, and my Administration will consult closely with you – the peoples’ representatives – as we take on pressing priorities like energy and health care; education and infrastructure.

Already, you have made a difference. I’m pleased that in my very first days in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons. I signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to 11 million children, and to make a down payment on comprehensive health care reform. I know it wasn’t easy – it was a long time coming, and I appreciate your hard work over several years on behalf of America’s children.

Tonight, I am confident that if we continue to work together, we can fulfill the promise of health care that is affordable for all Americans. We can create that new energy economy. We can provide a world-class education for our kids. We can unleash the talent, and innovation of the American people to compete in the 21st century. We can do all of that.

Now, we have a choice to make. Future generations will look back, and they will ask what we did when we confronted this crisis. What will they say?

Will they say that – once again – we failed to make the tough choices that lead to progress? Or will they say that this was the time that we came together, that we found our stake in one another as Americans, and that we voted for bold and aggressive action?

Together, we hold in our hands enormous responsibility. We also have an enormous opportunity.
We can write that next great chapter in American history. If we stay focused on the big picture; if we never forget the people who we are fighting for; if we represent the strength and dignity of the American people, then I know we can answer’s history’s call and renew America’s promise.

Thank you.

One reason I put up with cold weather

What life is like in the Red States:

For the past few days I have been in contact with Mr. Richard Mullens a school teacher in Brookeland Tx. Brookeland Tx, is an incredibly “Conservative” area of Texas, and only 16 miles up the road from Jasper Tx. the scene of several incidents of racial violence and murder. Mullens has been the victim of a smear campaign and a slew of unethical practices, based solely on his religious and political beliefs. I have received numerous calls today from area parents, and concerned local residents who feel that Mr. Mullens is a good teacher, who has encouraged and inspired his students to think critically, and independently and is innocent of all charges, both spoken and written. In fact the administration of Brookeland High School made attempts to urge students to sign a list of alleged chargers against Mr. Mullens of which over 100 students out of 103 refused to sign.The students attempted to present to the Board of education a petition in support of Mr. Mullens and refuting any charges of inappropriate language made against him. The Principal of Brookeland High School, not only refused to take this petition to the board but forbade the students from such actions. Mr. Mullins is being railroaded by a School board of which all of those who support his removal are members of the same church. A church who’s pastor has openly called for there to be only Christian teachers in the Brookeland school district. Currently the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center is in contact with several local and national civil rights organizations in Texas, who will be contacting Mr. Mullens, investigating this situation and offering their support. But if anyone out there knows any other resource that can be brought in to stop this injustice, I ask you please contact us, and forward this out to them. at Brad@midsouthpeace.org The following is a statement of events from Mr. Mullens, some names and details were redacted by me.

[...]

Then on January 7th, a student in my classroom in second period left my class, went to the Principal’s office, and told him that there was an inappropriate discussion in my classroom. I was informed by the principal, Richard Turner, that I needed to talk to her mother because she was very upset. Her mother came to class on January 7th, came to the school January 7th, very upset. She made some threats to me in the hallway. And then on January 8th, Mr. Turner informed me that I needed to call the parent, Mrs. Lowe. On January 9th, I had Vicki Smith, the school secretary, call “REDACTED” on my behalf to arrange a conference at 10:35 Monday, January 12th. Monday the 12th, I met with REDACTED and School Principal Richard Turner in his office. REDACTED was very angry. She accused me of being an atheist, saying I was too liberal, and that I allowed the students to talk about inappropriate things in the classroom. I told her that occasionally students would get on topics and say things, but I was unable to censor them before they were able to say them. She said that I called her daughter a name and I denied the accusation. But then she said that I didn’t believe in god and shouldn’t be teaching. She also said that she had spoken to 3 other board members who agreed with her that I shouldn’t be teaching because I was too liberal and I was an atheist.

I don’t care to live with such stupid, ignorant people. If there were any justice at all, such people would be denied modern medicine or the fruits of any modern invention that (mostly atheist) scientists have come up with.

Daily Kos: The President Strikes Back

more about "Daily Kos: The President Strikes Back", posted with vodpod

And, once again, Robert Reich gets it too.

How do we get out of this downward plunge?

Regardless of your ideological stripe, you’ve got to see that when consumers and businesses stop spending and investing, there’s only entity left to step into the breach. It’s government. Major increases in government spending are necessary, and the spending must be on a very large scale. In the last several weeks the President has put forward the outlines of a stimulus plan, and has left it to the House and Senate to fill in the details. A tiny portion of the details that made it into the House version should be stripped away because they seem like old-fashioned pork. But most spending in the bill is absolutely appropriate. My worry is there’s not nearly enough of spending to fill the shortfall in overall demand.

Yet at this very moment, Senate Republicans are seeking to strip the President’s stimulus package of many of its spending provisions and substitute tax cuts. Part of this is pure pander: They know tax cuts are more popular with the public than government spending, even though spending is a far more effective way to stimulate the economy (more on this in a moment). Another part is pure partisan politics [...]

Finally, those who say cutting taxes on businesses is the best way to create or preserve jobs forget about the demand side. Even with a tax cut, businesses won’t hire workers unless there are customers to buy what those workers produce. A government stimulus that creates jobs is a necessary precondition.

This isn’t a matter of more or less government, however much Republicans and conservatives would like to wedge it in that old ideological box. The issue is how to revive the economy. When consumers and businesses can’t or won’t spend enough to keep the economy going, government has to be the spender of last resort. Period.

Note: here is a chart from Reich’s blog which shows how much “stimulus” one can expect for every dollar in the stimulus bill:

And let me be blunt: I expect ignorant, heartless assholes Republicans to act like ignorant, heartless assholes Republicans. The saying is that “a leopard can’t change its stripes”. My ire is directed at Democrats: get your act together.

5 February

Athletic notes Yesterday, I didn’t feel quite right; then later in the morning I took a 32 ounce bottle of Poweraid Zero and finished all of it rather quickly (without intending to). Then I felt better; I knew that a 3 pound weight loss over a 3 day period probably spelled trouble.

Today: perhaps 8 miles of “run six, walk two” after my yoga class.
Barbara is sick today and I hope I don’t catch what she has, though I probably will. There is something going around campus that leads to diarrhea.

Update yoga, 6 mile treadmill run (55:20; did 3 1 mile hill intervals at 6.5 mph), 1 mile track walk, 2.2 outdoor walk. It was a balmy 19 F but there was a strong wind blowing off of the river which made things a bit frosty.

Other things

Academia These days, many students claim “learning disabilities”. They want extra time for exams as well as other accommodations. I wonder what will happen when these students get to the work force?

Part of my frustration comes from the fact that Larry and Lucy are B-School students. How are we preparing these biz kids for the “real world” post graduation?

Boss: “Lucy, here is a project, I need it done in 3 days.”
Lucy: “But boss, I need double the time to complete it and breaks as needed. By the way, I can’t work in this cubicle farm; I require a totally separate room.”
Boss: “I’ll give the project to Larry.”
Larry: “I’ll have it done in 4 days and it will be all typed up nicely”
Boss: “I’ve seen your typing. I’ll do the project myself”

Or: “ok, doctor, you need to get this operation done in 1 hour or the patient will die.”
“That’s not fair; I get extra time!”

I suppose that there is a fine line between being reasonably accommodating (e. g., I’d willingly give a student with a broken hand some alternatives) and crossing the line (e. g., waving some of the relevant course requirements).

Elementary arithmetic fail:

Sometimes it just isn’t much fun to deal with the general public.

Science and Religion

I loved this book review Jerry Coyne in The New Republic magazine. It is a long article but well worth reading. It makes some interesting points and speaks to why I’ve abandoned liberal religion.

1. Those who try to harmonize science and religion end up either:
a. reducing religion to a type of mushy deism or pantheism or

b. allowing for divine intervention in science; even if one eschews “God in the gaps” that ID provides, one merely makes the gaps tinier.

The easiest way to harmonize science and religion is simply to re-define one so that it includes the other. We may claim, for example, that “God” is simply the name we give to the order and harmony of the universe, the laws of physics and chemistry, the beauty of nature, and so on. This is the naturalistic pantheism of Spinoza. Its most famous advocate was Einstein, often (and wrongly) described as believing in a personal God:

The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.

But the big problem with this “reconciliation,” in which science does not marry religion so much as digest it, is that it leaves out God completely–or at least the God of the monotheistic faiths, who has an interest in the universe. And this is unacceptable to most religious people. Look at the numbers: 90 percent of Americans believe in a personal God who interacts with the world, 79 percent believe in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, and 72 percent in the divinity of Jesus. In his first popular book, Finding Darwin’s God, Kenneth Miller attacked pantheism because it “dilutes religion to the point of meaninglessness.” He was right.

A meaningful effort to reconcile science and faith must start by recognizing them as they are actually understood and practiced by human beings. You cannot re-define science so that it includes the supernatural, as Kansas’s board of education did in 2005. Nor can you take “religion” to be the philosophy of liberal theologians, which, frowning on a personal God, is often just a hairsbreadth away from pantheism. After all, the goal is not to turn the faithful into liberal theologians, but to show them a way to align their actual beliefs with scientific truths. Theologians sometimes suggest a reconciliation by means of naturalistic deism, the idea that the creation of the universe–and perhaps the laws of physics–was the direct handiwork of a deity who then left things alone as they unfolded, never interfering in nature or history again. For the faithful, this has been even more problematic than pantheism: it not only denies miracles, virgin births, answered prayers, and the entire cosmological apparatus of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and much of Buddhism, but also raises the question of where God came from in the first place.

2. Coyne also points out that scientists don’t have some sort of religious attachment to materialism; we think that way at the moment because such an approach has lead to real, tangible results. There is simply no credible evidence to believe otherwise.

Scientists do indeed rely on materialistic explanations of nature, but it is important to understand that this is not an a priori philosophical commitment. It is, rather, the best research strategy that has evolved from our long-standing experience with nature. There was a time when God was a part of science. Newton thought that his research on physics helped clarify God’s celestial plan. So did Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who devised our current scheme for organizing species. But over centuries of research we have learned that the idea “God did it” has never advanced our understanding of nature an iota, and that is why we abandoned it. In the early 1800s, the French mathematician Laplace presented Napoleon with a copy of his great five-volume work on the solar system, the Mechanique Celeste. Aware that the books contained no mention of God, Napoleon taunted him, “Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace answered, famously and brusquely: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” “I have had no need of that hypothesis.” And scientists have not needed it since.

In a common error, Giberson confuses the strategic materialism of science with an absolute commitment to a philosophy of materialism. He claims that “if the face of Jesus appeared on Mount Rushmore with God’s name signed underneath, geologists would still have to explain this curious phenomenon as an improbable byproduct of erosion and tectonics.” Nonsense. There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. The fact that no such things have ever been scientifically documented gives us added confidence that we are right to stick with natural explanations for nature. And it explains why so many scientists, who have learned to disregard God as an explanation, have also discarded him as a possibility.

Another major point is that Coyne gives an excellent defense of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion

Unfortunately, some theologians with a deistic bent seem to think that they speak for all the faithful. These were the critics who denounced Dawkins and his colleagues for not grappling with every subtle theological argument for the existence of God, for not steeping themselves in the complex history of theology. Dawkins in particular was attacked for writing The God Delusion as a “middlebrow” book. But that misses the point. He did indeed produce a middlebrow book, but precisely because he was discussing religion as it is lived and practiced by real people. The reason that many liberal theologians see religion and evolution as harmonious is that they espouse a theology not only alien but unrecognizable as religion to most Americans.

The majority of the faithful simply couldn’t swallow the version of religion that many of the theistic scientists actually follow.

Oh, which books are being reviewed:

Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution
By Karl W. Giberson
(HarperOne, 248 pp., $24.95)

Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul
By Kenneth R. Miller
(Viking, 244 pp., $25.95)

Politics

Some time ago, I took myself off of the DSCC and the DCCC list (groups organized to elect Democrats to the Senate and to the House). This is the major reason:

Centrist senators, including Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are seeking to cut tens of billions of dollars from the legislation. They’re operating with the blessing of Democratic leaders, who hope a successful effort could attract some GOP votes for Obama’s plan.

Democratic leaders conceded they may soon be obliged to cut billions of dollars from the measure. “It goes without saying if it’s going to pass in the Senate, it has to be bipartisan,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democratic leader, adding that rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties want to reduce the cost of the bill.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Democrats don’t yet have the votes to pass the plan.

Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy.

“We’re trying to find a way to reach 60″ votes, Durbin told reporters.

In a series of skirmishes Tuesday, the Senate turned back a proposal to add $25 billion for public works projects and voted to remove a $246 million tax break for movie producers. Both moves were engineered by Republicans who are critical of the bill’s size and voice skepticism of its ability to create jobs.

In other words, we control both houses and the executive branch and still can’t get it done. I know; many of the so-called Democrats from the red states have just about zero in common with me; that it why I have no interest in helping them get elected.

In short, we (as a party) are failing already. Yes, some liberals share in the blame:

Instead, we got a spending bill. I’ve actually read the Senate version version of the bill. I agree with much of what’s in it as a spending bill. By all means, grow the government. It’s a big country and we need a big government. Sorry Bill. And Ronnie. And yes, growing the government will create some jobs.

But as a stimulus bill, it is a joke. Both economically, and politically. Let’s talk about the politics for a second. Obama and the Democratic leadership should have known that they would have to have the support of the public to pass an 800 billion dollar plan. Surely they didn’t think that they could pull another stunt like the TARP, slipping it through before the public even had a chance to figure out what had happened.

This stimulus package was always going to be different. It’s one thing to bail out powerful bankers. Quite another to bail out the people. Surely we’ve learned that by now. Opposition to any big spending bill that goes to voters was always guaranteed. An idiot could have told you that.

A massive spending bill like this could create generations of dedicated Democrats. Mudcat Saunders likes to talk about how in the old days, people had two pictures on their wall, Jesus, and FDR. My grandparents on had one picture on their wall. It wasn’t Jesus.

This is why it was imperative for the Democrats to have a powerful, uniting vision. Something that would give the American people a beacon of light in this dark era. A big bold rebuild America plan.

Instead, Nancy Pelosi and liberals in the House decided to make this a catchall for pet Democratic programs they’ve been wanting for years. I know, I know. It’s “less than 1%”, as Obama said today.

But this completely fails understand the political calculation here. One minute Obama’s hopping TV interviews expressing the urgency of this bill. And the next, Republicans are talking about a provision for condoms.

But there are some who get it; I sure wish that they would be part of the Obama team.

I don’t have any formal training in economics; hence I have to rely on expert opinion for analysis.

One of my favorite resources is Robert Reich’s blog:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

There was a time when he used to allow comments; however the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (et. al.) passed around the lie that Reich was somehow “racist”; therefore his blog was overwhelmed with wingnut visitors.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…

More below the fold
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

I don’t have any formal training in economics; hence I have to rely on expert opinion for analysis. One of my favorite resources is Robert Reich’s blog: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/ There was a time when he used to allow comments; however the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (et. al.) passed around the lie that Reich was somehow “racist”; therefore his blog was overwhelmed with wingnut visitors. http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-sean.html More below the fold

I’ll share some of the stuff that I found there:

1. Lemon Socialism: here Reich explains that the government backs enterprises that are likely to fail; those likely to be profitable stay in the private sector.

In other words, taxpayers get stuck; the rich reap the profits.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…

2. President Obama’s style: he thinks in the long term. Yes, he might be able to “ram through” a stimulus bill with only Democratic support, but he’d rather get a more modest (and less effective) bill in exchange for more people taking ownership in it:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…

3. After the stimulus: then what? Reich argues that the next battle will be between those who think that we are merely in an extreme “down cycle” and those who think that our economic system needs to be restructured.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…

4. Finally, today’s post. Reich discusses why Daschle went down to defeat; Reich gets it.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…

Tom Daschle’s surprise withdrawal today shocked most Washington insiders — after all, Daschle had been a key figure in the Senate, was Obama’s pick for a major role in the new administration, would very likely have done a superb job getting a new health-insurance system enacted, and, probably could have mustered enough votes to be confirmed. So what happened? My guess is that official Washington underestimated the public’s pique at what appeared to be the old ways of Washington. Hill staffers tell me that many offices have been inundated with telephone calls, emails, letters and faxes expressing concern (to put it mildly) about Daschle — not only his failure to pay back taxes but his relationships with major players in the health care industry and rich consulting contracts with the private sector since leaving the Senate, and even the fact that he was given a car and driver by one of them.

What’s going on here? Maybe official Washington, much like most of Wall Street, is still not quite getting it.
[...]

In short, many Americans who have worked hard, saved as much as they can, bought a home, obeyed the law, and paid every cent of taxes that were due are beginning to feel like chumps. Their jobs are disappearing, their savings are disappearing, their homes are worth far less than they thought they were, their tax bills are as high as ever if not higher — but people at the top seem to be living far different lives in a different universe. [...]

Robert Reich “gets it”.

4 February 2009

Workout notes I am having to scale back a bit; so I skipped my after swim walk. I might do a 3 miler after work. Still, 4000 yards including 500 warm up, 10 x (25 drill/25 swim) with fins, 10 x (25 fly, 75 free) on 2 (1:42-44), 10 x 100 on the 2 (mostly 1:38, one 1:36, a couple of 1:37s and two 1:39s), 10 x 50 fist on 1, alternating 100 paddle/free.

The unusual thing is that, early on, there were two guys in the pool who were blowing my doors off. No, I am not a good swimmer, but usually the morning swimmers in this pool are usually pretty bad.

Other notes It is still cold (2 F), but no new snow and the roads are starting to dry. Maybe I can finally get off of the treadmill; the treadmill has a bit of a “pull” effect on me that can lead to injury. I think that it can (and should) be part of the mix; after all it is easy on the feet.

Academia Someone talks about how courses are graded at British universities:

One of the things I find most annoying about the American University system is the high grade boundaries. I was educated in the UK. Our universities have four “grades” which are roughly the equivalent of A through D. The passing grade is typically 40%. A “first,” the equivalent of an “A,” is 70%. When I tell my students this, their reaction is usually “Are people really stupid in England?” They miss the point, of course.

Whilst the grading may be slightly stricter, mostly the difference occurs because university exams in the UK are designed to test more than the ability to memorise and regurgitate facts and algorithms. Exams in science and mathematics usually consist of two types of question. The first type is standard book work – questions almost identical to those covered in class and homework (in other words, the questions on a typical US final exam!) This type of question typically makes up enough of the exam to get the equivalent of a high C or a low B. The second type requires just a little creativity, the ability to see how their knowledge can be used to answer something they probably have not encountered before. It’s these questions that separate the outstanding students from the rest.

I have tried to give questions of this second type to my students in the past on both exams and homework. The reaction was negative at best and sometimes even hostile. When given as extra credit questions, they were simply ignored. I have heard many Professors bemoaning the inability of students to be anything other than unthinking automatons, but how can we expect otherwise when we do not demand anything more of them?

Personally, I’d love to adapt the British system to my classroom; there were times when I have given exams with part C (routine problems; 80 points), part B (challenging but routine problems 20 points) and part A (have to think problems 20 points)

Still, this is the main difference between the British system and ours: in our system, there is some idea that “every student” has a chance to make an “A” whereas in the British system, only the more talented ones have a shot.

Old fashioned smackdown A snowflake whined about not being able to do well because some professor made a somewhat insulting remark about “today’s students”. Here is the smackdown rebuttal.

Science and Evolution There are some common misconceptions:

1. Evolution is “directional” in the sense that nature is “inherently headed somewhere”. Here is what I think of the source of confusion: think of water that is streaming down after a rainstorm. It has no mind of its own to head anywhere in particular, but its path follows along a negative of a gradient path; its path obeys a “least energy path” principle.

Evolution is something like that: off spring which is better adapted to its environment tends to reproduce at higher rates therefore increasing its population. But it really isn’t headed anywhere in particular.

2. Evolution depends on a cut throat type of competition. Actually, that can (and does) happen, but the key is adaptability. There are species that adapt by cooperation.

Here is the article. Hat tip to 3-quarks daily.

Religion: they just don’t get it. Sure, it is a football player talking, but I think that his attitude is typical of those I don’t hang around with. This is from Kurt Warner, the very successful quarterback for the Arizona Cardinals:

“A lot of people believe 13 is an unlucky number,” Warner said, “but I’ve kind of embraced it.”

He added: “A lot of negative things come with the No. 13. My life is never dictated by superstitions. My faith is first and foremost. If you believe that God’s in control, there is no reason to believe in superstitions.”

In other words, your wacko beliefs are superstitions, and mine aren’t. But this attitude isn’t exclusive to religious conservatives. For example, a Unitarian asked me what I thought of mystics….when I said something about my “not accepting superstition” she seemed a bit insulted. In fact, mysticism is nothing more than superstition.

On a similar note, Mano Singham talks about misplaced respect for religion. Yes, I believe that people ought to be respected, but their religious beliefs themselves are NOT entitled to respect merely because they are religious beliefs.

If someone says “my religion teaches me that “love your neighbor” is a good way to live”, I will respect that belief. If someone says “my religion says to “feed the hungry and clothe the naked”", I respect that belief. But I don’t respect those beliefs because they came from religion; they are merely good beliefs.

If someone says “prayer really centers me for the day and helps me live a more useful, more serene life and helps me work through my difficulties”: great! I respect that.

If someone says “I am going to pray that my deity gives me X, Y, and Z” I don’t respect that, unless they mean “this will help my attitude and make me more alert for opportunities as they present themselves”.

Now if someone says: “my deity is pissed that so many don’t believe in him; therefore he is going to punish us”: I have zero respect for such a belief, even if it comes from religion.

Final quip: this takes 35 minutes; I found it quite enjoyable.

Obama: takes responsibility.

more about "msnbc.com Video Player", posted with vodpod

Click here if the above doesn’t work.

Robert Reich Gets it.

Just read it.

I have nothing more to add.