10 May 2009 (midday)

Workout notes Slept late, walked 3 miles, had a large Mother’s Day breakfast; will probably walk 8 more after typing this.

Politics

President Obama at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner; you can see the video here.

Or you can see it here:

Some highlights:

“No president in history has ever named three commerce secretaries this quickly,” Obama said. The president’s two top choices for the position dropped out.

He playfully ribbed his frequent use of a teleprompter and Vice President Joe Biden’s knack for speaking off the cuff. And about the Democratic Party, he said his administration has helped in “bringing in fresh, young faces — like Arlen Specter.” The 79-year-old Pennsylvania senator, a former Republican, switched parties last month.

Obama noted that he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had been political rivals, but he assured the audience “these days, we could not be closer.”

“In fact the second she got back from Mexico, she pulled me into a hug,” the president said, playing off the threat of a spreading swine flu virus that has targeted Mexico the most.

Obama also turned serious and talked of the financially struggling media industry, praising journalists for holding government officials accountable. “A government without newspapers, a government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts is not an option for the United States of America,” he said.

He also joked that the Republican Party didn’t qualify for bailout funds and that Rush Limbaugh could not be labeled as a “troubled asset”.

And yes, he roasted Dick Cheney:

It was the hottest ticket in town, a black-tie dinner gathering of Washington’s political and media elite but Dick Cheney couldn’t make it.

The former vice president was busy, President Barack Obama joked, working on his memoir “tentatively titled, How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.’ ”

But then a comic came on:

Wanday Sykes was a bit testy at times:

Update: Here’s what she said about Rush h/t GOTV:

“You’ve had your fair share of critics. … Rush Limbaugh said this administration fails. … He just wants the country to fail. To me that’s treason. He’s not saying anything different than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. … Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

She blistered Senator John McCain:

Sykes: But Mr. President you’ve had your fair share of critics. You know, even Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain gave you grief about the new helicopter that you didn’t order. You know I think Mr. McCain is just a little bitter because he wanted to be in the new helicopter. Just tell Mr. McCain I’m sure if you asked nicely your wife will buy you a helicopter.

On one hand, I thought that, on the Limbaugh joke, she went a bit too far for this occasion. Saying this on a TV show or talk radio would have been fine.

But, I am still eagerly awaiting the howls of outrage from the loony right; these clowns are a laugh a minute!

So what wonderful things are the Republicans up to?

Well, they are busy reading to make 2010 The Year of the Bible!

OK, no joke about this. Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA] has introduced a resolution to encourage Obama to declare that 2010 is The Year Of The Bible. Now, excuse me if I’m wrong about this, but I thought 2010 was going to be the Year of the Tiger.

Is anyone else sick of living in the United States of Jesustan? And, um, why are these 14 Congresscritters wasting their time with silly stuff like this when we’ve occupied 2 foreign countries and our economy is in the tank? Is it because they think the only possible way out of the mess the Republicans created is to pray? I mean, that’s SLIGHTLY less obnoxious than being merely the “party of no” but it still doesn’t get us anywhere.

Cosponsors:
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]

Ok. Maybe the Bible contains a blueprint for Conservative Republican caliber genetic research? Oh yes, take a look at Genesis, Chapter 30:

After Rachel gave birth to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban: “Give me leave to go to my homeland.
26
Let me have my wives, for whom I served you, and my children, too, that I may depart. You know very well the service that I have rendered you.”
27
Laban answered him: “If you will please. . . . “I have learned through divination that it is because of you that God has blessed me.
28
So,” he continued, “state what wages you want from me, and I will pay them.”
29
Jacob replied: “You know what work I did for you and how well your livestock fared under my care;
30
the little you had before I came has grown into very much, since the LORD’S blessings came upon you in my company. Therefore I should now do something for my own household as well.”
31
“What should I pay you?” Laban asked. Jacob answered: “You do not have to pay me anything outright. I will again pasture and tend your flock, if you do this one thing for me:
32
11 go through your whole flock today and remove from it every dark animal among the sheep and every spotted or speckled one among the goats. Only such animals shall be my wages.
33
In the future, whenever you check on these wages of mine, let my honesty testify against me: any animal in my possession that is not a speckled or spotted goat, or a dark sheep, got there by theft!”
34
“Very well,” agreed Laban. “Let it be as you say.”
35
12 That same day Laban removed the streaked and spotted he-goats and all the speckled and spotted she-goats, all those with some white on them, as well as the fully dark-colored sheep; these he left. . . in charge of his sons.
36
Then he put a three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to pasture the rest of Laban’s flock.
37
Jacob, however, got some fresh shoots of poplar, almond and plane trees, and he made white stripes in them by peeling off the bark down to the white core of the shoots.
38
The rods that he had thus peeled he then set upright in the watering troughs, so that they would be in front of the animals that drank from the troughs. When the animals were in heat as they came to drink,
39
13 the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids.
40
The sheep, on the other hand, Jacob kept apart, and he set these animals to face the streaked or fully dark-colored animals of Laban. Thus he produced special flocks of his own, which he did not put with Laban’s flock.
41
Moreover, whenever the hardier animals were in heat, Jacob would set the rods in the troughs in full view of these animals, so that they mated by the rods;
42
but with the weaker animals he would not put the rods there. So the feeble animals would go to Laban, but the sturdy ones to Jacob.
43
Thus the man grew increasingly prosperous, and he came to own not only large flocks but also male and female servants and camels and asses.

Ok, who takes such nonsense seriously? Oh that’s right: Conservative Republicans!!!!

Creationism, School, Teacher’s Statements
Many of my friends are outraged over the fact that a Federal Court found that a southern California public school teacher violated church/state separation law when he declared that creationism was “superstitious nonsense” (which of course, it is).

But, as I had said previously, there is more going on there (on legal grounds) than may be obvious to those of us who aren’t trained in law. The teacher in question had made many similar statements and only one of them was afoul of the law:

However, the Judge reviewed a number of the teachers’ statements, all of which were critical of creationism and religion, and held that the rest of his statements were permissible. For example:

Aristotle was a physicist. He said, ‘no movement without movers.’ And he argued that, you know there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense. I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all of this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.

[T]he other possibility is it’s always been here. Those are the two possibilities: it [the universe] was created out of nothing or it’s always been here. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. [Inaudible] the spaghetti monster behind the moon. I mean, all I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.

Therefore, no creation, unless you invoke magic. Science doesn’t invoke magic. If we can’t explain something, we do not uphold that position. It’s not, ooh, then magic. That’s not the way we work.

Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense. (Op. at 27)

The judge held that the primary effect of these statements was to illustrate a contrast between scientific reasoning and religious faith. Although a statement might be offensive to one religious set of beliefs, that does not make it unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Nomination

It is certainly true that the Republicans in the Senate gave far more support to President Clinton’s nominees than the Democrats gave Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito (Harriet Miers was taken down by Republicans and not by Democrats)

But perhaps there is a reason for that:

When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:

[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

In fairness, here is the Right Wing’s “yes but” “rebuttal” (if you can call it that).

For more on how the vote might go (depending on the nominee, of course), see Nate Silver’s blog:

My quick take on the Souter replacement is that, with 59 Democratic senators and high popularity, Obama could nominate Pee Wee Herman to the Supreme Court and get him confirmed. But I’m no expert on this. The experts are my colleagues down the hall, John Kastellec, Jeff Lax, and Justin Phillips, who wrote this article on public opinion and senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. They find:

Greater public support strongly increases the probability that a senator will vote to approve a nominee, even after controlling for standard predictors of roll call voting. We also find that the impact of opinion varies with context: it has a greater effect on opposition party senators, on ideologically opposed senators, and for generally weak nominees.

More discussion, and some pretty graphs, below.

If you like graphs and statistics, surf to the link.

Certainly Worthy of Its Own Post

(From here; 200 newly discovered amphibian species have been discovered)

Republican Troubles and the Big Tent of the Democrats

First, President Obama’s weekly address

Republicans in trouble Let’s take a factual look. True, the percentage of those who self-identify as Republicans have dropped to the low 20 percent range. Things look bad for them in Congress as well: currently there are 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) with one race undecided (Minnesota). In the House, the tally is 256-178 in favor of the Democrats.

To put this into perspective, after the (disastrous from my point of view) 2002 elections, the tally was 51-49 R in the House, 229-204 R. In 2004, it was 232-202 R (House), 55-45 R (Senate).

Mind you, there were those who said that the above numbers showed that the Democrats were dead.

So where does that leave the Republicans now?

Currently, they don’t have a good reputation.

One of their most high profile representatives (Michelle Bachmann) is a complete loon.

They are seen as anti-intellectual:

And some within their own ranks have said that they are in trouble (Tom Ridge, Mike Huckabee)

Of course, those who have 2012 ambitions may be doing the “hey, we are in trouble and the answer is ME” dance.

Nevertheless, it appears that the current Republican Party only welcomes those who fit in a very narrow box; one could be, say, an economic conservative who favors free trade and a more aggressive use of the military but still be shunned for being too accommodating on social issues, too accepting of science, etc.

There ARE intellectual Republicans out there; one of them denounced the creationist lunacy in Texas.

Frankly, I hope that a competent, “based in reality” conservative party emerges as I’d like to have a choice come election time.

The Democratic Big Tent
Yes, it is clear that I am a liberal Democrat. But I should point out that there are many Democrats that I don’t care for, and that I don’t care for some of the policies that some liberal Democrats champion.

Science

Yes, Mark Pryor is a Democratic Senator from Arkansas:

I find this to be beyond embarrassing.

I am disgusted at some of the Democrats who supported a proposed Amendment to the Constitution to ban flag burning..

I don’t support (however well intentioned) censorship legislation. (hat tip: Legal Satyricon)

And yes, I contribute to MoveOn.org, mostly because they put the heat on Democrats who support regressive economic legislation:

Other Senators who were targeted: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, Arkansas, Tim Johnson, South Dakota, Ben Nelson, Nebraska, Tom Carper, Delaware, Arlen Spector, Pennsylvania. All of these are Democrats.

So the Democrats are NOT one big happy family; that comes with having a big tent.

It isn’t quite this bad:

9 May PM: assorted topics

(photo from yahoo)
NBA: Last night, the Magic spanked the Celtics 117-96 in a game that was as one sided as the score might suggest. Yes, the Celtics did pull to within 7 during the 3rd quarter but were able to get no closer.

The Magic were patient on offense and used their inside game to set up their outside game. Hence they shot well over 50 percent. The only bright spot for the Celtics was that Eddie House continued to shoot well from the outside.

Right now, I am watching the 4′th quarter of the Mavericks-Nuggets; it is very close with the teams trading 3-point bombs (set up by good penetrations).

Oh my goodness; the Nuggets just hit a 3 point shot with 1 second to go up 106-105; the Mavericks are pleading that they fouled him prior to the shot. We’ll see how this unfolds. The Nuggets win; they are up 3-0. The Dallas Mavericks are livid.

On a sad note: two time NBA champion and one time Olympic champion coach Chuck Daley died at 78. He took the Detroit Pistons from perpetual mediocrity into a championship form. The Pistons became a team that many teams were loathe to play.

Assorted Posts

Safety and Society
A local pediatrician posted a Salon story about overprotective parents and how they might actually be harming their kids. The gist is that parents often overreact to news stories of “rare” events thereby making their kids less safe in the process! Here is but one example:

Isn’t it ironic that parents are driving around their kids to protect them, but riding in a car is the greater danger?

Oh, it’s all ironic!

But when you see something graphic and horrifying, it doesn’t go to the back of your mind under “very unlikely scenario,” it goes to the front of your mind, as, like, Oh my God.

And when I say: “Walk to school,” you’re thinking, What about that girl in the trailer park in California who was walking to her friend’s house the other day? [Sandra Cantu, 8, of Tracy, was murdered in late March 2009. The chief suspect is the child's Sunday school teacher, who is also the mother of one of the girl's friends.] That’s the image you have. You get despairing and worried, and then you remember afterward there was probably some expert on TV saying: “Parents, here are some tips for you.”

As if there is a tip that can tell you, “Remember parents: Don’t ever let your child out of the house to go visit a playmate.” That’s what the tip would be, and it wouldn’t make any sense. Preparing for such unlikely scenarios is like preparing for, “Remember parents: Asteroids happen, so keep your children inside!”

You see this sort of nonsense happening in colleges and universities, often in response to a spectacular but rare event.

A real risk Of course stupid behavior is often easily avoidable. One such behavior is texting while driving (see here and here). It would be better to avoid using cell phones while driving all together. That isn’t going to happen (not without a law anyway) but cell phone use does increase the risk of accidents:

At the core of this flurry of legislative attempts is the debate over whether DWY — or “driving while yakking” — is truly dangerous. Wireless-phone proponents say that talking on a cell phone is the same as or less of a distraction than changing your radio station, trying to control your kids or eating — none of which is regulated of course. Since many states already have laws that ban distracted driving, they contend that outlawing handheld cell phones is penalizing the technology instead of the behavior.

A 2005 controlled study of Australian drivers found that cell phone users were four times as likely to get into an accident serious enough to injure them. These findings echoed the results of a 1997 study of Canadian drivers, who linked cell phone usage with increased property damage.

Whether we choose to admit it or not, driving while yakking is a distraction that may decrease our ability to operate the vehicle effectively. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) analyzed the results of over 120 cell phone studies. They found that nearly all of the studies reported that some aspects of driver performance were affected by the mental distraction associated with cell phone use. The IIHS reported that phone conversation tasks typically decreased reaction times, travel speeds, and increased lane deviations and steering wheel movements.

Clearly, now that we have learned the benefits of cell phones, there’s no going back. Instead of stewing in traffic, we can conduct business and stay in touch with family and friends. We can let people know when we’re running late. If there’s a problem on the road, cell phones allow us to call for roadside assistance or medical help. We can report problems: a drunk driver, a stranded motorist, an obstacle in the road. Drivers even call in traffic reports to radio stations, allowing the rest of the community to benefit from their knowledge.

But let’s face it. In spite of these benefits, cell phones do pose a serious risk because they distract from driving. With that in mind, here are our suggestions for using a cell phone safely in your car.

* Get to know your phone and its features — if you can dial a number with one key instead of seven or 10, you’re better off.

* Position your phone within easy reach — bending over to reach for it takes your eyes of the road and can cause you to swerve.

* Suspend calls in heavy traffic or in bad weather — you need to focus even more under hazardous conditions.

* Do not take notes or look up phone numbers while driving — enough said.

* Keep conversations short. Inform the person you’re calling that you are in a car, and hang up as soon as possible.

* If possible, place calls when you are not moving. Pull over where possible.

* Ask a passenger to help. Have someone else make or take the call.

* Do not engage in stressful or emotional conversations — leave the child support conversations for the home phone.

This article goes on to talk about how “hands free cellphones” don’t necessarily improve safety.

Humor

My wife cooked a hamburger for me. She said “I know this is elitist, but I left out some hot mustard for you.” (If you don’t know what I am talking about, this is a hilarious account)

You’ve heard about the Atheist Bus Campaigns? (In case that you haven’t).

Well, the following “program” tickled my funny bone

I am wondering if I was the only one who thought of Evolved/Rational upon seeing this.

Religion/Society
Once again, President Obama acknowledges that not every American is a believer. This time, he does it on National Prayer Day. Of course, any acknowledgment of non-believers upsets some.

I admit that I was raised by a religious mother and she (and her friends) thought that atheists were somehow “bad”, though they seemed to excuse people like scientists. Personally, I thought that God was real but that he would understand that a good scientist would have to always look for naturalistic reasons for things; hence he would excuse them.

The military contains a high percentage of believers too; many (including, in fact, especially?) senior officers think that “good people” fit into a narrowly defined box. In some respects, that might be true as some people (myself included) simply aren’t suited to be good at military

So it really isn’t a surprise that the Air Force Academy has discouraged Cadets from hosting Christopher Hitchens. The Air Force Academy has had some trouble with separation of church and state issues.

Scientists and Religion
It is true that elite scientists tend to be atheistic and that the atheism/agnosticism rate of scientists as a whole is much higher than it is with the public at large.

But there are headaches: one is over the tendency for some scientists to be accommodating of religious beliefs (e. g., not admitting that religious beliefs are (almost always) inconsistent with the laws and principles of science.

Mano Sighamn has an excellent essay on this and writes:

The study of science does (or at least should) lessen and compromise faith because the two are fundamentally incompatible. What exactly are the ‘entities or ideas’ that are presumed to be outside the domain of science? One can only assume that the phrase was thrown in as a sop to soothe the delicate feelings of religious people, who desperately want to find a role for skyhooks.

The reason for this effort comes down again to the goals and ends political issue. Those scientists who seek to advance some secular goal for which they think they need the support of religious people need to find something to offer them in return, since there seems to be the feeling that the public will turn away from science and may oppose the teaching of evolution (or, even worse, stop funding science) if they feel that it is basically an atheistic enterprise.

So scientists may have seized upon the morals/ethics realm as the crumb to give religion, since that area is currently the farthest away from direct scientific investigation. This also allows them to keep in the fold those scientists who are still religious. In a way, the moral issue plays the role of Miss Congeniality in beauty contests, the consolation prize that is meant to pacify religious people and make them allies, by making them think that religion is not totally useless. Since scientists want to keep religion out of their research areas, they may think that giving them the vaguely defined moral sphere to ponder will keep them occupied.

I think this is short-sighted. Far from having nothing to say about morality and ethics and altruism, this is a very interesting area of research. The pioneering work on kinship altruism by W. D Hamilton and reciprocal altruism by Robert Trivers laid the foundations for understanding why natural selection can result in people evolving to have cooperative instincts even though a simplistic understanding of natural selection might suggest that we should always be looking out for ourselves.

2009 Race For the Cure, Peoria IL

Note: for those who got here to look for official race results, they are here or can be accessed at the Illinois Valley Striders website.

Just the facts: 1 mile walk to warm up, 1 mile jog, 5K run (24:29) (I didn’t wear the chip), then 2 miles of walking to cool down, including a mile or so with Mike McAsey (our department chair).

The race itself: There are several events going on. They started the “competitive” women’s race at 7:55, the “competitive” men’s race at 8:05 and then the “family walk” at 8:06. There were many women in the “competitive” division (who got a chip time and an individual race number), a few men in the “competitive” division, and thousands in the open family walk (no individual race numbers and no official timing by the computer).

I signed up the day before and didn’t bother to enter the competitive division, but I ran with them anyway. I just didn’t bother with the chip.

It was chilly (49-50 F at the start) and blustery and the first mile is a long, gradual climb. I knew that there were many inexperienced people around me and so I passed a ton of people going uphill; I was to see just a few of them later.

I noted that my legs felt dead; just completely dead; the head wind didn’t help matters much. Mile 1 came at 8:15??? (I didn’t think that I was THAT dead). Then we turned on Glen and then turned again into a winding neighborhood course. There were little hills here and there, but I knew it was mostly downhill.

At about that time we caught the tail end of the “competitive” women’s division?? Needless to say, these ladies weren’t moving very fast.

As we wound around the pleasant neighborhood streets, we caught more and more of the slower women; I was shocked to see the second mile….7:11???? That was off. The average (15:26 or so) seemed to be about right.

The next mile I weaved in and out; it was a real obstacle course (slow women). It was tough to keep track of the men that I was racing. But at the same time it reminded me that, though I felt heavy legged, I was still moving forward.

Mike Rucker got me back and gave words of encouragement. I never really picked it up; I wasn’t in the mood to and well, I probably couldn’t have anyway. The last 1.1 took 9:03 (about an 8 minute pace) and I finished in 24:29.

Social and assorted thoughts: I knew that Mike (my department chair) was walking (his wife is a breast cancer survivor) and so I went back to join him. We walked and chatted; seeing so many people walking and jogging is one of the best parts of this event. It was a good way to cool down.

Unfortunately my wife caught a bug and couldn’t do the race; she did raise money though, and yes, I contributed.

In some ways I love this race. It felt good to see the women lining up and it feel good to cheer for some of them by name. It is great to see the faster women have a chance to run at the front the pack.

In some ways, I hate this race; part of it is that I don’t like crowds. Part of it is that there are so many “once a year” types who don’t know what they are doing.

But in other ways, I like seeing so many people walking the 5K; one doesn’t have to be an athlete to benefit from this sort of exercise.

And, of course, it was spandex weather. I have good memories of my wife wearing her shiny purple tights (1995?); she had some awesome VPLs. Pity I wasn’t quicker with the camera.

Colbert: is a real conservative.

Yes, many Republicans think that.

8 May, 2009 (am)

Workout notes 3000 yards of swimming; 2000 straight (35:30; 9:09 first 500), 10 x (25 fly, 25 free) fins, on the 1, 500 paddle/side cool down.

Note: I was hoping to work at home to avoid panicked students looking for last second help. But alas, my wife “got sick” again and is now home. She is a bit like a cat: there when you don’t want her and not there when you do.

Posts for the day:

Science A week from yesterday the Planck Satellite will launch. This is what is going on:

Nature: ants attack a centipede; note that the ants are genetically related to wasps. The blogger wonders what this means for those who think of nature being “intelligently designed” by some benevolent deity.

Science and apologists for religion and creationism:

The creationists are tweaking their “second law of thermodynamics” arguments. They are still wrong.

Note: water can run uphill without an external energy source (e. g., electrically driven pump)

Francis Collins: proposes that his deity works through the “randomness” of quantum mechanics? This is embarrassing; this shows how religion can make a smart man sound, well, dumb.

Politics

The DNC lampoons Republicans

Dick Cheney: thinks that it is a mistake for Republicans to attempt to moderate.

Republicans: please, please, please keep listening to Dick Cheney!

Criticism of President Obama: he should rescind “don’t ask, don’t tell”. We can’t afford to lose Arabic translators (and others) because of this dumb policy.

7 May 2009, Evening

Science:
Climate Change Crock: here Climate Change Crock of the week discusses ocean temperatures and the tricks that some climate change denialists use.

Science and Experiments: Sandwalk talks about some bad statistical methods used when discussing the outcome of experiments. One of the common errors is that the null hypothesis is not properly framed.

For those who don’t know statistics: basically, when one wants to determine if something is a factor, one has to declare the “null hypothesis” which means “X isn’t a factor” verses the alternative hypothesis “X is a factor”. The “default assumption” is the null hypothesis (akin to the apriori assumption of innocence at a court trial).

Example, if one was, say, trying to determine if eating Doritos leads to a higher incidence of cancer, the null hypothesis is: “Doritos has no effect on the cancer rate” and the alternative hypothesis would be “Doritos raises one’s cancer rate”. One then compares two groups of people: one doesn’t eat Doritos and one group does (these groups should be more or less equal in other areas to avoid confounding effects; e. g., perhaps smokers are more likely to eat Doritos).

One doesn’t declare that Doritos causes cancer unless the Doritos eating group has a higher cancer rate than the non-Doritos group and this probability of observing this difference just due to randomness is, say, 1 to 5 percent.

But the default assumption is that Doritos has no effect on the cancer rate; that is the null hypothesis.

Cosmology: did the space telescope reveal information about dark matter?

Social/Religious Humor:

Ed Current talks about the “stork theory” of birth and how yucky human sex is.

Via the Legal Satyricon: a potential lawyer (she is waiting for her bar exam results) tells police that she was assaulted while working as a call girl!

Politics
Governors: Nate Silver points out (with data) that it is tough to maintain high approval ratings as governor of a state.

Politics: Republicans

Here is a sarcastic “poe” post on some of the superficial things that the media concentrates on: President Obama’s prayer day celebration and…….yes, the type of mustard that he likes.

Supreme Court Nomination Falsehoods and Misconceptions: be ready to hear these “arguments” from your conservative friends.

James Dobson: Attempts to make hay about of hate crimes legislation. Sure, I admit that I am skeptical of legislation that attempts in any way attach a criminal penalty to attitudes. But Dobson is just bat-*hit crazy here.

Right wing “educational” material: So the right wing accuses us on the left of teaching revisionist history? Check this out.

7 May 2009: First Day of Final Exams…

Workout notes yoga, then 7 mile run (9:40 pace; 1:09:40 for the 7 plus Glen Oak course) cool, sunny. Then a 3 mile walk (Michael Bridge).

NBA: Last night I watched the Celtics even up the series with the Magic winning 112-94 in a game that was never close. The Magic couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn whereas the Celtics shot well. The Celtics were lead by Eddie House who came off the bench and scored 31 points, mostly on outside shooting (11-14, and 4-4 from 3 point range). Allen chipped in 22.

The enigma is Rojon Rondo: he had 15 points, 11 rebounds (he is only 6′ 1) and 18 assists. Yet his shooting was terrible: 7 of 19 and he had 3 turn-overs (though it looked like more). I suppose that people like me notice the turnovers and the wild shots more than all of the cleverly placed passes; lots of time when Allen and House hit the big shots it was Rondo that set them up.

(photo from yahoo)

There was a curious incident:

I am not sure as to what that was about.

Politcs, etc.

Redstate Update on Obama’s reaction to prayer day.

Pat Roberson gives relationship advice.

If you are wondering why an atheist would want to have a relationship with a female Christian: hey if she feels that it is her Christian female duty to, say, submit to you and show a little butt, hey…there are worse things.

Science: yes, the public often doesn’t understand it. This post helps to clear things up a bit.

Fareed Zakaria | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

more about "Fareed Zakaria | The Daily Show | Com…", posted with vodpod

Fareed Zakaria is probably my favorite conservative.