Just Saying…

Psst: a burger and fries is ok, ONCE in a while. Fries: don’t eat them every day.

A couple of comments

President Obama’s weekly address:

An “issue” for the conservatives

Things are not going well for the conservatives hence they are trying to make a big deal out of this:

My guess is that the General probably shrugged and said “ok”. Yeah, this came across as being a bit snooty but I don’t know if the General was addressing males by “Senator” and not her (it does happen).

My guess is that Senator Boxer was overreacting; feminists seem to take pride in “finding” sexism in the most innocent of exchanges:

Barbara Boxer schools general in sexism
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/18/2009 07:13:00 PM
Oh my. This is a great short video. Now, I feel a bit sorry for the general, because he may call all men “sir” and all women “ma’am.” I don’t per se find any problem with that. But still. I suspect women like Senator Boxer have been on the receiving end of sexist treatment for decades, so they know it when they see it.

(emphasis mine)

See the “know it when they see it” phrase? That is typical of the dogmatic person, be they religious fundamentalists, feminists, or whatever. If they have some inner conviction that something is true, in their “minds”, it must be so.

I suspect that reality is more like this: Senator Boxer really has encountered sexism in her life and is therefore more sensitive and possibly reacts to things that really aren’t sexist. My guess is that she is hardly unique.

But this demonstrates the value of diversity: one’s life experiences influences how one perceives things which is one reason I am glad that President Obama nominated a female to the Supreme Court.

I’ll give you one example from my blog: during the primary campaign, I had ridiculed then Senator Clinton being affable with Senator Obama on one day and then “angrily” calling him out the next day. I chuckled about Senator Clinton’s “mood swings” meaning that I thought that she was being deliberately calculating.

Other women saw my post and thought I was making a cruel reference about women being “moody” during PMS or during menopause; that was NOT my intention. I had no idea that women would see it that way.

Steamboat 2009

We pulled into Peoria last night; this morning came up humid and a bit warm. Race weather: 70 F, 96 percent humidity; not an exaggeration! The humidity actually got much better by the end of the race.

Olivia and Barbara walked the 4 mile race together (1:13 roughly) whereas I had signed up for the 15K.
I wasn’t ready as I have mostly rested after this year’s FANS 24 hour race (two weekends ago) so I lined up at about the 10 minutes per mile sign and eased into it. I lined up with Barbara’s son Mark and his wife Deborah.

Barbara and Olivia: 1:13:22 (37:23 first 2, 35:59 last 2)
Mark: 1:31:39
Debbie (Mark’s wife): 48:03. (4 mile run)

Mark and I stayed together during the first mile (very congested) and I more or less just kept it nice and easy; I was to keep this effort for most of the race.

Much to my surprise when we turned off of the 4 mile course there were still people around me; I had visions of being all by myself by this point.

Up the hill we went; I made very little effort at all; the hill lasted about .7 miles and I hit the first 5K in about 29:21. I kept the effort down as it was warm and I had no running conditioning to speak of. We started to get lapped during the first loop; the 15K leaders were really getting after it.

Down the hill we went and then back up; mile 5 was unacceptably slow but it did include a big uphill mile. But then mile 6 was slow too; it turns out that I was slacking so I attempted to pick it up; my left knee bothered me a bit as did my right “behind the knee” area. My knees don’t like this “humid/rain/change” type weather and I haven’t built up my running conditioning.

This other gray bearded guy passed me and so I picked it up. But I couldn’t say with him for too long.
Mile 7 was a bit better and I more or less held position on the down hill at up to mile 8. I passed Elaine Lagota and she was to get me back in the last 200 meters as did many others.

I was trying to keep my stride compact to keep my knees from barking at me (sticky weather stuff and I had no desire to take an anti inflammatory pill).

Afterward, someone said that I didn’t look taxed or tired at all; I really wasn’t. I just wanted to finish with some dignity (even if with no speed at all).

Yes, I carried Froggy and Smoochie in my fanny pack.

Afterward, Olivia was none the worse for wear; Barbara was limping and I was walking a bit gingerly as my legs weren’t used to the longer runs.

Just the numbers:
1. 9:27
2. 9:17
3. 9:39
4. 9:13
5. 10:19 (uphill)
6. 9:46
7. 8:28
8. 9:07
9. 9:13
9.32 2:57

5K splits: 29:21, 29:49, 28:14
Total: 1:27:23 (9:22 mpm)

Place: 519/726

Ollie Nanyes M4549 519 34/43 383/481 1:27:23 59:56 28:14 1:28:09 9:28

Notes: 2824 finishers in the 4 mile: median time 38:37 (9:39 pace)
726 finishers in the 15 km (9.32 mile): median time, 1:21:33 (8:45 pace)
Interesting, no?

My Steamboat History:

1998: 15K 1:08:22 183/844 (sticky) Was running just under 20 for 5K in those days
1999: 15K 1:07:53 place was a bit worse; roughly 20:40 for 5K in these days
2000: 4m 27:51 After a 10K/half marathon double and 1:35 half a few weeks earlier.
2001: 4m 29:13 Lake Geneva Marathon 3:40
2001: 15K 1:11:16 (126/381) Fall 15K
2002: 4m 43:15 (walk)
2002: 15K 1:14:33 (run; fall) 167/405
2004: 4m 33:10 (two 24 hour walks in May; 101 and 88)
2005: 15K 1:23:13 (26:40/27:39/28:43) McNaughton 100 in April, Marathon on Memorial Day.
2006: 4M 42:10 (walk), FANS 24 in June (83 miles)
2007: Walk with Barbara
2008: Walk with Barbara

Senator Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma

Senator Inhofe won’t even meet with Judge Sotomayor; he has made up his mind to vote against her.

I see this as a good thing; after all time spent with Senator Inhofe will probably make you dumber.

You see: he is worried that she might be “unduly influenced by her race and gender”:

“Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.”

You see, only white males don’t have to worry about being influenced by their race and gender.

He thinks that creationists are among the ranks of top scientists:

Calling it a “groundbreaking report,” the document said, “The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”

“This Senate report is not a ‘list’ of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading,” said the document, dated March 2009. “The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields.”

One of the listed prominent scientists is Chris Allen, who holds no college degree, believes in creationism and belongs to a Southern Baptist church.

Allen is a weatherman at the FOX-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky.

Of course, he denies global warming and compares those who accept it to Nazi sympathizers:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the nation’s most prominent global warming denier. He famously declared that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Now, he’s taken the argument a step further. In an interview with Tulsa World, Inhofe compared people who believed global warming was a problem to Nazis:

In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.

“It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie,” Inhofe said.

“The big lie,” is a propaganda technique Adolf Hitler attributed to Jews in his book Mein Kampf. It involves telling lies “so colossal” that no one would believe “others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Inhofe doesn’t worry about torture:

If there was one idiot who summed up the complete and utter shamelessness of the American right-wing last week, it was Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). At a Senate hearing on the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, Inhofe stated that torture tactics are A-okay in his book. “I’m probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment,” said he. You know, he’s probably right – there was probably at least one other Republican at the hearing who’s as big a scumbag as Inhofe. But never mind that. “These prisoners, you know they’re not there for traffic violations. If they’re in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they’re murderers, they’re terrorists, they’re insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we’re so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.” Well, maybe – except for the fact that the Red Cross estimates that 70-90% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib had been “arrested by mistake,” and General Taguba’s report indicates that the guards weren’t even keeping track of which prisoners were in which cells. So were they in there for traffic violations?

And of course, Inhofe uses the Bible (and his literal interpretation of it) to guide his Middle East Policy:

Inhofe is the kind of person who doesn’t belong in elected office because he’s both ignorant and dangerous. As David Corn’s article chronicles, Inhofe has taken the Senate floor and demanded that because his literal reading of the Bible (specifically, Genesis 13.14-17) says that God gave the West Bank to Abraham and his descendants, the US is violating God’s law with any policy other than elimination of Palestinians from any territory Abraham could have seen from Hebron 4,000 years ago.

Corn writes, “In Inhofe’s mind, these few sentences in the Bible decide the matter, end of story. This is fundamentalism. And not too far a throw from the Islamic fundamentalism used by terrorists who point to the Koran to justify their actions.” Other than assuming Inhofe has a mind, he’s right. Inhofe and his ilk have absolutely no tolerance for any individual who believes anything other than what they believe about the Bible. Alternate interpretations, even alternate translations, are the work of the Devil, and anyone who uses them must be resisted if not imprisoned.

And Inhofe claims that his deity allowed for the US to be attacked: (same source)

One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Make sure you got that: the speaker says God allowed terrorists to attack the US on September 11, when previously He would not have, because He is upset about the US’s Israel policy.

Then again:

1. Senator Inhofe is a Republican. Therefore he fits right in.
2. Senator Inhofe is from Oklahoma (here and here). In other words, he probably is representative of most of his constituency.

Decisions, Decisions…what to do in the fall?

I am going to have to make a decision.

This fall, do I go with a fun swim (like I did last year)?

Or do I do a more expensive, somewhat less fun but more expensive thing that might help move me toward my ultimate athletic goal?

I’ll make my decision this week: after all, if I go with the swim I had better train for it. If I go with the walk, I should drop back to 2-3 swims a week (enough for cross training, health, etc.) and really focus on smoothing out my walking technique.

19 June Books

While on my trip, I finished a book Chain of Command by Seymour Hersh and listened to the unabridged version of David Mendell’s biography of Barack Obama: Obama: From Promise to Power.

Chain of Command
Seymour Hersh’s book, while dated (2004), is worth reading. It shows how we botched some operations in Afghanistan and how we got involved in Iraq to begin with. He traces the root of the bad “intelligence”, the group think that lead to the invasion and the unpreparedness that lead to the prison scandals.

I picked it up for a dollar and it was the best book bargain that I ever found!

Obama: from Promise to Power
This book traces Barack Obama’s career from his days as a community organizer to the time when he officially announced that he was running for President of the United States (February 2007).

I can recommend this book for anyone including his biggest supporters and his biggest detractors; it is thoughtful and even handed thoughout.

A few scattered thoughts on the book:

1. Anyone who read this book will completely understand how he is governing as President. In this area this book might explain his behavior to exasperated liberals and to fearful conservatives. He has always been a bit cautious; his outreach to conservatives is not for show.

2. Believe it or not, his speeches have often been unscripted; his current use of a teleprompter is mostly to keep himself disciplined. He has tried to read stuff that he didn’t write (or his heart wasn’t into) and he falls flat in those occasions.

3. The Rezko scandal is explained; the author intimates that the “leaking” of the Obama’s Rezko land deal (where they bought a strip of land from the neighboring Rezko property) may have well been leaked by the Obama campaign itself! The reason: they wanted to control the timing.

4. Obama’s growing pains as a politician are discussed, as are some of his foibles.

Note: after finishing this book, I found that Jonathan Chait’s short article in The New Republic called “The Obama Method” to be very interesting. This short article isn’t online yet but it talks about how President Obama’s “reach out” to the opposition is done, in part, to isolated the opposition from the moderates.

19 June PM (Peoria)

We are back in Peoria. As soon as we pulled in, it started to rain, and then a thunderstorm hit.

Posts

Health Care
If you think that we need a strong public option, surf here and sign the petition.

Science
A teenage amateur astronomer discovers a supernova; it turns out it is a type that was previously unknown:

The spectrum of the supernova was all hydrogen, which is the signature of a classic Type I supernova. But the supernova itself was dim, far dimmer than any Type I supernova — or indeed, any supernova of any type — ever observed. It was about 1000 times dimmer than a typical Type I, but was still 1000 times brighter than a typical (non-super) nova. SN2008ha turns out to be a totally unique object.

“If a normal supernova is a nuclear bomb, then SN 2008ha is a bunker buster,” said team leader Ryan Foley, Clay fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and first author on the paper reporting the findings. “From one perspective, this supernova was an underachiever, however you still wouldn’t want be anywhere near the star when it exploded.”

Caroline was able to discover the object using a relatively small telescope, but some of the most advanced telescopes in the world were needed to determine the nature of the explosion. Data came from the Magellan telescopes in Chile, the MMT telescope in Arizona, the Gemini and Keck telescopes in Hawaii, and NASA’s Swift satellite.

Security

This article talks about how our human minds skew the probabilities that we assign to risks. Here is one of the effects that he talks about:

The third explanation is similar: the peak end rule. When thinking about a total experience, people tend to place too much weight on the last part of the experience. In one experiment, people had to hold their hands under cold water for one minute. Then, they had to hold their hands under cold water for one minute again, then keep their hands in the water for an additional 30 seconds while the temperature was gradually raised. When asked about it afterwards, most people preferred the second option to the first, even though the second had more total discomfort. (An intrusive medical device was redesigned along these lines, resulting in a longer period of discomfort but a relatively comfortable final few seconds. People liked it a lot better.) This means, like the second explanation, that the least severe last risk imagined gets greater weight than it deserves.

Note: this blog article mostly talks about how too much risk analysis can actually lead to over confidence and over optimism. This sounds counter intuitive; surf to the article to read it. It is interesting.

Humor Norway is in trouble with The Almighty.