Facebook and the Internet

If you get this joke, you are a true nerd.

Background: here, here and here.

Facebook Facebook has been interesting for me.

For one, I’ve become a bit addicted to it but not as addicted as this: a crook broke into a house and stopped to check his facebook account. He was caught when his name was left on the computer; he failed to log off of his facebook account FROM THE VICTIM’S COMPUTER.

What is next: twitter for muggers and burglars? Oh wait…burglars use twitter to help set up their break-ins.

Politically, it is interesting to see the direction that many of my friends have taken. Of course, many from my undergraduate school (US Naval Academy) are arch-conservatives (though it strikes me as odd that those who got educated at government expense, drew a government pay check, got extra education via veteran’s benefits and draw pensions/disabilities from the government and even work for government contractors protest tax increases…but never mind)

But I’ve also ran into genuine Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity tea-bagger conservatives too. I actually met some of the people behind the ratings numbers and, well, it’s been an experience. You have people who actually think that Nancy Pelosi called them un-American (she actually condemned the practice of shouting someone else down) and that she called them Nazis (she actually condemned the Nazi imagery used by some of the tea baggers) and that President Carter called dissent against President Obama’s policies “racist” (Carter denounced the personal attacks and acrimony, not the attacks on policy).

Also, there have been some interesting personal situations. Because I’ve been somewhat active in local political activities, I’ve picked up local facebook friends. I found out that two of them used to be married to each other and shared a law practice; they are now apart but I am friends with both and comment on both of their posts…and they have commented on mine. But I never knew about the history or the acrimony.

20 September 09

Workout notes I finished my workout with some yoga and racewalking drills; nothing hurt though both calves were tight. I started it by doing 3100 yards of swimming: 10 x (25 free, 25 back), 10 x (25 drill, 25 swim) (no fins), 10 x (25 drill, 25 swim) (fins), 10 x 50 free on 1 (form; 46, then the rest were 47-48). I was going to try 1000 but wasn’t into it.

Then a swim babe was in the next lane and she made an effort to catch me on some of the 50s, so I thought “I’ll give her a head start and keep going until I lap her”. So I did; I caught up to her rather quickly; the 250s were 4:04, 8:08, and I lapped her 12 laps (600 yards into it). So I kept going: 12:15 and then 16:24 at 1000. I was tired and though I was gaining on her again I wasn’t quite in position to lap her a second time.

Then I cooled down, did some yoga on my own, etc.

This was my fastest 1000 since December 17, 2008.

Note: tug behind my knee wasn’t there, but both calves felt tight.

Other stuff
Science: this article about the sex areas of our brains were interesting. We humans are complicated animals.

The start of the article (on how a woman’s brain tumor was discovered; she was having strong sexual experiences that were mental in origin) is fascinating. They go on to describe an experiment where MRIs of brains were taken as people viewed others in swimsuits; if the person in the swimsuit was attractive the brain showed a different pattern.

Speaking of science: Jerry Coyne goes off on someone who evidently doesn’t understand what scientists actually do with their time.

And then Wood adds a footnote:

We don’t read in order to benefit in this way from fiction. We read fiction because it pleases us, moves us, is beautiful, and so on — because it is alive and we are alive. It is amusing to watch evolutionary biology tie itself up in circularities when trying to answer the question, ‘why do humans spend so much time reading fiction when this yields no obvious evolutionary benefits?’ The answer tend either to be utilitarian — we read in order to find out about our fellow citizens, and this has a Darwinian utility — or circular: we read because fiction pushes certain ‘pleasure buttons.’

Well, the first part is fine, but really, Professor Wood, we evolutionary biologists hardly tie ourselves up in knots about this question. Although I’m a professional in the field, I have never encountered a discussion of the adaptive significance of reading fiction, even from those evolutionary psychologists who love to masticate ideas like this. No respectable evolutionist would bother with the question, “What was the adaptive value of ‘novel-reading’ genes?” In contrast, Wood implies that this kind of story-telling is a major preoccupation of our field. Perhaps he’ll supply us with an extensive list of evolutionary studies of fiction-reading.

Reading is a recent innovation: it appeared about 5000 years ago, 0.07% of the time since we branched off from the lineage that lead to our closest living relatives. Fiction is even younger: many regard the first novel as The Tale of Genji, written about a millenium ago.

That’s not enough time for a “fiction-reading module” to evolve.

Lesson to self: never, never “call out” smart people.

In all honesty, most of us make unwarranted assumptions about what other professionals do in their field; that is why I like having academic friends in many disciplines and why I enjoy reading their blogs. Also, if something sounds weird to me, I ASK before making an assumption.

Politics Rick Perry says that Texas isn’t in a recession.

Essay: Frank Rich made me think here:

Many of those Americans may hate Obama, but they don’t love the Republican establishment either. Michael Steele, who was declared persona non grata at one of the mad “tea parties” in April, was not invited to that right-wing 9/12 March on Washington last weekend. There were no public encomiums for McCain or Bush. No Senate leader spoke to the gathering, and perhaps only Palin and Ron Paul would have been welcome from the ranks of what passes for G.O.P. presidential timber. If there was a real hero to this crowd, it was the protest’s most prominent promoter, the radio and TV talker Glenn Beck.

Time put Beck on its cover this week. Man of the Year may not be far behind. Beck is not, as many liberals assume, merely the latest incarnation of Rush Limbaugh. He is something different. That’s why he is gaining on his antecedents — and gaining traction in the country’s angrier precincts. [...]

eck captures this crowd’s common emotional denominator — with appropriately overheated capital letters — in his best-selling book portraying himself as a latter-day Tom Paine, “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense.” Americans “know that SOMETHING JUST DOESN’T FEEL RIGHT,” he writes, “but they don’t know how to describe it or, more importantly, how to stop it.” This is right-wing populism in the classic American style, as inchoate and paranoid as that hawked by Father Coughlin during the Great Depression and George Wallace in the late 1960s. Wallace is most remembered for his racism, but he, like Beck, also played on the class and cultural resentment of those sharing his view that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties.

Now, as then, a Dixie-oriented movement like this won’t remotely capture the White House. Now, unlike then, it is a catastrophe for the Republicans. The old G.O.P. Southern strategy is gone with the wind. The more the party is identified with nasty name-calling, freak-show protestors, immigrant-bashing (the proximate cause of Wilson’s outburst at Obama) and, yes, racism, the faster it will commit demographic suicide as America becomes ever younger and more diverse. But Democrats shouldn’t be cocky. Over the short term, the real economic grievances lurking beneath the extremism of the Beck brigades can do damage to both parties. A stopped clock is right twice a day. The recession-spawned anger that Beck has tapped into on the right could yet find a more mainstream outlet in a populist revolt from the left and center.

“Wall Street owns our government,” Beck declared in one rant this July. “Our government and these gigantic corporations have merged.” He drew a chart to dramatize the revolving door between Washington and Goldman Sachs in both the Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner Treasury departments. A couple of weeks later, Beck mockingly replaced the stars on the American flag with the logos of corporate giants like G.E., General Motors, Wal-Mart and Citigroup (as well as the right’s usual nemesis, the Service Employees International Union). Little of it would be out of place in a Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone. Or, we can assume, in Michael Moore’s coming film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which reportedly takes on Goldman and the Obama economic team along with conservative targets.

A Classic Case of Insurance Recission

If health care reform puts these reptiles out of business, good:

When 17-year-old Brianna Rice was diagnosed with celiac disease in February, she had health insurance.

She doesn’t now.

In the months that followed her diagnosis, her insurance company, American Community Mutual Insurance, combed through her medical records and ruled that her parents lied on her application last year.

In May, American Community not only canceled her policy, but also rescinded coverage all the way back to the day it started — Nov. 1.

Her parents, Dale and Pat Rice of Deerfield, insist they were truthful on Brianna’s application and say the insurance company is trying to back out of covering their daughter because of the February diagnosis.

So what was the “lie”?

After the teen’s diagnosis in February, American Community reviewed her medical files and found reports of dizziness, elevated cholesterol levels, ongoing fatigue and a persistent cough.

On May 12, the firm sent the Rices a letter saying it was rescinding coverage.

“The coverage you applied for would not have been issued for Brianna if we had known this medical history at the time of application,” the letter said.

Dale Rice said the insurance company cherry-picked from various doctors’ visits, and that none of his daughter’s health problems were ongoing. He attributed the dizziness to dehydration, the fatigue to his daughter staying up late surfing the Web, the elevated cholesterol to an inaccurate test, and said the cough is now gone.

None of the issues were serious medical problems, and none stuck out in his mind when he filled out the application, Rice said. He sent the Problem Solver a copy of Brianna’s July 2, 2008, physical, which showed no major health concerns.

A cough? Dizziness? Fatigue?

My goodness.

College Football Saturday

The wife is gone for the day and I have the TV!

I am watching the Notre Dame-Michigan State track meet….er…football game. Right now the Spartans lead the Irish 30-26 with 9:27 left in the game; it has been back and forth all game long.

(photos: yahoo gallery)

Oregon and Utah are having a dogfight. Say what you want: Oregon has the ugliest uniforms in the NCAA, even if they are original.

USC-Washington is 13-13 with the Huskies on the Trojan 35 with 40 seconds left. Upset?

They are now on the USC 8 with 7 seconds left!

The field goal is good! 3 seconds are left and the Huskies are up 16-13!

OMG, they pulled it off!

Now back to ND-MSU: ND leads 33-30 with 5:12 left; how many scores will there be?

Now they have the ball with 4:41. Note that ND has scored 35, 34 and not at least 33 points. That should be enough to win games; the defense is their weak spot.

It finishes 33-30 when ND intercepted the ball when MSU was in position to tie with a field goal.

I was not following the Kentucky-Louisville game but I love this photo:

Update: 10-3 Texas over Texas Tech late in the first half; lots of good defense here.

Navy lost to Pitt 27-14; a botched punt helped Pitt set up one of their touchdowns.

18 September 09 (pm)

Workout notes 2650 yards: 500 of 25 free, 25 back, 500 of 25 side, 25 free, 500 of 25 fly, 25 free, 500 of 25 drill, 25 free (fins), 5 x (50 paddle, 50 free), 150 cool down.
I got to split a lane with a curvey female who swam reasonably well.

Then I stretched, did racewalking drills, walked 1 mile (pain free; felt the tug oh-so-slightly), then yoga with Ms. Vickie. Then breakfast with her.

Other topics:

Frogs
A new species of frog has been discovered in Peru; this kind lays eggs that hatch directly into froglets. Surf to the article to read and to see some photos.

This is what froglets in eggs look like (this kind is from New Guinea)

(from here)

Nature

Animal Camouflage This is a “fun” series.

Bot flies Don’t watch if you are squeamish.

(Hat tip: Why Evolution is True)
That’s an interesting evolutionary adaptation, no?

Science/Religion

You sometimes hear that religion represents “another way of knowing”. Funny how religious revelation never reveals any fact that is subject to being falsified. For some discussion on this topic, visit Jerry Coyne’s blog.

What you don’t see in religious texts is accurate, unambiguous predictions.

Creationism: is rearing its ugly head in Oklahoma (surprise?). Some “intelligent design group” has used an “equal access clause” to show it’s propaganda at a museum run by the University of Oklahoma. So the museum provided the required access but then had a clever response.

Health care: the Bacus bill isn’t that bad of a place to negotiate from, according to Paul Krugman.

Speaking of health care: The Hyatt in Boston fired its houskeepers (who had health benefits) only to rehire outsourced workers who don’t.

Economy: here is a look at the sorry Bush legacy.

Republicans
Here is some support for President Carter’s contention that much of the personal vitriol directed at President Obama is racial in nature.
(wingnuts: “personal vitriol”, not “policy difference”)

One of the racists that the Republicans kowtow toward: Rush Limbaugh.

Tea Bag 9-12 “parties”: here is what 2,000,000 people really look like.

Religious Fundamentalists: just leave them behind; they are hopeless.

Race, Racism and Current Political Discourse

President Carter brought it out in the open:

“When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds,” the Democrat who served from 1977-1981 told students at Emory University.

“I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.

“It’s a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States,” Carter said. [...]

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Note: did President Carter say ANYTHING about those who oppose President Obama’s policies?

Others have noted this tendency. Here is what Paul Krugman has to say:

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

So Dr. Krugman has a good reason to suggest that it isn’t policy that these protesters are protesting.

Of course, some people got their feelings hurt and have responded; here is one such response:

@Left-wing Nutjobs: Disagreeing with the President does NOT make me a racist

by Jason Fischer

An extremely disturbing trend has started to develop in the U.S. political landscape, which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. It seems that the the left would like to start playing the “race card” every time someone disagrees with President Obama. Not only is this behavior irresponsible and childish, it only serves to breathe new life into the real race hatred that we would all hopefully like to see eliminated in this country.

Like most political rhetoric, this started out at the fringes of the left, but in recent weeks, it has made its way into popular media.

Mr. Fischer goes on to berate Paul Krugman. Just a note: Krugman is a world famous Nobel Laureate in economics; I am unaware of Mr. Fischer’s “accomplishments”. But never mind that; it appears that the loudest, most noxious wingnuts have the thinnest skins. Then again, no one howls more pathetically than a former bully that is getting the crap kicked out of him. But I digress….

In any event, it appears that many of these critics of those of us who are calling out the racism that we see are either dense or deliberately missing the point: no one is calling criticism of the President’s policy “racist”. Mr. Leonard Pitts puts it well:

When you call them on that behavior, Barack Obama’s detractors love to accuse you of equating dissent with racism. It is a specious argument. I disagree with the president’s use of signing statements to avoid complying with laws he doesn’t like, but it would never occur to me to carry a sign vowing death to him, his wife and their “two stupid kids” as a protester in Maryland did, or to pray that Obama dies of brain cancer as a “minister” in Arizona does, or to heckle him during a joint session of Congress as Rep. Joe Wilson infamously did.

That’s not dissent. It is the howl of the unhinged and the entitled. The same folks who were complacent as President Bush spent surplus into deficit, wasted $600 billion and 4,000 American lives on the wrong war and watched a major American city drown are morally outraged because the new guy wants to reform healthcare?

So, just what are President Carter Dr. Krugman and Mr. Pitts talking about?

In case you haven’t seen, here are just some examples:

Tea Bagger signs

Obama Monkey

The Obama Witch Doctor Photo

The photo shopped racist Air Force One photo

Racist Photo of 44 Presidents

Watermelon Patch on the White House Lawn

Rush Limbaugh: blames President Obama for white kids being beat up by black kids.

So racism is certainly there and it is certainly being directed against the President. Of course, liberals readily admit this and so do some Republicans.

But many resist accepting it. Why? Sure, some may be simple denial. But there may be a different reason.

Let’s look at what the statistics tell us. Let’s start with the 2008 election map and note that President Obama won by roughly 69.5 million to 60 million.

So it is obvious that there are many Americans who thought that President Obama WAS qualified to lead the country. (duh).

Now let’s look at another map: let’s compare President Obama’s performance with that of Senator Kerry in 2004:

(click the images for a larger image)

The maps are from the New York Times.

Note: aside from one specific region, Obama out performed Kerry in most of the country, including in the regions that he lost!

So many people living in those regions probably don’t see too much different; they see conservatives not liking more liberal policies. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that.

I admit that I attended a rally for Senator McCain. I saw nothing remotely racist there; if anything, I thought that the crowd was well behaved. I said so at the time, though I remember the wacky invocation (which amused me more than anything else; the preacher said that their deity was being tested and that people who worship other deities would gain confidence if “their” candidate won! Some were offended but I was amused; to me it is the equivalent of someone beseeching Zeus to fight Thor).

One also notes that the current Republican Party is approved of in the South but disapproved of just about everywhere else. Note also that President Obama’s “favorable” ratings in the West, Midwest, Northeast and the South are 59, 62, 82 and 27 percent respectively. Overall white favorable/unfavorable ratings are 46/47 percent (roughly 50-50).

So we see that one region stands out.

So my guess is that unless you live in certain regions, you don’t see anything out of the ordinary policy split that comes with having a two party system.

Most people simply haven’t been to the more angry tea-bagger rallies.

SNL Explains the Joe Wilson Incident

more about "SNL Explains the Joe Wilson Incident", posted with vodpod

Now This is What I Like to See!

There is more where this came from.

On Being a Liberal in Today’s Political Climate

We’ve heard about the wacko right wing Republicans; Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example. Watch him blame President Obama for black kids bullying a white kid:

So, clearly the GOP politicians would distance themselves from such an extremist right?

Wrong.

Okay, here’s a tale that sheds some light on the whole question of whether Rush Limbaugh has become the new face of the GOP, something we debated here yesterday.

Yesterday GOP Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia made some perfectly ordinary comments to The Politico about Rush Limbaugh. Gingrey said that it’s easier for outside opinion-makers — such as Limbaugh and Sean Hannity — to aggressively attack Democrats than it is for elected GOP leaders, who have to work with the Dems.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks.” Many interpreted these remarks as the equivalent of telling Rush to “back off.”

Turns out that Gingrey’s measured remarks provoked such a violent outcry that he has now been forced to apologize.

“Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives,” Gingrey said in a new statement released by his office. “Let me assure you, I am one of you.”

“I never told Rush to back off,” Gingrey continued. “I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent…Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.”

The bottom line: mainstream conservatives and the most extreme wacko ones are catered to by the Republican politicians!

So what about the liberals? Well, if we so much as try to get people in our own party to stand up to basic liberal values, we are addressed in a very different manner:

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin reported this morning that Rahm Emanuel warned leaders of liberal groups in a private meeting this week that it was time to stop running ads attacking Blue Dog and “centrist” Dems on health care.

I’m told, however, that Emanuel went quite a bit further than this.

Sources at the meeting tell me that Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus-Dem attacks, calling them “f–king stupid.” This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

In short: the Republican politicians embrace even the most egregious behavior from their base, whereas the Democrats run by kicking us in the nuts, even when what we want is simple mainstream policy.

18 September 09(am)

Workout notes 2000 yard swim; 500 warm up, 500 of drill/swim (fins), 400 IM in 8:25, 100 IM in 1:59, 3 x 100 (25 side/25 free), 50 paddle, 50 free, 50 paddle, 50 free.

I am still resting my right knee/back of knee/whatever.

Politics

Robert Reich points out that we might get a better bill if NO Republican votes for the current Senate version of the health care reform bill. Why?

If there is any R support for a weaker bill, the House Democrats might cave and demand this weaker version. On the other hand, if we get no R support for the weak bill, we might have 50+ Senate votes for a stronger will that we can pass via reconciliation rules. It’s sad that we can’t count on Ds to just NOT filibuster their party’s own bill.

Rachel Maddow: interviews a former fundamentalist. He points out that they are the current “village idiots”. They also point out that 18 percent of New Jersey conservatives see Barack Obama as “the anti-Christ” and 17 percent “aren’t sure”. (For another take, go here) You know, it is probably best to dismiss such people as idiots and move on.

Think about it: if you are out for a walk or run and you hear a loud dog what do you do? You see if the dog is leashed or in a fenced yard. If it is not a threat, you move on. You don’t stop and ask it what it thinks, do you?