22 May, post grass cutting edition

No athletics in this one.

The President on the BP oil spill.

Science Yes, the upper layer of the oceans really are heating up.

News from NOAA and NASA:

The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet.

“We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off,” said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008.

[...]

Combining multiple estimates of heat in the upper ocean – from the surface to about 2,000 feet down – the team found a strong multi-year warming trend throughout the world’s ocean. According to measurements by an array of autonomous free-floating ocean floats called Argo as well as by earlier devices called expendable bathythermographs or XBTs that were dropped from ships to obtain temperature data, ocean heat content has increased over the last 16 years.

The team notes that there are still some uncertainties and some biases.

My Alma mater A professor argues that standards are being lowered at the Naval Academy:

according to Navy Times, a running back was allowed to remain at Annapolis this term because the administration accepted his claim that he smoked a cigar that he didn’t know contained marijuana. (He was later kicked off the team for a different infraction, and has now left the academy.)

The incident brings to light an unpleasant truth: the Naval Academy, where I have been a professor for 23 years, has lost its way. The same is true of the other service academies. They are a net loss to the taxpayers who finance them, as well as a huge disappointment to their students, who come expecting reality to match reputation. They need to be fixed or abolished.

The service academies are holdovers from the 19th century, when they were virtually the only avenue for producing an officer corps for the nation’s military and when such top-down institutions were taken for granted. But the world has changed, which the academies don’t seem to have noticed, or to have drawn any conclusions from.

With the rise after World War II of the Reserve Officer Training Corps programs at universities around the country, the academies now produce 20 percent or less of the officers in each service, at an average cost to taxpayers of nearly half a million dollars per student, more than four times what an R.O.T.C.-trained officer costs.

The institutions are set on doing things their own way, yet I know of nobody in the Navy or other services who would argue that graduates of Annapolis or West Point are, as a group, better than those who become officers through other programs. A student can go to a civilian school like Vanderbilt, major in art history (which we don’t offer), have the usual college social experience and nightlife (which we forbid), be commissioned through R.O.T.C. — and apparently be just as good an officer as a Naval Academy product. [...]

Meanwhile, the academy’s former pursuit of excellence seems to have been pushed aside by the all-consuming desire to beat Notre Dame at football (as Navy did last year). To keep our teams in the top divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, we fill officer-candidate slots with students who have been recruited primarily for their skills at big-time sports. That means we reject candidates with much higher predictors of military success (and, yes, athletic skills that are more pertinent to military service) in favor of players who, according to many midshipmen who speak candidly to me, often have little commitment to the military itself.

We’ve even given less-qualified students a backdoor into Annapolis — the Naval Academy Preparatory School, our remedial institution in Newport, R.I., for admitted students who are not prepared to enter the academy itself. And if students struggle academically when they get to the academy, our goal is to get them to graduate at whatever cost. Thus we now offer plenty of low-track and remedial courses, and students who fail can often just retake classes until they pass: we have control over their summers and their schedules, and can simply drag them through with tutoring.

I’ve taught low-track English classes; the pace is slower and the papers shorter than in my usual seminars, but the students who complete them get the same credit. When I’ve complained about this, some administrators and midshipmen have argued that academics are irrelevant to being an officer, anyway. Really? Thinking and articulating are irrelevant to being an officer?

We have two choices. One is to shut down Annapolis, West Point and the other academies, and to rely on R.O.T.C. to provide officers. Or we can embrace the level of excellence we once had and have largely abandoned. This means a single set of high standards for all students in admissions, discipline and academics. If that means downgrading our football team to Division III, so be it.

We also need a renaissance in our culture. We need to get our students on board with the program by explaining our goals and asking for feedback from cadets, graduates and the armed forces at large. Now, we’re just frustrating the students and misleading taxpayers.

Change won’t happen from within. The short-term academy administrations want to keep the hype flowing, and tend to lack the big-picture thinking necessary to seeing the institution objectively. Rather, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other civilians need to mount a full re-conception of the academies: deciding what do we do that’s wrong, what’s irrelevant and what deserves to be saved. Otherwise, my most promising students will continue to tell me, “Sir, this place shows you what not to do.”

Note: he whines about race based affirmative action as well; note that I got in under that and ended up 269/969 in class academic rank.

Economy Here is a dose of Paul Krugman:
Libertarianism doesn’t work

But in any case, speaking of true libertarians:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don’t want to get rid of the EPA?

PAUL: No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we’re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident that was very tragic and I’ve met a lot of these miners and their families. They’re very brave people to do a dangerous job. But then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.

I’m sure that in his own mind Rand Paul sees himself as a principled libertarian, applying the same standard of personal responsibility to everyone. In practice, however, it’s only the poor and powerless who get held to that standard; when it’s a big coal or oil company — and we already know that both Massey and BP were severely negligent — well, “sometimes accidents happen.”

Regulation does work

Well, here’s the thing: regulation demonstrably does work where tort law doesn’t. Consider the environmental issue: in reality, the perpetrators of oil spills never pay most of the cost; but in reality, environmental regulation has led to much cleaner air and water. (Look up the history of Los Angeles smog or the fate of Lake Erie if you don’t believe me.)

So why does regulation work? If polluters can buy off the system ex post, after a disaster, why don’t they manage to totally corrupt regulation ex ante? There’s a lot to say about that, and I’m sure there’s a literature I haven’t read. But one thing we tend to forget in this age of Reagan is the importance and virtues of a dedicated bureaucracy: when you have professional government agencies with a job to do, and treat them with respect, that job often gets done.

On the other hand, if you degrade and devalue that bureaucracy, it will do a heckuva job. But that’s not the way it has to be.

Our economy: the danger is more that we become like Japan did during their lost decade than Greece now.

Of course, conservatives conveniently forget the past when it suits them

Richard Green flies into a rage over remarks by Peter Wallison, who declares that

Indeed, the modern era of rapid economic growth commenced after both Democratic and Republican presidents undertook to lift costly and stultifying New Deal regulations.

Green points out that growth has actually been slower since the big rightward shift circa 1980. But what he doesn’t seem to realize is that Wallison is just following the party line. Read almost any conservative commentator on economic history, and you’ll find that the era of postwar prosperity — the gigantic rise in living standards after World War II — has been expunged from the record.

You can see why: the facts are embarrassing.

One parting quip: Krugman points out that the modern Republican party absorbed the old racist Dixie-crats (racist Democrats) who fled the party when President Johnson pushed through civil rights legislation.

Politics We really don’t have an influential left wing in our country.

Religion Friendly Atheist asks the question: why are you agnostic?

I used to think Agnosticism was a fair position to take. The first openly non-religious person I ever met was a girl who called herself agnostic back in 8th grade. I don’t remember how she explained it, but whatever she said, it made sense to me at the time even though I was still religious myself.

But now, that term makes me cringe.

It’s the atheist version of the word “spiritual.”

It’s a “safe” way of saying you don’t believe in god. “Atheist” sounds evil and wrong and scary, but “agnostic” sounds safer and milder: People will still like you if you say you’re “agnostic” — It makes it sound like you haven’t fully decided where you stand on that whole “God” thing. But people will run away screaming if you say you’re an atheist.

The argument I tend to hear from agnostics is that we don’t have all the information about god’s existence, so we shouldn’t take a position on it. We can’t definitively say god exists or doesn’t exist, so let’s put ourselves somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

[Cue up the Russell's Teapot argument.] Of course, we don’t have “all the information” on damn near anything you can make up, but no one says they’re agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one says they’re agnostic about Zeus or Thor. So why are they agnostic about “God”?

It all just seems very wishy-washy.

Surf to the article to read the 117 comments; many are interesting. Here is my take: when I call myself an atheist I mean “I see no evidence of a deity that operates in this world or universe; things happen according to natural laws (e. g., no miracles, resurrected people, talking donkeys, golden tablets read by magic seer stones, flaming chariots, etc.). I reject every god or deity or spirit that I’ve heard of due to a lack of evidence.

But I am open to having my mind changed if there were some strong evidence for it (say, a 70 year old granny who was a couch potato all of her life winning the open division of the Boston Marathon), a kid with severe Down’s Syndrome solving a major open problem in mathematics, etc.

As to deities, spirits, creative forces that I haven’t heard of: I’ll believe when I have evidence.

If such entities are defined in such a way that they don’t (or no longer) interact with this universe (and are therefore unknowable by our instruments of observation), then “meh.” I find thinking about such a entity to be, at best, innocent amusement but of no serious value. Saying “I just know that is true” is not evidence.

As far as religious PRACTICES (fellowship with other humans, challenging yourself and others to lead a better life, prayer, yoga, meditation): I see secular value in these and practice some of these myself.

But I enjoy the writing of others; Mano Singham wrote two more parts to his Religion and Evidence series (part II), (part III)

22 May 2010: walking and talking edition.

Workout notes I didn’t feel like racing today, so I walked 13.1 miles (East Peoria Trail) in 2:58. Segments: 1:10:40 at the turn around, 1:06:33 on the way back (2:17:13 at 10+), then 40:45 for out to the 1.5 and back (just about 3.1 miles).

(the course continued 1 mile further than the turn around followed by a 1.55 mile out and back)

I had no get up and go in the last 5K; I wasn’t in trouble but I had nothing “extra”, and the leg was starting to whine just a little bit. This is the limit of my “pleasant walking range” for right now.

I did see Mark Bunch (Barbara’s son) who was out for a long ride. He joked that I looked as if I “were in the zone”. I was, sort of. I am just not in good walking shape at the moment, though I am healthy enough to enjoy myself.

Other walking topics:

A couple of photos of our “Building Steam” 13 minute per mile group; the idea is to help new runners finish the 4 mile (6.4 km) Steamboat course in 52 minutes or faster on June 19.
I work with this group on Wednesday nights.

Note: the guy is Bob Corbett; he is an instructor with the 10:30 group. His marathon PR is 3:17 and his half PR is 1:30. He also has bench pressed over 300 pounds….

The guy in the center is Lou; our leader of the 13 minute pace group. He is in his 70′s and still does triathlons.

Other walkers: Tammy had a bad race (by her standards; 1:01 would be an outstanding 10K walk for me). But she shares:

I knew I was in serious trouble, because my legs were SO tired, and I was breathing WAY too hard. I just felt rotten, and I had 5K to go. I was miserable. My legs were hurting, my wind was non-existent, and I was definitely NOT having any sort of fun whatsoever. I was just in serious pain. But I was determined to finish. I kept pushing but there was just nothing there. There was a runner in a hot pink top that would pass me, and then I’d pass her, etc. She finally passed me for good about 7K, and she was only maybe 20 ft in front of me, but I just could not muster the strength for a pass.

My 6K split is actually 6.02K (missed it), but it was 6:22 (!so slow!) even though my ave HR was 169. I think I mentally gave up at this point, at least a little. The negative thoughts started pouring in “Why am I bothering to train so hard if this is all I can do?”, “My hard work has gotten me nowhere”, “I’m terrible today”, “What is wrong? Why don’t I have any strength?”. I promised myself to keep trying hard and to not give up, despite all of that. I kept pushing hard but my legs were Jell-O. I made it to 7K in 6:03 (but remember, this was only 980m because my 6K split was long), ave HR 166, and feeling AWFUL.

I share this because the thoughts she shares are EXACTLY what goes though my mind during rough spots of a race. I’ve thought this many a time (e. g., when I was wobbly and barely moving at mile 88 of the Leanhorse 100 miler in 2005).

But being injured has put it in perspective; having to put out effort to walk a slow 13 miles reminded me of why I train; when I am trained up this would be a “easy hike” effort. Today, I didn’t kill myself but I did honestly try to put in a moderate effort.

Here is Ray Sharp waxing melancholy on his 50K race (which he walked in under 5 hours)

That’s the rub: if you were once really good, you have a long way to slide down.
I wouldn’t have first hand experience with that.

I’s on Edjukashun – Texas School Board | March 16, 2010 – Rebecca Skloot | ColbertNation.com

more about "I’s on Edjukashun – Texas School Boar…", posted with vodpod

Sports for a 50 year old…

Yesterday’s training: after my walk I had to do the pigeon pose and other stretches to stretch out the old piriformis injury. I also had to stretch my back, which has ached in my past. Then I did a modified leg routine; modified to compensate for my torn meniscus in my right knee.

Today: swam and lifted; I had to refrain from dips and bench presses and do most of my arm work with my hands turned inward and with a close grip Then when I swam, I had to mix strokes, mix pull buoy and other things to protect my sore rotator cuff. But I couldn’t do too many kick drills as it bothers the back of my knee with a meniscus tear.

Yet, in terms of aches and pains and what I can do with my body, I am way ahead of most 50 year olds.

Friday Night Fights notes: 21 May 2010

Quip: Prior to the Ji-Hoon Kim versus Ameth Diaz lightweight division fight, the referee made the “Sign of the Cross” prior to the fight. Announcer Joe Tessitore exclaimed “you thought that boxing was a secular sport”; Teddy Atlas said that he didn’t know who the referee blessed, but thought that Kim would win.

The fight itself: Diaz was doing well and hurt Kim early; in fact up to 2:48 into the round I was ready to give it to him. But Diaz made a defensive mistake and Kim landed a huge right hand to the side of the head, thereby knocking him out!

In the early bout, Ruslan Provodnikov boxed Emanuel Augustus in the junior welterweight class. Augustus is 38 years old and had a record of 38-31 going in; Provodnikov was 14-0. Though Augustus had his moments and won a few rounds on my card, Provodonikov landed the heavier blows and dropped Augustus late in the 5′th and then won by a TKO after knocking Augustus down twice. Augustus was game but was worn down by repeated power punches…and yes, old age. He also took the fight on 4 days notice; in all he really hung tough and made it competitive for all but the 9′th round.