25 September 2010 College Football: I don’t want to talk about it.

UCLA ran all over Texas 34-12; UT couldn’t stop UCLA’s running.
Stanford stomped Notre Dame 37-14; ND couldn’t stop Stanford’s passing and had trouble moving the ball.

Those were butt-kickings.

(photos from yahoo)

Grayson’s Hard Hitting Ad

Update From Fact Check.com

The full context of the remarks make clear that Webster is not telling wives to submit to their husbands. Just the opposite.

Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.

And

As for Webster’s position on abortion, it’s true that he would prevent women from obtaining abortions even when the pregnancies result from rape, just as the ad says. And that goes for incest as well. He has been endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life, which states: “[W]e have listed the Republican Congressional Candidates whose responses to the RNC/Life Questionnaire indicate they are faithfully pro-life, and do not justify abortion for babies who are conceived through rape or incest, have a handicap, or a genetic defect.” When asked directly by a local television reporter whether he would support an abortion for a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape, Webster said “that’s not the issue we’re talking about” and evaded the question. Grayson’s campaign posted that clip on YouTube.

But the ad’s claim that Webster would “deny battered women … the right to divorce their abusers” is a distortion. The claim is based on legislation he sponsored in the Florida House of Representatives 20 years ago. The bill, HB 1585, would have allowed Florida residents the option of a “covenant marriage,” which would limit their divorce rights. Under the proposal, couples could dissolve a covenant marriage only in cases of adultery. But that would not have applied to anyone who did not choose to enter a covenant marriage. The legislation died in committee in June 1990. Webster has not advocated for covenant marriages as a congressional candidate.

Note: the last part sure looks like the sort of “allowing religious law” type of thing that people like Newt Gingrich are screaming about (e. g., outlaw Sharia Law).

So where the editing was deceptive, the thrust (that this guy is a fundie) is certainly true.

Thanks to Dr. Andy for pointing this out in the comment.

Double Sin Tuesdays from Republican Faith Chat!

My goodness, this made me blow my decaf through my nose:

This is a heptagon where the seven deadly sins are used to form axis for various specific sinful behaviors.

Just read the stuff about “Double Sin Tuesdays”:

Some of you may not know this, but on Tuesdays all sins count TWICE! Smart people don’t even leave their Christian homes on Tuesdays, lest they get in a car wreck and are sent straight to Hell.

But our Lord is a forgiving Lord. You can be forgiven for the underlying sins you committed on Tuesday (but only on another day of the week). Unfortunately, your bonus “double-sin” will never be forgiven. As such, people who carelessly sin on Tuesdays are almost guaranteed to go to Hell. Since we all deserve Hell anyway, there is no reason to complain.

From here:

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/tuesdays-are-double-sin-days/

(cut and paste into your browser; I don’t want the track back)

25 September 2010 PM

Here I have a different reaction than Miranda Celeste Hale:

Sorry, but while I think that Michelle Obama is a smart, accomplished woman, she isn’t as smart as her husband. Same for Hillary Clinton; Bill just has that extra deep mental gear.

There are times when the wife is the smarter of the couple, but I honestly don’t believe that here. I much prefer honest praise.

Economics
Paul Krugman:

A very nice new paper by Gordon and Krenn on the end of the Great Depression.

Although they don’t quite say so explicitly, the paper is to an important extent an answer to Robert Barro’s claim that the World War II experience shows that multipliers are low, because private spending actually fell during the war; as I and others have tried to point out, this was because it was, you know, wartime, with rationing of consumer goods and sharp restrictions on private investment.

What Gordon and Krenn point out is that we actually have more information than a simple comparison between the depressed peacetime economy and the war economy after Pearl Harbor: there was a period of more than two years when the United States was gearing up for war but not yet engaged in combat — the Arsenal of Democracy era. Rationing was not yet in effect, and for at least part of this period the economy still had excess capacity despite a very large rise in government spending.

What they find is that when there was still excess capacity, there was a quite large multiplier on government spending; that is, fiscal policy worked.

Yes, this is old data but this is one time we had massive government spending while the economy was depressed. And it worked.

Robert Reich

So this is on my list, along with Will Bunch’s book, Jimmy Carter’s and Stephen Hawking’s.

Same old BS
The Huffington Post carries “faith” articles; this is one of them:

Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, [...]

At least it didn’t take long to get to the point: “they” want us to accept “god” without there being evidence for it. The rest is, well, as Larry Moran describes:

is a childish rant by John Shook, Director of Education and Senior Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry. Like Jerry Coyne, I am terrbily disappointed in the American branch of the Center for Inquiry.

Moran goes on to challenge them:

I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God. They can put them in the comments section of this posting, or on any of the other atheist blogs, or on their own blogs and websites. Just send me the link.

Try and make it concise and to the point. It would be nice if it’s less than 100 years old. Keep in mind that there are over 1000 different gods so it would be helpful to explain just which gods the argument applies to.

I don’t care where they post the argument, just get on with it. I’m not interested in any other details about theology. Those points only become relevant once you’ve convinced this atheist that you have a rational argument for the existence of God. Don’t bother telling me how you reconcile your God with evil, or why you believe in miracles, or why transcendence is important in your life, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Don’t insult my intelligence by pointing out that religion has done a lot of good things in the past as if that were proof of the existence of the supernatural. Don’t be silly enough to try proving god by telling me that religion makes people feel good. So does chocolate, and wine.

Let’s stop the whining about how “know-nothing” atheists are ignoring the very best arguments for the existence of God. Come on, all you theists and accommodationists, put your money where your mouth is. Give us something of substance instead of hiding behind The Courtier’s Reply. Let’s see the angels.

No, Dr. Moran, you won’t find that here. They have nothing. The best I have seen is a “well, you have faith in rationalism and in the scientific method and we accept different axioms and therefore don’t need to show evidence”.

Hat tip to Jerry Coyne to alerting his readers to this.

One quibble though with Dr. Coyne:

Shook’s thesis is that believers and atheists alike—but mostly atheists— are profoundly ignorant of theology, making them unqualified for a chair at the debate table.

Why do we want a chair at the debate table? It isn’t as if I am interested in Zeus Vs. Thor or homeopathy vs. astrology debates. It is best to dismiss it as nonsense, do the science, and when they attempt to intrude into science is to remind them that they have zero qualifications to do so.

25 September 2010 Rehabilitation

Sleep: ok. Perhaps a bit of restlessness?
Workout: 1 mile warm up, deliberately paced 5K in 35:38 (23:50 at mile 2 then sped up against.

Rotator cuff exercises, etc.
Afterward, some slight side stuff…but I bought new shoes at Running Central (2 pairs).

Weather: very cool.

I noticed that I was straighter and my knees were straighter…at least early.

25 September 2010 Posts

Cartoon: too much truth here:

Speaking of Tea Party Loons:

(from here)

Banned books: I’ve read many of these (assigned by my school) and at least one of these as a kid.

What, Republicans Islamophobic? GOP candidate’s ad in North Carolina answers that question | Crooks and Liars

Remember how, during this long-running controversy over the so-called ‘Ground Zero mosque’ all the right-wing talking heads have insisted that heavens, no, they didn’t have anything against Muslims generally — and they certainly had no …

What, Republicans Islamophobic? GOP candidate’s…, posted with vodpod

24 September 2010 posts

Science
Yes, time dilation occurs in our own rooms…though the time differences are a tad small.

But you know, physics has conquered the classical problems; that is, those problems that you can see directly around you.

Biology and Evolution
Do you want to see how long ago our common ancestors diverged? Recursivity advertises our distance from the moose.

Animal Camouflage: well, this is really mimicry; here is an ADULT fly that looks like an ant larva. This example comes from Jerry Coyne’s blog.

Politics

Liberal bloggers to the White House: punching hippies won’t make “the base” more enthusiastic. What this means: when it comes time to make calls or to raise money, Democratic politicians love liberals. But on the campaign, they run AGAINST those liberals, and in policy, they ignore liberals and sometimes ridicule them in public. Well, the hippies are getting tired of getting punched.

Politics No, the GOP won’t meet their stated policy goals. But they might well stop any of our problems from being addressed. As Paul Krugman writes about the GOP’s new “pledge”:

The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration’s long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it’s a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.

So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?

The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.

And what happens once the movement achieves the power it seeks? The answer, presumably, is that it turns to its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security.

Realistically, though, Republicans aren’t going to have the power to enact their true agenda any time soon — if ever. Remember, the Bush administration’s attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in Congress — and it actually increased Medicare spending.

So the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here we come.

The wealthy: Bill Maher speaks his mind:

New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It’s so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being “rich”, or what tax rate is “too much.” But I’ve done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.

Surf to read more…it is worth it.

24 September 2010 Rehabilitation

Sleep: got it.
Shoulder: slightly sore in the evening; I worked it pretty hard though.
Knee: fine, it felt better during my treadmill run, BUT I wore “newer” shoes. Time to replace the old ones and bring another new pair into the mix.

Workout: abs/sit ups, arm bike (10 minutes), 30 leg presses to warm up (light weight).
Treadmill: run, started and increased speed every minute: 9:10 mile 1, 17:50 for 2 (8:40 second mile).
Then 1 mile AMT,
Then rotator cuff, light stretching. Note: in triangle, the right arm in the air felt as bit sore.