30 May 2011 later: Brains, skunk butts, Republican economics and more….

Republican Economics
Paul Krugman speaks with such clarity:

Steve Benen watches an entire panel on Meet the Press condemn Democrats for accurately describing the Ryan plan:

I’m at a loss to understand what, exactly, Ruth Marcus, David Brooks, and their cohorts would have Dems do. Congressional Republicans have a plan to end Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher scheme. The proposal would not only help rewrite the social contract, it would also shift crushing costs onto the backs of seniors, freeing up money for tax breaks for the wealthy. The plan is needlessly cruel, and any serious evaluation of the GOP’s arithmetic shows that the policy is a fraud.

Which part of this description is false? None of it, but apparently, Democrats just aren’t supposed to mention any of this.

I have to admit that even I am surprised by this.

I admit that I am not. Frankly, the Republicans have lowed the bar so far for themselves that they expect a gold star anytime one of them writes up a plan that has a footnote; think of this as the snowflake student who wants an A because their report was typeset and placed in a fancy binder.

Skunk Butts and brains
Jerry Coyne happened to mention that the skunk’s odor defense mechanism (a nozzle near its anus that emits the stinky substance) and the human brain are products of natural selection. No, that doesn’t mean that skunk butts and human brains are similar. But evidently this point (that both resulted from an evolutionary adaptation process) annoyed some.

An unrelated aside: check out the unspeakably cute amphibians that he talks about in this post.

Accountability and Education
You usually see this cycle: some business type (who doesn’t know squat about higher education) comes up with some simple minded scheme to measure “academic production”. The general public sees this and thinks that the top professors are slackers. Faculty protest, and the clueless business types tut-tut that academics are acting like snowflakes by not subjecting ourselves to their notion of accountability when in fact, they really don’t know their heads from their asses about research universities. Here is such an example:

Study: One-fifth of faculty does most of the work
By Daniel de Vise

Twenty percent of faculty at the University of Texas-Austin teach 57 percent of the student credit hours, according to a new study from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity that attempts to build a case for inefficiency and waste in academia.

If the “bottom” 80 percent were as productive as the top 20 percent, the study concludes, the flagship Texas public university could cut its tuition in half. Or, the state could reduce its funding to the university by as much as 75 percent.

The study is likely to provoke outrage among those who suspect that college faculty positions are comparatively cushy, if it gains traction. And it’s likely to irk faculty associations, whose leaders contend that professors are a very hard-working and dedicated group, on the whole.

Look at the faculty list at any department at a major research university and you’ll find that a good number of professors are teaching something well short of a full load of courses. The reason is research: Universities typically grant professors a good amount of freedom — from lighter course loads to paid sabbaticals — to pursue their area of specialty, generating articles in peer-reviewed journals and chasing grant funds.

That research effort is just as important as the quality of their classroom teaching, at least in terms of college rankings and reputation.

But the study suggests that research and teaching can easily coexist. It found that the 20 percent of faculty with the heaviest teaching loads generated 18 percent of UT’s research funding, meaning that they remained competitive in research even as they carried more than their share of teaching duties.

“This suggests that these faculty are not jeopardizing their status as researchers by assuming such a high level of teaching responsibility,” the study states.

The least productive 20 percent of faculty teach just 2 percent of all student credit hours at UT — meaning that students barely see them.

Here is what is missing: student hours is not a full measure. My advisor taught one course per semester, usually a graduate course. BUT he also ran a seminar, advised a half a dozen graduate students, helped make up and grade the topology qualifying exam and put out high quality research; he even solved an 80 year old open problem. Directing graduate research is time consuming. I assure you that he was no slacker!

Sure, every profession carries dead weight and academia is no exception. Unfortunately those who are most qualified to measure these things are those that are closest to it…..you see such a problem with, say, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which regulates nuclear safety.

Memorial Day

I was going to write a Memorial Day post, but this one from the satire blog really said much of what I wanted to say:

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/thank-a-world-war-ii-vet-for-protecting-your-freedoms/

On this Memorial Day, let’s give thanks to the brave Americans who gave their lives to protect our freedoms. Of course, you’ll have to be fast, as the last American to do that served in WWII.
Ever since then, brave American boys (and some dykes) have died for nothing other than the testosterone of the cowards and con-artists in Washington, D.C.

Now that the dust has settled, we know that Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan were complete wastes of time, lives and money that did nothing for anyone other than reckless politicians and rich defense contractors.

Now, I stand behind our military. It is the only thing I worship that isn’t invisible. But I do not stand behind killing Americans for no reason.

I might dispute the Afghanistan point; after all that is where Al Qeada was. And yes, we should fully fund veterans benefits and take care of those who were wounded (physically and mentally); that is the part of the cost of war.

But I reserve a ton of anger for those who send our service people into harm’s way for no good reason.

May 30 2011 Zumba…

Lynn dragged me to Zumba class. It was interesting.

I did my best to watch the feet of the instructor; still I botched many of the moves. But some of my tightness and weaknesses were exposed (piriformis, tight quads) and worked on; overall it was good for me.

Afterward, we went to Indian buffet (Pasad’s) and then to Starbucks. At Starbucks we chatted with the director of the Steamboat 4 mile/15 K race (Philip Lockwood).

Highlight of the Zumba class: Nancy (the perky instructor) rubbed a towel across her butt (as part of demonstrating a move); then she tossed me the towel. It was all in good fun.

My trying and failing.

Lynn and me; I am on the right. Lynn had just made me laugh when this was taken…

Lynn, Me and Nancy

30 May 2011 early am

Workout notes
I ran an easy 3 miles (3.14 by google) this morning. I started at 6:32 am and finished at 7:03; I did have to dodge one car that didn’t realize that the intersection was NOT a 4 way stop; still that car has a lot more “M” and “V” than I do…better to be alive than “right but dead or crippled”.

The weather was about as pretty as possible (sun, not that hot yet) but I was surprised that there were so many cars on the neighborhood road. Then again this is a working class neighborhood and people are used to getting up early.

Later: Lynn has talked me into going to Zumba class:

Don’t worry; though I’ll be the only male, this class is lead by and mostly populated by middle aged women; there is little danger that I’ll pull something or throw out my back. But who knows; with any luck maybe I’ll get eyestrain? (I like MILF’s and GILF’s).

Fun
Hmmm, maybe I should frown and scowl more?

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types. The study – which may cause men to smile less on dates, and inspire online daters to update their profile photos – finds dramatic gender differences in how men and women rank the sexual attractiveness of non-verbal expressions of commonly displayed emotions, including happiness, pride, and shame.
[...]
“While showing a happy face is considered essential to friendly social interactions, including those involving sexual attraction – few studies have actually examined whether a smile is, in fact, attractive,” says Prof. Jessica Tracy of UBC’s Dept. of Psychology. “This study finds that men and women respond very differently to displays of emotion, including smiles.”

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

No, I don’t take this study very seriously; though maybe there is something there?

Political Fun

Good for Mitt Romney:

The big important news of the Romney campaign today is that he apparently swung by some touristy deep-dish pizza place while on a fundraising swing through Chicago, ate some pie — I imagine very daintily, with a knife and fork — and then decided, for the LOLs, to send over the leftovers to the Obama re-elect headquarters, who confirmed the receipt of Romney’s leavings.

Yes, this Huffington Post article makes fun of him for doing this, but I think that it is great that Mr. Romney is interjecting some levity into things. We can disagree on policy without hating each other….well, maybe some can. I sometimes struggle with this.

So I salute Mr. Romney for setting a nice tone.

Politics

Here is what we are up against. This is part of a letter to the editor written by a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” old man

How many times during my youth did mentors – parents, grandparents, teachers, religious leaders, etc. – explain the importance of caring for the poor? I bought into the fact that many among us were not privileged to wealth, good health, higher education or proper guidance. I accepted the fact that not all were born equal and some need societal protection against the unscrupulous among us.

All of those reasons have flooded my memory bank as I listen to our elected officials explain why cuts in funding cannot happen to our school systems and our relief agencies. “The poor among us need our help” seems to be a constant theme among our political leaders to maintain the status quo when it comes to the transfer of wealth in this country.

Personally, I’ve stopped buying into the “woe is me” philosophy of yet another generation of under-educated, under-employed “poor” people. How difficult can it be to grasp the simple truth that education will usually lead to a richer, fuller life? How difficult can it be to explain to your child that living in public housing is not the norm and that better economic conditions usually follow better-educated people? How difficult is it to stress the obvious truth that doing drugs is terribly detrimental to one’s health and overall well-being? How difficult can it be to convince your child that learning to read is probably the single most important improvement one can ever make it climbing out of poverty?

Hell, I did it. I listened to my parents and my children listened to me. If I did it, everyone can do it. I was born in 1933. I know what poor is! I watched while my parents dug their way out of poverty and into middle America. It can be done!

Emphasis mine. This guy grew up right wen the New Deal was in full force and the government was spending like crazy (WW II also). Tax rates on the upper income people were sky high. I am NOT saying that this man was employed in a New Deal program directly, but the bottom line is that private enterprise, at that time, was helped by the fact that people had money to spend. But oh no…he did it ALL HIMSELF (so he thinks).

This is a bit like my right wing Naval Academy classmates going on and on about self-sufficiency.
(note: a Naval Academy education is taxpayer funded, and a government paycheck is guaranteed for 4-5 years afterward)

Robert Reich talks more about this era and afterward:

The Great Prosperity

During three decades from 1947 to 1977, the nation implemented what might be called a basic bargain with American workers. Employers paid them enough to buy what they produced. Mass production and mass consumption proved perfect complements. Almost everyone who wanted a job could find one with good wages, or at least wages that were trending upward.

During these three decades everyone’s wages grew — not just those at or near the top.

Government enforced the basic bargain in several ways. It used Keynesian policy to achieve nearly full employment. It gave ordinary workers more bargaining power. It provided social insurance. And it expanded public investment. Consequently, the portion of total income that went to the middle class grew while the portion going to the top declined. But this was no zero-sum game. As the economy grew almost everyone came out ahead, including those at the top.

The pay of workers in the bottom fifth grew 116 percent over these years — faster than the pay of those in the top fifth (which rose 99 percent), and in the top 5 percent (86 percent).

Productivity also grew quickly. Labor productivity — average output per hour worked — doubled. So did median incomes. Expressed in 2007 dollars, the typical family’s income rose from about $25,000 to $55,000. The basic bargain was cinched.

The middle class had the means to buy, and their buying created new jobs. As the economy grew, the national debt shrank as a percentage of it.

The Great Prosperity also marked the culmination of a reorganization of work that had begun during the Depression. Employers were required by law to provide extra pay — time-and-a-half — for work stretching beyond 40 hours a week. This created an incentive for employers to hire additional workers when demand picked up. Employers also were required to pay a minimum wage, which improved the pay of workers near the bottom as demand picked up.

When workers were laid off, usually during an economic downturn, government provided them with unemployment benefits, usually lasting until the economy recovered and they were rehired. Not only did this tide families over but it kept them buying goods and services — an “automatic stabilizer” for the economy in downturns.

Perhaps most significantly, government increased the bargaining leverage of ordinary workers. They were guaranteed the right to join labor unions, with which employers had to bargain in good faith. By the mid-1950s more than a third of all America workers in the private sector were unionized. And the unions demanded and received a fair slice of the American pie. Non-unionized companies, fearing their workers would otherwise want a union, offered similar deals.

Americans also enjoyed economic security against the risks of economic life — not only unemployment benefits but also, through Social Security, insurance against disability, loss of a major breadwinner, workplace injury and inability to save enough for retirement. In 1965 came health insurance for the elderly and the poor (Medicare and Medicaid). Economic security proved the handmaiden of prosperity. In requiring Americans to share the costs of adversity it enabled them to share the benefits of peace of mind. And by offering peace of mind, it freed them to consume the fruits of their labors.

The government sponsored the dreams of American families to own their own home by providing low-cost mortgages and interest deductions on mortgage payments. In many sections of the country, government subsidized electricity and water to make such homes habitable. And it built the roads and freeways that connected the homes with major commercial centers.

Government also widened access to higher education. The GI Bill paid college costs for those who returned from war. The expansion of public universities made higher education affordable to the American middle class.

Government paid for all of this with tax revenues from an expanding middle class with rising incomes. Revenues were also boosted by those at the top of the income ladder whose marginal taxes were far higher. The top marginal income tax rate during World War II was over 68 percent. In the 1950s, under Dwight Eisenhower, whom few would call a radical, it rose to 91 percent. In the 1960s and 1970s the highest marginal rate was around 70 percent. Even after exploiting all possible deductions and credits, the typical high-income taxpayer paid a marginal federal tax of over 50 percent. But contrary to what conservative commentators had predicted, the high tax rates did not reduce economic growth. To the contrary, they enabled the nation to expand middle-class prosperity and fuel growth.

There is more there (Reich’s article); he talks about how this came tumbling down and how our three main coping mechanisms (individual borrowing, two income families, working more hours) eventually ceased to be effective.

Frankly, I don’t see much hope in compromise; at least the Republicans admit that they aren’t going to compromise:

Education
As we learn more about the brain, we are learning that…surprise, surprise, not everyone can do everything. Here is a blurb about “discalculia”:

What is dyscalculia?

Examples of common indicators of dyscalculia are (i) carrying out simple number comparison and addition tasks by counting, often using fingers, well beyond the age when it is normal, and (ii) finding approximate estimation tasks difficult. Individuals identified as dyscalculic behave differently from their mainstream peers, for example:

* To say which is the larger of two playing cards showing 5 and 8, they count all the symbols on each card.
* To place a playing card of 8 in sequence between a 3 and a 9 they count up spaces between the two to identify where the 8 should be placed.
* To count down from 10 they count up from 1 to 10, then 1 to 9, etc.
* To count up from 70 in tens, they say ’70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300…’
* They estimate the height of a normal room as ’200 feet?’

Ok, I don’t know enough to know if this is something real or a modern thing that is “just made up”. BUT if it is real, well, ok…just please, please, please, don’t tell people with this affliction that they can be scientists or engineers, ok?