6 July 2011: More Fair Criticism of President Obama (and other topics)

Workout notes 3 mile run (sans stopwatch); ok, it was more than 3 miles but it was terrible. Sure the morning was pretty and I enjoyed being outside. But I could barely catch my breath even though I didn’t run that hard. I detest double red cell blood donation (2.5 weeks ago). I should start to feel better in a couple of weeks.

Afterward, I lifted weights and that went ok:
incline bench: 10 x 115, 10 x 130, 5 x 135
curl: (barbell, EZ-curl bar and pedestal): 3 sets of 10 x 62 pounds (two 10′s on each end)
pull down: 3 sets of 12 x 140 (shoulder friendly grip)
Hammer rows: 3 sets of 10 x 200 pounds (both arms at once)
sit ups: 4 sets of 25 at the highest incline
hip adductors: 2 sets of 10 x 170
hip abductors: 2 sets of 10 x 170
push-backs (machine) 2 sets of 10 x 110 (each leg)
plus: rotator cuff, hip hikes, weightless lunges

I had some slight leg tingles but overall everything went well.

Social: Olivia and I took a trip to the Lincoln Museum and Library in Springfield. I was struck by the destruction of the Civil War and by how much President Lincoln was hated during his time. Overall, I can recommend it.

One of the displays (the Civil War in 4 minutes; there is a map with a running tally of the casualties) can be found here.
I bought my own copy.

Posts
Do you like special effects in movies? Check this out:

Pat Buchanan: argues that prejudice must have some merit since it has persisted for such a long time.

Well, perhaps prejudice might have served us for 50,000 years or so when we were spread out and worried about others taking our water hole. But we are past that and need to adapt to civilization. By Mr. Buchanan’s argument, men having multiple sex partners must also be a good thing.

Fair Criticism of President Obama
I agree that President Obama is hampered by politics, but I sometimes wonder if he is guilty of adapting to “serious” right wing narratives of the economy:

To those defending Obama on the grounds that he’s saying what he has to politically, I have two answers. First, words matter — as people who rallied around Obama in the first place because of his eloquence should know. Yes, he has to make compromises on policy grounds — but that doesn’t mean he has to adopt the right’s rhetoric and arguments. The effect of his intellectual capitulation is that we now have only one side in the national argument.

Second, since Obama keeps talking nonsense about economics, at what point do we stop giving him credit for actually knowing better? Maybe at some point we have to accept that he believes what he’s saying.

The question then is why. As I’ve tried to show many times, the facts overwhelmingly refute the anti-Keynes talking points. Neither the invisible bond vigilantes nor the confidence fairy have made an appearance. So why is Obama talking up those talking points?

OK, here’s an unprofessional speculation: maybe it’s personal. Maybe the president just doesn’t like the kind of people who tell him counterintuitive things, who say that the government is not like a family, that it’s not right for the government to tighten its belt when Americans are tightening theirs, that unemployment is not caused by lack of the right skills. Certainly just about all the people who might have tried to make that argument have left the administration or are leaving soon.

Here is a critique of the “right skills” argument:

You can see this in Obama’s Today Show interview where he appeared to suggest that unemployment is primarily attributable to technological change:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to be much more efficient with fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you see it when you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking at the gate. What we have to do now, and this is what the jobs council is all about, is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be, how do we make sure that there’s a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist, how do we make sure that capital is flowing in those places with the greatest opportunity.

Now obviously this is true. One thing that people do is they try to invent machines such that they can then go to businessmen and say, “Buying my machine would be cheaper than paying a worker.” This causes job losses. The invention of the answering machine reduced the need for secretaries. Advances in electronic filing further reduced the need. Cell phones and email have even further reduced the need. ATMs reduce the need for bank tellers. Self-serve checkout machines reduce the need for grocery store clerks. And this is, indeed, one reason why people are unemployed. It’s also the source of progress over the long term. But technological change is a constant. Firms were seeking to adopt labor-saving technology in 1998 and 2006 and 1967 just as much as they are today in 2011. And yet the unemployment rate was much lower in 1998 and 2006 and 1967 than it is today.[...]

True, but I see the President’s remarks as a justification for money for education, which I approve of. But yes, I wish he were more sympathetic to the “demand side” version of economics.

Republican Howlers: July 5, 2011 Edition

First we have this:

Former Washington Times columnist Eliana Benador, who was fired for writing a piece speculating that former Rep. Anthony Weiner had converted to Islam and was pushing a “socialist political agenda,” has found a new home for her controversial work: Tea Party Nation.

RightWingWatch.org, a watchdog for conservative media that is part of political activism group People for the American Way, excerpted Benador’s debut column on the conservative social networking site, meditating on the “invasion of America” by “non-European immigrants.”

“As we celebrate America’s Independence Day, it’s noteworthy that the percentage reduction of original American voters, might have been a defining factor in the election of someone like the current president, who among other goals, seems to be keen in opening further our borders to endlessly increasing numbers of immigrants who, regardless of their skin color, are bringing in a whole new texture of culture, 100% foreign to what America’s origins were as its wonderful adventure began back in 1776,” Benador wrote.

Tea Party Nation has previously published writings that warn of the impending “extinction” of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) population.[...]

So….now guess who is “considering” running for the GOP nomination? Think: “elite academic institution that is known for basketball success”. You guessed it!

Poll after poll indicates that GOP voters are not particularly happy with the field of candidates that are vying for the 2012 GOP nomination. But how would they feel if white supremacist David Duke jumped into the race? Well, since polls also put a high premium on electability, I’m guessing they’d feel even more dispirited about it. But we’ll have to see if anything comes of the news today that Duke is mulling getting into the presidential fray, as Eve Conant reports for The Daily Beast.

Add to the growing list of candidates considering a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 America’s most famous white-power advocate: David Duke.

Yikes! That’s not good news. But before we get too deep in to speculating, I’ll point out that Duke doesn’t exactly have imminent plans to file with the FEC or anything. Rather, he’s embarking on “a tour of 25 states to explore how much support he can garner for a potential presidential bid.” So, we are in the purely embryonic stage of an official Duke candidacy.

What a sideshow!

But back to the more “mainstream” candidates: a conservative commentator at Fox News (no less) is less than impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin:

Fox’s Saturday conservative commentator Liz Trotta came out swinging this weekend, taking down both Rep. Michele Bachmann and colleague Sarah Palin for their historical inaccuracies. Quoting Ezra Klein and Matt Taibbi, Trotta joked the two shared an alma mater in “Fleabag U,” and that “as far as flubs go, they are leading the field.”

Trotta didn’t seem surprised that Rep. Bachmann and Palin were being compared: “it’s almost preordained because it seems to be they both took the same american history course, and it may have been at Fleabag U.” She chided them for both their latest gaffes– the Paul Revere comments that sparked controversy from Palin, and Rep. Bachmann’s “Lexington and Concord and in New Hampshire” quip. Using various quotes by Taibbi and Ezra Klein (“Rep. Bachmann is the candidate that Sarah Palin is supposed to be”), she argued that “they can’t get away from these criticisms, and even laughed at Rep. Bachmann’s claim that she has a “scholarly background.”

Obama Gets Realistic About America after visiting Denny’s

(hat tip: Randazza)

Quick Midday Comments (5 July 2011)

Science People who live in certain areas of the south are more prone to stroke and memory loss:

People in a large area of the American South have long been known to have more strokes and to be more likely to die from them than people living elsewhere in the country.

Now, a large national study suggests the so-called stroke belt may have another troubling health distinction. Researchers have found that Southerners there also are more likely to experience a decline in cognitive ability over several years — specifically, problems with memory and orientation.

The differences to date in the continuing study are not large: Of nearly 24,000 participants, 1,090 in eight stroke-belt states showed signs of cognitive decline after four years, compared with 847 people in 40 other states.

But the geographic difference persisted even after the researchers adjusted for factors — like age, sex, race and education — that might influence the result. The most recent data from the study were published in Annals of Neurology.

None of the people with cognitive decline in the study had had detectable strokes.[...]

Hmmm, what is going on: food? weather? (is freezing your butt of for several months of the year actually good for you?) I’d be interested in finding out.

Atheist Conferences
I’ve never been to one. Evidently, there has been a flap over someone complaining that being asked out for coffee in an elevator made them uncomfortable; see here.

Ok, things happen; any group of passionate human beings will generate some dissent from time to time.
But one of the blogs I regularly read pointed us to this post. At the latter post, one can read such gems as:

In sum, men who corner women know what they’re doing. And yes, they are relying on the fear of rape to grease the wheels towards getting laid. Rebecca may not have put it that way, but being a mean ol’ feminist bitch, I’m happy to say it.

and

And I also know, being a feminist for many years now, that whenever a bunch of dudes start freaking out on a woman who called out some egregious sexism, there are a bunch of women willing to back those dudes up in order to get that coveted male approval and attention. I call this move Pulling An Althouse.

In short, this person purports to “know” a great deal including how other people think . Moral: being an atheist doesn’t make you rational.

This demonstrates why such conferences do not interest me. I like math and science conferences because people gather there for a common interest, and there is a bit of self selection going on there. Most people there have met some sort of intellectual standard and, not surprisingly, the participants happen to me more atheistic than the population at large.

Getting into the swim: 5 July 2011

Workout notes Yesterday’s 5K “run” meltdown was discouraging. My time was horrible and when I saw the video of the finish I was horrified (see: 6:20-6:25 or so; I am as far away from the camera as possible and I look as if I am walking illegally):

But today was a new day and my swim was very encouraging.

Yoga with Ms. Vickie followed by 2200 yards of swimming:
10 x (25 3g, 25 fist), 6 x (25 front, 25 free) with fins.
10 x 100 free on the 2: (1:41, 1:41, 1:41, 1:40, 1:41, 1:39, 1:38, 1:39, 1:38, 1:38) average: 1:39.5
4 x (25 back, 25 breast)
4 x 50 fly kick with fins. Yes, I sensibly talked myself out of doing butterfly…
Yes, the 10 x 100 set was work…I was feeling “the heaviness” in my muscles about mid way through the set. I had to bear down and focus.

No, this wouldn’t have a great swim prior to my shoulder problems in 2010, but it is the best I’ve done in well over a year.

For past reference here are my 10 x 100 on the 2 averages:
5 July 1:39.5
21 June: 1:41.3
15 June: 1:42.4
1 June: 1:44.6
29 May: 1:49.7

Again, a real swimmer would ask “is this a kick-board set” or just laugh. But for me, it is good progress…and my shoulder doesn’t hurt. Then again, I am being diligent with my weight lifting and rotator cuff exercises..and I’ll have to do that, like it or not, for as long as I want to swim.

Yoga: taking that photo set was useful; it was humbling (I didn’t realize that I looked so bad) but it made me concentrate on my poses this morning. I was asking myself the right questions (e. g. “where is my knee?” “am I extending out through the heel?”)

Posts
Politics Frank Rich made some fair criticism of President Obama but this is a fair “counterpoint” to Mr. Rich’s article.

My quick summary of the back and forth: Rich: President Obama is not seen as doing enough for the working class but rather seen as sticking up for big money. This is My Time (at Daily Kos): Hey, the man isn’t a magician and he has done a lot.

Sidenote: someone sent President Obama a blistering e-mail message and got a hand written response! Dang. Maybe *I* should sent President Obama a nasty e-mail message!

Republicans
David Brooks thinks that the Republicans have a great chance to win one some of their issues but are going to blow it:

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. [...]

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it. [...]

Read the rest. Now Paul Krugman says “I told you so…but did you believe me…..NOOOOOOOO”.

Well, why not? Well, Dr. Krumgan won a Nobel Prize and that actually diminishes him in the eyes of many; had, say, Ted Nugent or Kim Kardashian said this, well, more might believe it.

But here is something else: why, why, why do so many of my liberal friends want President Obama to act just like the Tea Party members (except for liberal causes)????

Science and human evolution
Our desire for a fair society might be ingrained:

Among the Ache hunter-gatherers in eastern Paraguay, healthy adults with no dependent offspring are expected to donate as much as 70 to 90 percent of the food they forage to the needier members of the group. And as those strapping suppliers themselves fall ill, give birth or grow old, they know they can count on the tribe to provide.

Among the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari in Africa, a successful hunter who may be inclined to swagger is kept in check by his compatriots through a ritualized game called “insulting the meat.” You asked us out here to help you carry that pitiful carcass? What is it, some kind of rabbit? [...]

Darwinian-minded analysts argue that Homo sapiens have an innate distaste for hierarchical extremes, the legacy of our long nomadic prehistory as tightly knit bands living by veldt-ready team-building rules: the belief in fairness and reciprocity, a capacity for empathy and impulse control, and a willingness to work cooperatively in ways that even our smartest primate kin cannot match. As Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has pointed out, you will never see two chimpanzees carrying a log together. The advent of agriculture and settled life may have thrown a few feudal monkeys and monarchs into the mix, but evolutionary theorists say our basic egalitarian leanings remain.

Studies have found that the thirst for fairness runs deep. As Ernst Fehr of the University of Zurich and his colleagues reported in the journal Nature, by the age of 6 or 7, children are zealously devoted to the equitable partitioning of goods, and they will choose to punish those who try to grab more than their arithmetically proper share of Smarties and jelly beans even when that means the punishers must sacrifice their own portion of treats. [...]

Note: there were some studies that suggest the evolutionary roots:

A sense of fairness is both cerebral and visceral, cortical and limbic. In the journal PLoS Biology, Katarina Gospic of the Karolinska Institute’s Osher Center in Stockholm and her colleagues analyzed brain scans of 35 subjects as they played the famed Ultimatum game, in which participants bargain over how to divide up a fixed sum of money. Immediately upon hearing an opponent propose a split of 80 percent me, 20 percent you, scanned subjects showed a burst of activity in the amygdala, the ancient seat of outrage and aggression, followed by the arousal of higher cortical domains associated with introspection, conflict resolution and upholding rules; and 40 percent of the time they angrily rejected the deal as unfair.

That first swift limbic kick proved key. When given a mild anti-anxiety drug that suppressed the amygdala response, subjects still said they viewed an 80-20 split as unjust, but their willingness to reject it outright dropped in half. “This indicates that the act of treating people fairly and implementing justice in society has evolutionary roots,“ Dr. Gospic said. “It increases our survival.”

Interestingly enough, this “fairness” vision really doesn’t vary by liberal versus conservative. The article goes on to point out that when Republicans and Democrats were given the opportunity to map out what the distribution of wealth would look like if society were just, both came up with the same map (similar to Sweden’s). The Republicans and Democrats differ on how to get there rather than where we should be.

4′th of July 2011 morning edition

Workout notes I signed up to “run” the local 4′th of July Firecracker race. No, I wasn’t in shape for it; I had all but stopped running about 6 weeks ago and have done just a few “build up” walks for the 24 hour attempt last month and then laid off for almost two weeks after the Steamboat 15K walk.

That, plus the double red blood cell donation (I despise doing that!) plus starting too fast for my current conditioning lead to a horrible 30:09 finish. Basically, I started off way back in the pack (ok), weaved my way upward (stupid) then decided to follow Theresa and her purple spandex shorts with pantie lines. That was a mistake though we got to mile 1 in 9:00 (normally very slow for me, but not today). I was walking by 1.5 miles and basically did the old walk/jog to average 10 minute miles the rest of the way. I was out of breath.

BUT: the butt/piriformis only tingled a little; it IS better. So I can GRADUALLY ease in to training. Right now, running/jogging puts less stress on it so I’ll do that for a few weeks and then gradually introduce non-social walking. I’ll have to stay with the butt-work too (hip hikes, lunges).

Also, my weight is a problem. Sure, I weighed 193 two days ago, but that isn’t the same 193 that I weighed in 2003. I no longer have as much muscle mass; I am soft and fat at this weight at this time in my life. So I need to eat less.

Note: I counted exactly 7 runs since May 1, 2011. So the body just isn’t used to the motion; getting used to it will take a long time. I need to be patient.

Non-jock stuff

Independence Day: Americans are dummies (the url is a WIN):

Just in time for the July 4th weekend, the Marist Poll has asked Americans in which year the United States declared its independence. And, the result is many Americans need to brush up on their American history.

Only 58% of residents know that the United States declared its independence in 1776. 26% are unsure, and 16% mentioned another date.

There are age differences on this question. Younger Americans are the least likely to know the correct answer. Only 31% of adults younger than 30 say that 1776 is the year in which the United States broke away from Great Britain. 59% of residents between 30 and 44 report the same. Americans 45 to 59 — 75% — are the age group most likely to have the correct answer. Among those 60 and older, 60% report that 1776 is the year in which the United States declared its independence.

When it comes to gender, men — 65% — are more likely to respond with 1776 than are women — 52%.

And, for the second year, about one in four Americans doesn’t know from which country the United States declared its independence. While 76% correctly cite Great Britain, 19% are unsure, and 5% mention another country.

A comparable proportion of Americans were similarly informed at this time last year. At that time, 74% thought the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, 20% were unsure, and 6% mentioned another country.

80% of those 60 and older, 77% of those 45 to 59, and 77% of those between 30 and 44 report the nation’s founding fathers revolted against Great Britain. This compares with 67% of those under the age of 30 who say the same.

Men — 83% — are more likely than women — 68% — to know that the United States declared its independence from Great Britain.

I have to chuckle at the women versus men statistic: I wonder how the feminists will spin THIS one.

Speaking of dumb things, here is a post about a smart man wasting his brain:

Under the tutelage of the estimable Eric MacDonald, I have spent several weeks reading Christian theology. And so far, I have learned only three things:

1. I am spending my middle age reading drivel about beliefs that have no basis in fact. This seems a total waste of time. I could be reading books about real things instead.

Uh…the rest of the points are irrelevant. Yes, I know, “sophisticated” theologians complain that books like The God Delusion attack unsophisticated theology (you know, the kind that the vast majority of believers subscribe to). But these “sophisticated” works are wastes of time; it is a bit like reading about sophisticated astrology or sophisticated “homeopathic medicine theory”. The final barb hits home:

I’m starting to think that modern theology is simply postmodern literary criticism applied to a single book of fiction.

Barack Obama: an example of fair criticism can be found in this New Yorker article by Frank Rich. I’ll respond to this though:

Obama can win reelection without carrying 10021 or Greenwich in any case. The bigger political problem is that a far larger share of the American electorate views him as a tool of the very fat-cat elite that despises him. Given Obama’s humble background, his history as a mostly liberal Democrat, and his famous résumé as a community organizer, this would also seem a reach. But the president has no one to blame but himself for the caricature. While he has never lusted after money—he’d rather get his hands on the latest novel by Morrison or Franzen—he is an elitist of a certain sort. For all the lurid fantasies of the birthers, the dirty secret of Obama’s background is that the values of Harvard, not of Kenya or Indonesia or Bill Ayers, have most colored his governing style. He falls hard for the best and the brightest white guys.

It appears that he falls for the best and brightest Serious People while avoiding the advice of the Dirty Bearded Hippies. Nevertheless, President Obama is bound by political considerations: where was the support for progressive economic policies going to come from? Remember how the Senate is constructed: not only do they have the filibuster, but small conservative states hold disproportionate amount of power.

Darwin award: not funny but…

ONONDAGA, N.Y. — Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike’s handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.

4 July 2011 am

I am up early; I am planning to run in a local 4′th of July 5K (the Firecracker) which is a Jaycee fundraiser. I am not in shape to race, so this will be (for me) a public run with the crowd; no time goal at all.

Yes, in the days of old I could show up out of shape and run a 22 minute 5K. No longer; sub 30 would be more like it today. But…that is how it goes in nature…even for spiders:

If, like me, you’re feeling the ravages of age, no longer lithe and limber, and you’re starting to realize that you grunt every time you sit down, take heart. Other animals also fall apart with age. ScienceShot reports that spiders do too:

On Saturday, biologists will present research at the Society for Experimental Biology annual conference in Glasgow showing that as spiders age, they build shabbier, less perfect webs than they did in their youth.[...]

Posts
Religious freedom versus secular law The Netherlands has a law that demands humane treatment of animals including those that are about to be eaten. Evidently Jewish and Muslim law requires the throat to be slit while the animal is still alive and alert which runs afoul of this law. Via Mano Singham:

The Dutch government has taken the first steps towards banning the slaughter of animals without stunning them first. This means that the way Jews and Muslims produce kosher and halal meat is no longer allowed since that requires the slitting of the animal’s throat while it is still alive.

These two religious groups are upset and joining together to claim (surprise!) religious persecution. As one might have predicted, the specter of Hitler is being invoked, with the chief rabbi of the Netherlands comparing this action to the Nazi persecution of the Jews. On the Muslim side, one imam told Reuters, “This is a political decision. Who has the authority to determine whether the way of killing animals is good or not?”

Well, duh. When a country’s parliament passes a law, it goes without saying that it is a political decision. And surely that same body has the authority to pass laws governing its food supply?

Religious people cannot seem to get it into their heads that just because some obscure and anonymous desert nomads wrote something a couple of thousand years ago, that is not a basis for deciding policies in the 21st century. You need to make the case based on contemporary knowledge and mores.

Exactly. Why people expect deference to some ancient, superstition filled document is beyond comprehension. Your religious freedom only extends to YOU and not to other beings that might be affected. This is a bit more extreme but: I am descended from Aztecs and I don’t expect to be able to cut out the hearts of other people and offer them up to the Sun God.

Politics
Political Humor

Hey, you can give a tax-cut to a greedy millionaire or you can turn the page!!!

On another topic

One of the more interesting things is that some conservatives are completely unable to admit that they got any help from the government or government programs AT ALL. Some of the worst offenders are my Naval Academy classmates: they were educated at tax payer expense, drew a government paycheck and many went on to work for defense contractors.

This link contains a chart that points out the government programs that many (most) have taken advantage of:

The idea behind the post is that people consider a government program not to be “help” if it has a certain type of label.
Here is an example of the worst of this not being able to even recognize that something is help:

Relevant part is about 2:30 or so into it:

Anyway, then he says — I’d say apropos of nothing if “apropos of nothing” wasn’t a good way to describe this entire conversation — “What happened to society? I go into business, I don’t make it, I go bankrupt. I’ve been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No. They gave me hope, they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision.”

Uhm…didn’t “they” also “help you out” with WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS? What? Do you not — I…but…but — are you unclear on the concept of — am I? Are you? Is this supposed…what? Really? Huh?

Am I missing something here? Craig, are you trying to send us a secret message, that the poltergeists are back in your teevee, or something?

Social/Political
Unions sometimes get criticized. This is one reason why (at my private university this clown would be gone). This guy was caught exposing himself in town but wasn’t able to be fired from his professor’s job. At our university, our primary job is to teach undergraduates and I can’t imagine students being comfortable around him due to his behavior. Then again, this might be a case of the guy having to pee really badly; the details of the case I have are very sketchy.

Social comment I don’t go to atheist conferences and am not up on the “insider politics”. Some of the bloggers that I follow do go to conferences.

From what I can gather: evidently a female was at a conference and was very tired and riding down the elevator when some male asked her out for coffee. She refused…he accepted her refusal. She blogged about it and got criticism. Then followed a back-and-forth to which one of my favorite bloggers said this:

Time to get personal: if you’re offended by my opinions, that’s fine. But don’t dismiss me. Don’t condescend to me. Don’t tell me that I’ve never experienced sexism or been in extremely threatening situations. Don’t insult my intelligence or belittle my education by telling me that I haven’t read enough on the topic (I have, and I happen to disagree with a lot of it). Don’t tell me that I’m an idiot who has been brainwashed by some supposed “patriarchy”. I am horrified by the violence and oppression experienced by women throughout the world. I’ve faced plenty of sexism and have been in threatening situations. I’ve read the books. I’ve thought about the issues. I’m smart and educated and a critical thinker. I just happen to disagree with you. And I (and anyone who feels similarly) shouldn’t be shouted down or vilified for expressing that disagreement.

5) Relatedly, a man who agrees with the major tenets of what is generally considered “mainstream” feminism but does not think that all acts of discrimination and sexism are equally problematic is not sexist, ignorant, unaware of their supposed “male privilege”, engaging in “mansplaining”, a part of the “patriarchy”, an oppressor, or an enemy. And you know what? These men should be allowed to openly disagree in debates like this without the fear of being labeled a misogynist, being vilified, or being shouted down. Yet time and time again, I’ve heard from my male friends that they feel the need to censor themselves for precisely that reason. And the men who do dare to dissent in perfectly legitimate and reasonable ways indeed are unjustly vilified and bullied. And that’s not okay.

Here’s the thing: feminists can be bullies. Nasty ones. And when anyone, male or female, is reluctant or afraid to express their disagreement on any aspect of this issue for fear of being vilified and shouted down, that’s a major problem.

I had wondered about “gee, is writing a blog post saying “I don’t like this” really being a bully, even if what you write is complete crackpottery? Ms. Hale responded to me:

Perhaps I should’ve made it clearer, but I thought the links at the beginning of the post and my reference to the cause of the current internet drama indicated that the bullying in question refers both to Rebecca Watson’s actions at the CFI… conference and the general shouting-down (on all sorts of blogs, etc.) of comments/responses that don’t completely “toe the feminist line”. Those responses are often called ignorant, or the commenter in question is told they “just don’t get it”, or that they need to “learn”, or whatever, when, in reality, it’s most likely that they just don’t agree. They get it. They’re not ignorant. They just don’t have the same take on the situation/issue.

And while I have not seen this at a conference, I’ve seen this at, say, a UU church. The idea is roughly this: the poor, oppressed women finally have the courage to speak out and are expected to be encouraged…and that means those horrible oppressive men staying silent while the women say whatever.

Part of this might be generational; since I didn’t grow up with the “shut up woman” mentality I don’t see how speaking your mind is more courageous for a woman than for a man. Older women tell me that many of them prefer younger men for exactly this reason; we (on the average) see women differently than men their age do!

But I think this is an example of what Ms. Hale was talking about. The problem: instead of just saying “I don’t like this and this is why…when you say xxx I feel ” we get the same old ranting. True, what this person says, on logical grounds, actually makes sense. And yes, people on Daily Kos rant…but mostly we rant at “the other”. Here, the rant is directed internally.

No, I don’t consider this to be bullying; I mostly just ignore what this person has to say and listen to calmer people. And at in-person meetings of this type, either I don’t show up or if I do, I just let my mind wander and think about other things and then ask a calmer person what they think in private. And yes, my mind HAS been changed…frequently. I see that all too often I am blind to certain things; I know that I haven’t walked a mile in everyone else’s shoes.

Dirty Hippies, Romney’s Lying, Report Her, Shoes, and other assorted topics

Workout notes
2200 yds of swimming:
10 x (25 3g, 25 fist)
10 x (25 front, 25 free) zoomers
1000 of (100 swim, 100 pull): 18:25 (disappointing, but ok)
4 x (25 back, 25 breast)
Then weights
Incline bench: 10 x 115, 6 x 135, 5 x 135, 5 x 135
Curls: 3 sets of 10 x 25 dumbbells
Pull downs: 3 sets of 12 x 137.5 (don’t ask; that is the machine setting)
Rows (riverplex machine) 3 sets of 10 x 90
Adductor: 3 sets of 10 x 70
Abductor: 3 sets of 10 x 70
Lunges: 4 sets of 10 (each leg) weightless, 5 pound dumbbells, 18 pound body bars (twice)
Rotator cuff

Note: the injuries are gradually getting better…

Posts: these are going to be all over the place; I am behind. I’ve grouped these by topic.

Science

Yes, wildfires got close to the Los Alamos national lab. But no, there was very little danger to the public from the release of radioactive material.

Balance of Nature will fix it You sometimes hear of that “the balance of nature will fix it” when we have an environmental challenge of some sort. Yes, biological systems might reach an equilibrium. But that equilibrium might well be with a certain population reaching “zero” (e. g., Venus could be said to be at a biological equilibrium.

Politics: Economy

But Mr. President, the government isn’t a family and not all debt is created equal.

But maybe there is some hope? Paul Krugman is not optimistic but he reports:

Speaking exclusively with The Wall Street Journal, Barton Biggs, managing partner at multibillion dollar hedge fund Traxis Partners, painted a bleak outlook for the developed world with only huge government intervention likely to improve things.

…

Mr. Biggs, former chief global strategist for U.S. investment banking powerhouse Morgan Stanley, demanded the U.S. government temporarily return to ideas used in the Great Depression as a way to get the country back to higher growth.

“What the U.S. really needs is a massive infrastructure program … similar to the WPA back in the 1930s,” he says.

The plan would be to employ some of the many unemployed people, jump start the economy, as well as help catch up with Asia, which is building state-of-the-art infrastructure from new mechanized port facilities to high-speed trains.

He suggested financing such building through the sale of U.S. Treasuries.

But as we know, only bearded hippies professors who don’t know anything about the real world of big money say things like this.

This is just anecdotal, but I more and more I am hearing things like this from my conservative friends. And why not: even conservatives like driving on sound bridges and they like having customers for their businesses. I think.

One other thing about the Serious People vs. the Hippies: when it came down to the size of the stimulus, it was the Hippies that used established economic theory to suggest the bigger stimulus package:

But actually it was the other way around. The case for a much bigger stimulus came out of basic textbook macroeconomics, and could be justified by fancier but still standard models as well. The argument for doing much less was, by contrast, based on a combination of seat of the pants intuition and political symbolism: policy makers believed, based on no evidence, that a big stimulus would unnerve the bond market, and/or that a temporary boost would be enough to restore all-important confidence, or that it was politically crucial that the number be well under the magic $1 trillion mark. (How different would things be if we did our counting in base 12?)

In other words, wisdom — as perceived — came from rejecting actual economic analysis in favor of feelings, and not waking up to the fact that the analysis was right until a couple of years of massive unemployment later. The hippies read the textbooks; the Very Serious People apparently rely on close analysis of entrails, or something.

My guess: smarter people probably knew this, but had political considerations. Remember that the stimulus had to get through our Senate which gives disproportionate influence to small, conservative states, which is magnified by the filibuster.

Politics: 2012 race

Mitt Romney: sure, he lies (latest: he denies saying that President Obama made the recession worse…he DID say that) but at least he is smart enough to know that he is lying.

Tim Pawlenty: frankly, I think that he has zero chance. But might he be a compromise candidate for many voters? We shall see.

New Republic: thinks that Intrade overrates Jon Huntsman’s chances due to the market being very small at this time. “Collective wisdom” means little if the collection is small.

Politics and Society
Sometimes, one is only considered “serious” if one argues for the conventional wisdom of the moment. Being right often does not convey respect. Example: consider the “dirty Hippies” who opposed the Iraq war from the start?

Why do so many despise those who are having a hard time of it right now? My guess: fear. This Daily Kos diary is interesting. I gave an answer to the diarist’s question as to why some of their better off acquaintances brushed off their request for donations to a particular charity:

1. LOTS of people are asking for money and I can’t possibly say “yes” to everyone who has a cause. I do give to various groups (that I researched) but that leaves less for spontaneous requests from friends much less people that I don’t know so well.

2. I get a bit irritated when some only contact me when they want money.

3. As far as hostility to those having bad luck (e. g., laid off, fired from their job because of a debilitating disease, etc.): I think a lot of that is pure simple fear. No one wants to think: “hey that could EASILY be me” so we make up stuff in our heads about how they “must have done something wrong” or “must have been flawed in some way.” We really don’t have the degree of control in our lives that we think that we do.

Note: this is not a left/right issue. I’ve seen research that suggests that conservatives are more generous when it comes to charity. I am skeptical as while this study corrected for income level, I didn’t see that it corrected for cost of living index (e. g., 60,000 dollars a year is much more in Peoria, IL than it is in Chicago).

Vocal Feminists and “Register Her” I am not sure as to what the focus of this post is. It did alert me to the site “Register Her” which is a site that lists females that have either raped (example: sex with an underage person), are pedophiles, or have made false rape accusations. That is fine with me. But part of this post was to attack Jessica Valenti who evidently has some crackpot views. I suppose that is ok too, though I never heard of her and don’t much care about her one way or the other. I did watch the video that J. DeVoy posted and, well, about 1/3 of it was reasonable; the rest was your garden variety internet zealot ranting, though I freely admit that some who respond emotionally to her are, well…as she says, not very bright.

Society and Religion

Francis Collins: it is embarrassing when a good scientist openly “reasons” in very unscientific ways. But superstitions are difficult to overcome

Interesting Observation
Why don’t mainstream shoe companies sell left and right shoes separately, given that many of us have different sized feet?

Back in Peoria 2 July

No, Olivia is not happy about my stuffed frogs helping me play dominoes. She is even less happy that the frogs won all 4 games.

The drive back, save a long wait on I-55 just north of St. Louis, went ok.

If you are taking this I’d recommend taking I-70 going East (from I-55) and then turning north on Illinois 4; that would bypass the mess and not add too many miles.

Back to normal stuff tomorrow.

Trip Home: Rotten Oklahoma leg

Workout notes: early am; swim at Barton Springs: 1 mile in 37:04.
Then half mile walk, 2 mile run (10:17 for the 2 miles, 10:50 for 2+, half mile back.

It all went ok; no real pain.

Then I went on our trip from Austin to Peoria, with the idea of spending a night in Missouri. All went ok until we tried to enter I-44 (Oklahoma turnpike) near Big Cabin.

What happened:

1. We were not permitted to go East on I-44 due to a semi accident; we were forced to go west and couldn’t exit until Claremore, Oklahoma.
2. Huge line to get off at Claremore.
3. We were CHARGED for the leg of the trip that we were forced to make. I swore then that I would NOT stay the night in Oklahoma no matter how tired I was.
4. Back tracked through Pryor back to I-44 which was now…clear…sort of.
5. Now a huge traffic jam; stopped for most of the time and a State Trooper car moved us to the right lane.
6. Now that we were in a small moving line….but no cone-off of the left lane…you guessed it, some “special snowflake idiots cut into the left lane and got around people.
7. But here is a WIN: the semi truck in front of us had enough of the cheaters. It moved into the left lane and blocked them, while maintaining the pace of the right lane. Hence we left it’s space open for it! My daughter yelled “trucker WIN”!!!
8. Finally we got out of the single lane area; we spent an extra 2 hours, 30 minutes and 72 miles (and an extra 1.50 in turnpike toll…idiots.