Chris Christie should know better
Christie is upset that a gay marriage law might end up on his desk; he threatened to veto it. He thinks that gay rights ought to be decided by popular referendum? (uh, we have a liberal democracy, not a “majority rule” but never mind). But he said something that was incredibly stupid:

The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”

Uh, he really thinks that southern whites of that time period would have “granted” rights to the blacks? What planet is this clueless idiot person living on? Ok, Mr. Christie isn’t an idiot but he sure screwed up when he said that and he isn’t known for admitting to making mistakes.

As far as those who aren’t in politics
Our newspaper decided to publish this letter to the editor as “in the spotlight”; they said that this woman (Gina Zindt) is an “administrator in higher education”; in fact she is a human resource director for Knox College (NOT an academic).

She doesn’t like President Obama (nothing wrong with that) but she goes on to blame HIM for gridlock in Congress???

The absence of effective leadership from Obama has directly caused the immeasurable dysfunction of Congress. First, Obama doesn’t know his sport. He has no meaningful leadership knowledge or experience. He refuses to visualize outcomes from both Democratic and Republican perspectives. Rather, he continually fuels the division between them by blaming Republicans. Congress has never been more polarized: They are deadlocked on almost every issue because of his inability to inspire or motivate. It’s no wonder that Congress has its lowest approval rating ever.

Like Congress, we the people are more polarized than ever before. From the Tea Party to the Occupy movement – and all the passions in between – voters are beyond disappointed. We are disgusted and angry. But we can’t get lost in the seemingly endless infighting that will go on during all the campaigning this year. We simply must stay focused on the goal: removing Obama from our White House.

Uh, well, thought I don’t like John Boehner, even HE can’t keep his own caucus in line. From David Frum

At some point, Speaker John Boehner was going to have to show the most conservative members of his caucus that he would get work done in the House without them.

Yesterday revealed that day has not yet come. The ramifications of the failure to pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY12 in the House will be far-reaching. It’s true that Democrats took advantage of the Tea Party defections from the GOP leadership and aided in killing the CR. But this was the second embarrassment on a critical vote for the House Republican leadership this year.

Rep. Eric Cantor had predicted that the votes were there to pass the CR. “All is well.” It wasn’t.

In blunt terms, the Speaker asked his caucus to endorse a deal that the House of Representatives had made with the Administration. The CR conformed to the Budget Control Act that was passed to increase the debt ceiling. The House and its Speaker had made a deal. The CR was the natural legislative result of that deal.

This was not perfidy on the part of the President, or some RINO conspiracy. This was the word of the House of Representatives, given and vouched for by the Speaker to the President. For members of his own caucus to publicly fail to help the Speaker keep his commitment shows that Republicans in the House (and in the country) are divided. They are in danger of becoming the equivalent of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, and Kosovo after the Third Balkan War.

If the United States had a parliamentary system, the Speaker would have to step down. His leadership of his own party has been repudiated by the right of the right.

My goodness; to think that people like this live among us.
In this woman’s “mind” (or what passes for a mind), President Obama is some uncompromising liberal. WRONG.

Lifting
I did my usual routine at a slightly slower pace.
Circuit one
rotator cuff (pulley), rows (Hammer Machine), curls (pulley), pull downs (lat machine)
row: 10 x 180, 10 x 230, 10 x 230
curl: 10 x 42, 10 x 47, 10 x 50
pull down: 10 x 140, 10 x 160, 10 x 160

Circuit two
Bench press plus sets of 20 sit ups (one after each bench press set)
10 x 135, 3 x 175, 5 x 170

Circuit three
Pull ups followed by sit ups (20 at the highest incline)
7, 7, 6, 6. The 7′s were done with knuckles facing me, the 6′s were done in a shoulder friendly position (knuckles facing sideways)

Circuit four
Incline bench press with one more set of sit ups:
7 x 135, 6 x 135

Circuit five

I finished with dumbbell rotator cuff exercises and two sets of 15 x 40 lb. dumbbell military presses.

Then I stretched and ran 10K on the track: my time was 56:50 for 50 laps (about 6.25 miles, slightly longer than 10K)

9:38, 9:21 (18:59), 9:12 (28:11), 8:57 (37:09), 8:47 (45:57), 8:40 (54:38), 2:12 (56:50)

Note that I was mostly by myself for the first 4-4.5 miles and then I paced off of one young woman for about .5 miles (4.5 to 5) and then took it in on my own.

Evidently I am almost over my illness; this 56:50 was only 30 seconds slower than what I did at a 10K race this September, and I had a warm up prior to that and I didn’t lift weights first. Then again, this was a springy track with no wind, hills, pot holes, etc. But it wasn’t a bad workout.

One funny note: near the track there is a mat where people can stretch or work with an exercise ball. As I completed one of the middle laps I saw a woman with a larger butt doing this (facing away from the track, almost perpendicular to it:

(click on the thumbnail to see the full size photo).

I got distracted for just a moment and regretted not having a camera. Well, not really.

Then again, had I seen this, I might have gotten a heart attack:

(click on the thumbnail for the full size photo)

Posts

Note: Presidents of both parties have been complaining about his “hold” policy for years. Yes, I thought it was dumb even when President Bush was in office. There might be some breakthrough in reaching an agreement to at least amend some of these procedures.

I don’t have the data on Senate holds but I do know that the Republicans have used the filibuster at an unprecedented rate.

Newt Gingrich and his Super Pac “Winning our Future”
Here is a Gingrich ad:

(note: Mr. Huckabee said that he was taken out of context and did NOT endorse the ad)

Winning Our Future’s ad

Notice how slick this ad is and how is very quickly slips in the appropriate disclaimers; Mitt Romney is never exactly accused of any direct wrongdoing. In fact, this ad presents what is old news in Massachusetts. But the tone is designed to scare the voters rather than to inform them. Very devious…:)

So how well are the candidates themselves doing on truthfulness? Here Nate Silver makes an analysis; one should read Mr. Silver’s cautions though.

Mormon Practice: Baptizing the Dead
I was a bit surprised to see atheists being upset over this:

Gawker’s substantial Mormon readership has come through for us: Two readers have sent us confirmation that Edward Davies, Mitt Romney’s militantly atheist father-in-law, was indeed posthumously converted to Mormonism by his family, despite the fact that when he was alive he regarded all religions as “hogwash.”

Just to set the record straight: this is NOT lying about a “death bed conversion”; no one is claiming that this man DID anything. And no, this isn’t desecrating a burial place as nothing physical was done. (I said these two things right off of the bat because I got remarks such as these).

My question: why does any atheist care who does what ceremony in whose name? Sure, right now, I’d be a bit concerned if some religious leader condemned me to death in some spiritual sense but ONLY because some whack job might attack me. But aside from direct physical acts, who cares? Really…those nut jobs who baptized the dead are DOING NOTHING AT ALL. It is the same as some kid pretending to cast a spell or something. Really….

They didn’t say that
Though I sometimes talk politics, I don’t like it when people repeat stuff that isn’t true. One of the favorite memes of the polyester pants set is that Al Gore said that he “invented the internet”. He never said that. He was clearly talking about policy and legislation and while you might argue that he took too much credit, he clearly was not talking about “inventing it”.

But this is not a left-right issue.
Dan Quayle never intimated that people in Latin America speak Latin; this meme came from a comedian’s joke.

And no, Spandex Sarah (Sarah Palin) never said that “she could see Russia from her house” though she did (correctly) say that you can see a part of Russia from a part of Alaska. The “seeing Russia from her house” was a Tina Fey joke.
This is what she really did say (which was bad enough):

Living in a Bubble
Joe Paterno died recently. My view: he was a good coach who did a lot right (gave back to community, got his players to graduate, etc.) but what he did wrong (NOT calling the police) was inexcusable; he should have been fired IMHO. It appeared to me that he was more concerned with his job and legacy than stopping a horrendous wrong.

Nevertheless, at the funeral, you are seeing much sentiment at how Paterno was giving a raw deal (example, example)

The pro-Paterno people are living in some bubble, I think. My guess is that this will hurt them in the long run; note that this year the got the Big Ten 7′th pick (8′th if you count the Michigan Sugar Bowl team) despite their fine on the field record. Some of that was the scandal, but this type of blind loyalty to Paterno isn’t helping.

But here was a funny part:

I had to laugh; right now I am “debating” who would win that ride. Surely Mr. Romney could afford the best bike.
But though I don’t like her politically, Ms. Palin would beat all of them easily and not even break a sweat.

Topics
This is just a FAIL on so many levels:

Mitt Romney’s problem with evangelical Christian voters has been well documented.

But as the Republican presidential nomination fight heats up in Florida, a Mormon rite that leaves many Jews seething could prove awkward for the candidate in a state that’s home to more Jewish people than any other besides New York and California.

The religious rite is proxy baptism for the dead. According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church, these posthumous “blessings” are intended to “save” ancestors and others who weren’t baptized in life or were baptized “without proper authority.”

Any Mormon may baptize any person posthumously. [...]

Let’s see: some members of one religion are upset with what some other people are doing in a ritual for “dead people”…in private. Ahem: no one is is really doing anything other than magic and hocus-pocus.

Tell you what: I said a prayer that would automatically baptize you in the name of the Great Frog God if you have read this far.

Politics

Social
This article is a bit interesting; it contrasts the French way of raising a kid with the English/US model:

Every so often a new parenting book triggers the sort of conflicting passions most recently associated with the Arab Spring. Pamela Druckerman’s French Children Don’t Throw Food, is just such an incendiary work. We mothers are a notoriously touchy lot at the best of times, so when another woman dares to suggest there might be a better way of rearing our offspring than muddling through, bribery, intemperate amounts of wine, empty threats and inconsistency, forgive us for digging in our heels. [...]

“In France, children are presented with a fait accompli and the phrase “C’est moi, qui decide” – I make the decisions – is used a lot,” says Druckerman, who has a daughter aged five and twin boys of three. It’s this discipline that sets us monarchist slackers apart from the rigorous republicans. French parents believe that saying “Non” is a responsibility and “rescues children from the tyranny of their own desires”.

Also, their authority derives from a consensus about how children should be brought up. While we pick and mix our attitudes, in France boundaries are reinforced by society. Couples are in charge, the children are not. C’est tout. It may be old-fashioned, but it appears to work.

“Children are an important part of the family, but family life doesn’t revolve round them,” points out Druckerman. “In America and Britain, there’s a belief that having children must entail self- sacrifice and that we must push them to succeed. The French are more patient and allow their children far more freedom. You never see French mothers hovering anxiously round their children in a park.”

French women don’t dedicate themselves selflessly to motherhood. French fathers aren’t enslaved at weekends, driving children to activities. And babies are seldom breast-fed for long – the emphasis instead being on the mother’s sex life returning to normal as soon as possible.

Of course this article ends with a paragraph about how this mom has…wait for it…wonderful kids (surprised?) and how she likes them just as they are.

Social/Political
Paul Krugman shares a snippet about our current lack of economic class mobility (he is quoting John Quiggin):

For years, opinion leaders have told us that it’s all about family values. And it is — but it will take a while before most people realize that they meant the value of coming from the right family.

Politicfact
Paul Krugman takes politifact to task for saying “half true” (upgraded to “mostly true”) by politifact and then makes a larger point:

Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage. In the case of Obama’s job statement, Politifact first called it only half true, then upgraded that to mostly true, not because Obama said anything factually incorrect, but because Politifact perceived Obama as trying to imply that he was responsible for the gains.

This is deeply wrong on two levels. First, fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply. Leave that for the talking heads!

Second, in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan.

I take a slightly different view; this is how and why:

Ok, here is a dissenting opinion (sort of): yes, a fact checker should check to see if the statement is factual or not, but there is some duty, IMHO, to see if the fact is being used responsibly.

Remember the statements about the “lucky duckies” that pay no federal income taxes, as in “in year 200x, 4x percent of Americans paid no Federal Income taxes.” That statement is literally true. However it is deceptive because it cherry picks both a particular year (atypical) and it leaves off things like payroll tax, local taxes, etc.

Climate change deniers do this all the time; they say things like “hey, the average temperature of the planet went up from year X to year X 1″ which might be literally true…but irrelevant to the actual long term trend, especially if there was some other smaller cycle (El nino, La Nina) involved.

Of course, I agree that Politifact is not doing this responsibly; they sure appear to be bending to conservative pressure to be “balanced” because, well, the conservative are lying so much.

Note: this is from my comment.

Science/Evolution

Genes and evolution (by Jeremy Yoder )

Does evolutionary change happen in big jumps, or a series of small steps? The question may seem a little esoteric to non-scientists—how many mutations can dance on the head of a pin?—but it has direct implications for how we identify the genetic basis of human diseases, or desirable traits in domestic plants and animals.

That’s because the evolutionary path by which a particular phenotype, or visible trait, first evolved in a population is closely related to the genetics that underlie the trait in the present. Phenotypes that arose in a single mutational jump will probably remain connected to one or a few genes with large effects; phenotypes that evolved more gradually do so because they are created by the collective action of many genes. So what kind of evolutionary change is most common will determine which kind of gene-to-phenotype relationships we should expect to find.

In an excellent recent review article for the journal Evolution, Matthew Rockman, a biologist with the Department of Biology and Center for Genomics and Systems Biology at New York University, makes the case that the era of genomics has, so far, been much too focused on finding genes of large effect. Fortunately, Rockman also sees the beginnings of a new movement towards acknowledging the importance of small-effect genes—one which may ultimately make genomic association studies more useful.

He goes on to talk about Genewise association study (GWAS). Here is the idea: some evolved traits are Mendelian (a mutation of only a few genes, possibly only one are involved). Some involve the mutation of many genes with all of these genes working together to get the given effect (ability to tolerate heat is one such trait). Since these genes didn’t mutate together, this track is far more difficult to find.

I recommend surfing to the blog and reading the rest.

If you believe that capital gains taxes should be low, make the argument and show your data and give evidence of why it helps the economy. If you want to cry about “double taxation” because of corporate taxes…do you REALLY want to go there? That implies that corporations aren’t “people” but rather exist to make the shareholders rich.

You’ll have to answer questions like this one, and you’ll have to admit that capital gains were not always low.

Note the Republican attempt to refute his argument: it is basically that many people make money off of capital gains.

That doesn’t mean that Krugman is wrong; Krugman points out that the FACT that most of the capital gains go to the very wealthy, not all of it. Note that this “rebuttal” is thin on actual data and it basically unsubstantiated ranting.

Today started with lots of rocks…ok pebbles, ok…grains of sand…in the shoes.
The weight room was crowded by 6:15 am thanks to our ROTC unit (some of them are fit…others….well…). I managed to work it all in anyway: 3 sets of rows, 3 sets of curls, 3 sets of pull downs, full rotator cuff sets, 8 x 20 sit ups, 7, 7, 6, 6 pull ups, 2 sets of incline bench (7 x 135, 5 x 135), regular bench (10 x 135, 3 x 175, 4 x 170), one set of military dumbbell presses.

Then the pool was crowded again; there was one gaggle of guys doing the “do one 25 with your head out of the water every 4-5 minutes or so” and a few women in bikinis doing…not sure what. These types will be gone in 2 weeks or less.

Me: 10 x 100 on the 2:10; did a few on the 2 but couldn’t do many of these. Goal: next week 1300, 1600 the week after that, then 2000 per workout the next week, then back to my usual 2200.

Politics
The President did well last night, at least politically speaking. The R’s are trying to paint him as some kind of American hating socialist, and that speech was about as “All American” as it gets. I have expected him to pull out a hot dog and some apple pie.

Of course, the public remains, for the most part, very uninformed. Someone tried to tell me that “Obama doubled” unemployment.

My response was this:

Unemployment didn’t double under his administration: it was 7.8 when he got sworn in and was at 8.7 when he got his stimulus bill passed. The hard data:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

His response:

Ollie, it was 4.4% in January 2007. Was up to 10% in 2009 and is was at 8.6% two months ago.

Yes….and who was President from 2007 to the start of 2009?
(psst: not Obama).
Now if they want to blame CONGRESS that is another thing (and I’d point out that the conditions for this bubble happened before the D’s took over) but that isn’t what he is saying. He is blaming OBAMA for what happened when BUSH was President.

These people are idiots.

Helicopter Parents
Via NPR

HR specialists say boomer parents are advocating on behalf of young adult children, calling up to negotiate better benefits, protest a poor evaluation, etc. NPR seeks to interview people about this. Employers – have you experienced it? Parents – if you’ve done this, why? 20-something employees — if your parent has done this, did you appreciate it, or resent it?

Yep. Sigh…sign of the times; this is mostly the fault of MY generation. It is pathetic.

Education

It does sort of gall me that so many work so hard to try to get some sort of religion into school. Why? Obviously a kid can read whatever holy book/text they want to on breaks; they can pray or do whatever. Why do so many want the schools to sanction such things in one form or another?

Civil Liberties
I found this ruling to be interesting:

American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case.

Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21–or face the consequences including contempt of court.

Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

“I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well.

Ramona Fricosu, who is accused of being involved in a mortgage scam, has declined to decrypt a laptop encrypted with Symantec’s PGP Desktop that the FBI found in her bedroom during a raid of a home she shared with her mother and children (and whether she’s even able to do so is not yet clear).

Interesting: encryption can be all but impossible for even a professional to break; this situation is seen as something like requiring someone to open a safe with documents in it.