Romney vs. Santorum, Frogs and Hilarity…

Workout notes yoga, then a slowish 6.25 (10k) run along the water; I started at the lot, ran to Hooters, back through the gateway and out to the dam; then I went to the factory entrance, back and twice around the gooseloop; back to the I-74 bridge and back to the car. It took 1:05; when I was headed out to Hooters my doctor (did my colonoscopy) blew past me as if I were standing still; he is in his early 60’s and can still turn over a 3:3x marathon.

I’ll NEVER be like him. 🙂

At yoga, my teacher gave me a nice correction to “down dog” (my arms were bent).

As far as running: I might have to add a 2-4 mile run to get to 4 runs a week; my body isn’t adapting on 3 runs a week.

Atelopus coynei, a small “harlequin frog” which lived in Ecuador, was thought to be extinct. It isn’t!!!! That is always good news…

Click on the thumbnail too see this handsome creature in a full size photo. Yes, this frog is named after biology professor Jerry Coyne.

Right now there is “this is how others see us, this is how WE see us and this is how we really are”. I passed along the professor one. Here is a Unitarian Universalist one; note that I was a member of the local UU church for a long time.

So, this is how I will address the photo: the social one (the protest signs) is pretty close; also many UUs work in organizations that care for the poor or for those who have AIDS, battered women, etc. So there is no denying that aspect of UUs. But as far as the “how New Atheists view UUs”: no, not really. I see them more like this, or this:

Just throw in a few science words and some Eastern religion words, mix in a word salad, and you’ll have a whole congregation of UU’s nodding in agreement..or at least in approval. Just leave out “Jesus” and “God the FATHER” (“Mother Goddess” is ok).

Is Rick Santorum really less electable than Mitt Romney? Well, probably a little; then again Mr. Santorum runs stronger in key areas in key demographics (working class whites in the Midwest) so….still I find Mr. Silver’s “possible Santorum map” to be farfetched. But yes, his point is that there is more to electability than national poll numbers. The point is that whereas Mr. Romney would do better in many states, many of these are those that Mr. Obama isn’t going to win anyway, and Mr. Santorum does better than Mr. Romney in some Midwestern states.

And, no I do NOT approve of the Daily Kos “operation hilarity” which is supposed to have us spending money and voting for Mr. Santorum in open Republican primary states. Evidently, I am not alone in objecting (here, here, and here)

I want to make this clear: I can understand voting in a Republican primary if it is legal to do so in some circumstances; in fact I considered it in 2008. Here is why: I live in IL-18 (I will be shifted to IL-17 in the upcoming cycle due to redistricting). The Republicans have a lock on IL-18; only once in 100 years has a Democrat won. Hence the winner of the 3-way Republican primary for US Representative was a shoo-in for the general election. Hence if I wanted a chance to elect our Representative (currently Aaron Schock), I had to vote in the Republican primary. The rules allowed for you to register as a Republican or as a Democrat on the day you voted.

I ended up NOT doing that as then Senator Obama was in a close contest with then Senator Clinton and we had a contested race for the Illinois House seat (IL-92). So I voted in the Democratic primary, as always.

By the way, I’ll be voting in the Democratic primary again; this time it will be for Cheri Bustos for the IL-17 nomination.


February 16, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Aaron Schock, Barack Obama, frogs, humor, IL-17, IL-18, Mitt Romney, politics, politics/social, religion, running, yoga | Leave a comment

Oh goodness…..why professors should avoid the woos…

I listened to this interview.

Here is a case in which someone (the interviewer) knows a few science words and has scanned a few popular articles and asks a prominent scientist “hey what about this?” A few times the scientist just says “you don’t know what you are talking about” which is correct.

The problem is that one needs a certain level of fundamental understanding of science to even ask meaningful questions, which this interviewer doesn’t. You might see Professor Coyne’s take on it.

The thought: “show me the evidence as to why this is relevant” seems to escape them.

February 16, 2012 Posted by | biology, evolution, science | Leave a comment