Friday, December 19, 2008

singing duets

I learned to enjoy Kara-oke (kara=self oke=okestra=orchestra) when I spent time in Japan. At first I hated karaoke because I thought I was a horrible singer and I didn't want to subject anyone to my terrible voice. But then I learned that I'm not actually tone deaf and if I tried I could do a half decent job singing most songs that I was familiar with. Upon that realization I started enjoying karaoke a bit more. But not too much.

The problem was that in Japan the selection of english songs, while large, consisted of the standard items: Golden oldies, The Beatles, 80's long-standers, and modern pop songs by brittany spears and her clones. You could find Green day or Nirvana at some places but that's not so fun to sing. These standard items are ok, but I don't know them so well because they're the kind of music that I deliberately try to stay away from - because I've heard them so much (typically when they first came out, or when I first started listening to the oldies station) . My dislike of a vast majority of songs (very few exceptions) exponentially increases with every listen. And since I don't pay much attention to lyrics I have a ton of trouble karaokeing these tunes.

My biggest problem was male-female duets. They were all basically songs I didn't know so when I was asked to take part it just wasn't easy or fun. I've since thought to myself "what is it about duets that I don't seem to like?"

It turns out that there's probably nothing wrong with duets. Today, as I was listening to my iTunes collection while working, a song from a cd that I've owned for a while came on. It was a duet, and one that I actually liked quite a lot. That song is from a more-than-half-decent-band who call themselves "Stars."

Here it is:

Stars - Your Ex-Lover Is Dead


Found at skreemr.com


So there's a duet that I'd be happy to sing (especially since it's short and I know most of the lyrics). Now to find a karaoke place in California that actually has it on their machine...

Of course there won't be, because I'm sure songs need to be licensed for karaoke use and pitzy little indie bands don't (or aren't asked to) license their songs.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

language and the brain

This old woman suffering from dementia was having trouble remembering words for actions (verbs). She didn't seem to have trouble remembering names for items or locations (nouns). Scientists were a little stumped so they did tests and sure enough this old lady seemed clearly to have trouble with verbs but not nouns. This looked like a new form of aphasia... pretty crazy stuff.

Then these other researchers did another test, using a different methodology, with the woman. they showed her a video of an action (instead of a picture of an action, like the other researchers were doing) and she was able to remember the names for the verbs she saw performed.

So it turns out, this woman can only remember verbs when she actually sees them performed, but she cannot if she sees them drawn as in a comic book.

Yet another reason why it's absolutely ridiculous that there are linguists still out there who are doing linguistics while ignoring all other aspects of cognition...

Television

I don't often say that I love some tv show, but I love Flight of the Conchords. The last show that I said I loved was Firefly. Flight of the Conchords is at least as good as Firefly but in a very different way. If you haven't seen Flight of the Conchords I highly recommend renting the two DVDs of their first (and currently only) season.

Today I found out that they have begun broadcasting their diminished second season. The first episode is available online. But I don't recommend watching it if you haven't seen the first season, not because it won't be funny to you -- because it will... it will be funny to the MAX -- but because if you are set up for all the jokes it might be funny to the MAX times 10. And you shouldn't deprive yourself of the that much funny.

Monday, December 15, 2008

in harmony with one's self

I first heard of fredo viola a couple of years ago when the internet brought me his 'sad song'.

His full album was recently released on itunes. But to more easily appreciate his music you should get a taste for how he makes it by going to its flash-heavy website.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Prop 8: the musical!

coolest thing I've seen all week:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Monday, November 24, 2008

When two people disagree, usually, one of them is wrong

This Peter Schiff guy got it exactly right, over two years ago. I'm sure he wasn't the only guy to have this idea, he was the guy who stuck his neck out on tv and said it would happen in a couple of years. Kudos to him.

I'm not really surprised

We elect people into public office. We'd like to think that those people have a good knowledge of basic civics. We'd like to think that, but we probably shouldn't.

It turns out that, on average, they can be more ignorant about civics than the average shmo.


Here is the quiz.

I got 88% right, or 29/33.

Are you a bad person if you got 44%? Certainly not. But of the various general knowledge that is critical to know in order to be a proficient US citizen, I'd put civics pretty high up there... I'd go as far as to say that you might want to get at least a C on this test if you want to consider yourself a knowledgeable voter. As for myself... I'm ashamed of my 88%.

Don't read webcomics in lecture.

This comic made me giggle out loud, in class. It's ok though, I'm a TA and I've already heard the lecture.



via The Joy of Tech

Friday, November 21, 2008

Genesis 8

We had recently read that 40 days (and an equal number of nights) go by with constant rain. However, in the initial few passages it seems that the waters took an additional 110 to recede.

But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; 2the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters had abated; 4and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.

Eventually, we saw, the tops of the mountains appeared. Our author then takes us back forty days before the waters receded (I think) in verse 6.

6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

Whatever happened to the raven? Nevermore.

8Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; 9but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the ark with him. 10He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark; 11and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12Then he waited another seven days, and sent out the dove; and it did not return to him any more.
Can you imagine a scenario where you are stuck on a mountain and you can't tell if the waters have receded from the earth, such that you need to release a dove to tell you? Remember, you are in a boat, immobilized, it seems, on top of a mountain. You'd think that if you open the boat's window and, remember you are on top of a mountain, you see water all around you, on top of a mountain, then you can be pretty sure that if you drop in elevation you are going to find more water. I guess that it's possible that you might be in a high altitude lake... One so large that you can't see land in any direction (no such lake exists on earth currently, but after a worldwide flood a temporary one may have existed). I guess my point here is that I don't understand how it's logically possible that Noah's bird could have grabbed an olive branch somewhere on earth while at the same time Noah's Ark was stuck on mt ararat. It would be possible for the dove to have gotten hold of an olive branch IF the ark was floating freely somewhere far away from any elevated place. But this simply does not fit with the events as they are chronologically described.

13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of the ground was drying. 14In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. 15Then God said to Noah, 16‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ 18So Noah went out with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. 19And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.

So we've got Noah sacrificing all the clean animals here (at least I think that's what's happening, since I'm not sure what "took of every clean animal" means). It doesn't specify whether he sacrifices all of the additional 6 pairs, or just a single animal, such that the pairs of clean animals are still grater than any individual unclean animal pair type.

21And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
God smells burning scents (either the animal's flesh or some kind of pleasant smelling herb) and decides then not to do any more mass killings, regardless of whether the human race becomes wicked again.
22As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.’


At least this sounds like good news. But I wonder about God's intentions here. Does he simply know that we'll never be as evil again, or is he sorry he had to kill everything the first time and vows never to do it again regardless of what happens?

Despite our inability to ever truly know what God's intentions were and are, I think it's strange that we can allow ourselves to believe the stories of Noah and not question everyone's motives. If there is anything to be learned from this story, I think it's that God has the power to end everything in the an incredibly horrible way, but he promises not to do it... again.

the worst day of my life



I believe the children are our future.

Friday, November 14, 2008

out of touch


Kudos to the ASU Men's and Women's track teams for making Bush pose with the shocker.

I wonder how long that picture will be up on the white house website.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Intuiton

In popular culture "human intuition" is exalted. Intuition is what helps the clever police detective to catch the evil doer. Intuition is what helps the scientist discover flubber. Intuition gets the job done.

In reality, however, intuition probably causes more problems than it actually solves.

Let me explain.

I remember the day, many many years ago, when I first learned about the gravity experiments which claim that it doesn't matter how heavy an object is, everything is pulled to earth at the same speed. This means that if you have two iron balls of equal size and shape, but one is hollow and the other is solid, they will still hit the earth at the same time if dropped from an equal distance. Of course, there is the problem of terminal velocity, which is the maximum speed attainable by an object due to environmental drag (basically, as you fall through the air, there is wind resistance. Depending on your mass and shape, there is a critical speed at which you can no longer accelerate toward the ground due to the friction). But if you eliminate wind resistance a feather and a hammer, dropped from anywhere in the sky will fall with the exact same (incrasing) velocity and hit the ground together.

But this goes well against our intuition. I know this because I was blown away when I first learned this. I remember thinking "why is my teacher lying to us?". Then I saw the video of a tube containing a feather and a coin. Air is removed from this tube, the tube is then quickly flipped and, sure enough, the feather and the coin fall at the exact same speed and hit the other end of the tube together.

My intuition about falling objects was wrong. It was based on faulty assumptions which ignored things like friction of the air or faulty assumptions which didn't take into account what 'mass' or 'weight' actually meant or what gravity really referred to.

Throughout my life I've repeatedly learned how our human intuition is continuously wrong.

Other examples of human intution or faulty logic getting things wrong:
  1. When you are hit by a bullet, your body does not fly backward. The bullet has high velocity but low mass. So the force (and momentum) is not large enough to displace your much more massive body (thanks for filming the proof, Mythbusters!)
  2. The reason you shouldn't go swimming after eating is because of the exertion on your muscle tissue can cause cramps which could cause you to drown. It has nothing to do with the water making contact with your body. So it's perfectly fine to eat in the shower.
  3. You can divide any finite line, say a one inch long line drawn on piece of paper, into an infinite number of segments.
  4. If you give your baby up for adoption and a couple from Germany adopts her, the child will grow up speaking German. And when they start learning English in school, she will not have some kind of benefit, or advantage, learning English just because English is the native language of her parents.
Now, that last one might seem obvious, but it really isn't obvious to people who don't think through their intuition logically. In his interesting book "Mr China" Tim Clissold recounts an anecdote where he is speaking to a large community of older Chinese folks. He asks them how they feel about so many westerners adopting Chinese babies. All of the folks are actually happy that people are adopting the children. Tim is surprised by this answer and asks "well, aren't you sad that the child will grow up not knowing the culture, not speaking the language?" and the people respond with incredulity. They say "of course they'll learn the language. They're Chinese! How can they not speak Chinese?"

The people Tim was talking to had an intuition that the Chinese language was a inextricable component of the Chinese person, that it didn't matter where a Chinese person was raised, they would always be able to speak Chinese because it was in their blood (I'm not sure that they would have assumed it was genetic since I'm not sure how sophisticated their knowledge of genetics actually is).

Our human intuitions (accompanied by unexamination or faulty logic) leads us to make some pretty stupid decisions.

I believe that it is this faulty intuition that passed Proposition 8 in California. People have this intuition that the institution of marriage is inextricably linked to religion and it thusly falls under a moral rubric. Supporters of prop 8 did not see this as a proposition to take away people's right to marry. They saw this as a proposition which would redefine what marriage is. Many people who voted yes on prop 8 did so with the assumption that they weren't taking anything away since homosexual couples could still get civil unions. They just felt that marriage was a covenant of God and God does not want two men or two women entering that covenant.

There are two main failures of intuition here (probably more):

The first is that marriage acutally holds a place in our society that goes beyond the bounds of religion. It is a social institution. The feeling that marriage is religiusly bounded and therefore applicable to redefinition in a constitution is faulty intuition.

The second is that homosexuality is not a choice. If a gay person wants to get married now they can't just choose to fall in love with a person of the opposite sex. The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is faulty intuition. (God is not testing or punishing gay people either, so if you think that, you need to re-examine your logic)

These two faulty intuitions come together to trump Californian's aversion to "taking rights away". The argument that Proposition 8 is akin to the "seperate but equal," J.Crow laws is absolutely accurate. But a person who is holding the two faulty intutions above can refute this by saying:
"Marriage is a religius institution, it isn't a water fountain. You need the public service of a water fountain, but you don't need to get married. After all, you can still get a civil union! Also being black and being gay are not the same. Being black is genetic, being gay is a choice."
So prop 8 passed.

I don't think it will be long before prop 8, and all the other constitutional amendments made accross the country's states will be talked about in history classes as the Jim Crow laws are talked about now: A relic of our ignorant past.

But there are even more pressing issues, like in Arkansas.
There, the faulty intution is that kids growing up in a home with a mother and a father are better off than kids growing up in a home with a mother and a mother. This intuition is so faulty that it isn't only NOT backed up by any data, but it is actually REFUTED by the data.


I'm happy that our country was able to elect a black president but we still have a long way to go.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Vote! because your neighbors are watching.

Is this really cool or really sad?

Funny

I was eating my lunch when I put the following video on. It made me laugh so hard that spewed my food all over my keyboard.

Maxwell Street

When I was a high school student taking a semester (or a year) of American History, we did a week or two on local History. For that class I wrote a research paper on Chicago's famous Maxwell Street (which, at the time, had disappeared only a few years prior). My history teacher sent that paper in to some contest, without informing me, and I won some prize. The prize wasn't monetary, it was more like something that I can put on my college application (I don't think I ever did).

Anyway, what's my point? Well, I don't think I won that contest because I was a great writer (though, without knowing the writing ability of my peers, I can't say for sure how to define mediocrity) . Instead, I think that I just really cared about the subject matter. My research on Maxwell street was my introduction to American Sociology. It was an example of how despite all the differences between American culture and the European/Italian culture I grew up in there were some really fundamental similarities. It's a lesson that has stayed with me for the rest of my life.

A few months ago, I learned of this movie and I really hope to get to see it soon.

I speak about 150 languages.

When I tell someone I study Linguistics the first question I get (95% of the time) is "How many languages do you speak?".

The answer is 2 fluently, 2 barely. But I know the characteristics of dozens of languages, I just can't speak them. But linguists don't need to speak more than one or two languages. And the only reason why they're expected to know more than one has to do with historical accident. A linguist just has to know things about languages.

The thing that interests me most about linguistics is that there's so much interesting stuff happening when we talk (in any language) and we typically never think about it.

But none of that really matters because the average joe the plumber knows little about Linguistics. So they'll keep asking "How many languages do you speak?" when I tell them I study Linguistics. From now on, I'm going to answer "About 150"

Friday, October 24, 2008

My new favoritest quote

"I have so often seen how people come by the name of genius; in the same way, that is, as certain insects come by the name of millipede — not because they have that number of feet, but because most people won't count up to fourteen." — Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Thursday, October 23, 2008

rednecks for obama

I enjoyed reading this article on 'rednecks for obama' a couple of days ago. Just stumbled on it again because firefox's address bar is all complicated.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Genesis 7, after a long absence.

I'm not giving up on a critical reading of the bible. I've just been very busy with life. Here we go:

Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. 2Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. 4For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.’ 5And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him.

When I first heard this story I was actually 11 years old. At that age I was still an avid lover of animals. I had been since I was at least 5. I had a set of collector's cards, printed on each of these cards were the facts of some animal (things like their location and habitat on earth, what they ate, whether they were diurnal or nocturnal, etc). I had about 600 of these cards and I didn't even have the complete set. So when I was told this story my first thought was NO WAY! You can't fit all these animals on a boat, there's too many! And they wouldn't get along, most would be pray but many would be predators. They need room to survive!

I brought that up in my chatechism class (where I remember first hearing this story) and I was given two possible answers. The first was definitely NOT part of canon "Noah didn't take all the animals. he left some behind and they either survived by swimming or God re-created them later." The second answer was the answer that people who believe in the literal interpretation continue to use: "It was a miracle."

I certainly couldn't argue with that. So then came my second question: "what's an unclean animal?" I assume there must be one true answer to this question, but it seems that different religions have different answers to these questions. But what did God mean when he used this terminology? Will we ever know? Why do they get a slimmer chance to survive? Does unclean mean bad?

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth. 7And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.

11 In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12The rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights. 13On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons, entered the ark, 14they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every bird of every kind—every bird, every winged creature. 15They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in.

17 The flood continued for forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred and fifty days.

God could have snapped his fingers and made all evil things dissappear. God can do anything. God, decided that the horrifying method of death by drowning would be more fitting. It wasn't until I got to High School that I realized how horrifying this was. God loves all of his children, so I've been told. Tough love doesn't even begin to describe Genesis 7.

Why are we so complacent about the TSA?

The TSA doesn't make us safe. The TSA makes a lot of us simply feel safe. So my question to you is "How much are you willing to pay for that feeling of safety?" Are you willing to pay 6.8 billion dollars?

I'm not willing to pay the 6.8 billion dollars they're getting.

Now, you might be one of those people who thinks that the TSA is keeping us safe. That may be a debatable point. Now, I know that the TSA is not mostly responsible for preventing us from taking a bottle of water onto the plane, or making us put our mini tube of toothpaste into a plastic baggie. I know that they also put "security officers" onto trains and subway stations. I just don't think that this is money well spent. 6.8 billion dollars! For the illusion of safety?

Read this article.

I've had plenty of personal experience with the TSA at airports and I have never been pleased with their work. At their very best their presence delays me by a minute.

The only way that the Aviation division of the TSA is going to catch a terrorist is to literally arrest anyone attempting to take a container of liquid larger than 3oz. Any leniency, any mistake can lead to a disaster. We've fixed a leaky bucket by putting it over another leaky bucket. Only the second leaky bucket costs an average of 3.8 billion dollars a year (since 2001).

I'm sick of our complacency about this. Just because the average American never goes anywhere near an airport doesn't mean we should put up with the inanity of the TSA's aviation division. And we definitely shouldn't put up with giving them another 6.8 billion dollars.

But seriously. Read that article.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Sarah Palin

I got this before the crew at language log!

Monday, October 6, 2008

Proof that I have free time, but not enough

If I had more free time I would be having this argument with someone. However, I do seem to find the time to discover that the argument has been had before.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Want to be informed?

Read this article and be more informed. It'll only take 15 minutes of your life. I promise, it's worth it.

Why I wouldn't vote for McCain

I listen to political stories on NPR very often (I basically use their rss feed to hand pick the stories I want to listen to) and, as with any other news organization, they often interview the man or woman 'on the street' about who they think they'll vote for and why.

A bit more than half the time I hear supporters of McCain talking about how they like his experience and his character. The rest of the time, McCain supporters just don't like Obama for one reason or another (they don't seem to mention any of McCain's positive qualities, they just focus on Obama's negative ones).

As for the Obama supporters, half the time I hear them talking about that mystical "change" while the other half they talk about how horrible the past 8 years have been (like the McCain supporters, choosing to focus on the negative qualities of a republican administration rather than Obama's positive qualities).

If I were to be interviewed by an organization like NPR and they asked me who I would support in this election, here's what I would say:

"I can't guarantee that I would vote for Obama because living in a state which is strongly democratic, I believe my vote might best be served as a vote to a third party candidate since I strongly object to a party system, let alone a dual party system, for the presidency (for the house and senate seats, a party system is fine, though I would prefer a multi-party system).

However, if the choice was between these two men alone I would choose Obama.

There are several reasons why I would choose Obama over McCain. Here are three.

Obama has managed to make me strongly believe that he is an intelligent, clever, and thoughtful human being. Despite his incredibly busy lifestyle he seems to be remarkably informed about so many different subjects: From issues related to what ethanol means to midwestern farmers, to issues related to what is the fundamental differences among Sunni and Shia muslims. He can learn and digest these issues quickly and he can speak intelligently about them to audiences of different knowledge levels. He is smart, and that shouldn't just count for something in a president. That should be the number one most important issue (not the only issue, but the most important). Somehow, the issue of intelligence has become embroiled into this other issue of Elitism. That's incredibly disheartening but that's for another rant.

Second, I feel more comfortable with where Obama comes from, his child hood, the difficulties he was able to overcome (with respect to his race and his lack of contact with his father and mother). Any human being who can go through that and come out as well adjusted as Obama gets additional points. Not to mention the fact that Obama didn't grow up well-to-do. He may not have been poor, but the majority of the opportunities he has had he had to fight for. I believe that the kind of childhood that Obama experienced leads a person to mature at an early age. But more importantly, it gives a person the perspective shared by a much larger portion of the US population. Obama knows what it's like to be middle class because he was middle class and he has friends who are middle class.

Furthermore, Obama has more or less stuck to his promise to eliminate special interest groups from the presidential procedure. I have never understood how ANYONE could see lobbying as a positive thing. I mean, I understand that somebody needs to be in Washington speaking for those issues that are being ignored, issues that don't have a voice. But the fact that this system of lobbying has devolved into what it is today is shocking, embarrassing, and completely maddening. The fact that people around me are not as appalled as I am about this makes me very sad, mostly because it has forced the Obama campaign to stop using this as a major talking point since nobody gives a shit. But Obama has done a good job stepping away from the pockets of oil companies and other big corporations, and he has managed to get pretty far doing so when no one thought it could happen.

Those are the main reasons why I would vote for Obama. There are many others, but we'll stick to those for now.

Why wouldn't I vote for McCain?

McCain has not given me enough evidence that he is an intelligent man. That's not to say that he doesn't know things. His experience has certainly made him knowledgeable. And McCain has many great qualities, qualities that he fostered in his time in the military and as the progenitor of two four-star generals. Qualities like honor and courage and a well developed sense of justice. These are all qualities which will serve a president well, but they aren't enough. John McCain doesn't seem to be able to quickly think himself through a tough question. John McCain lacks information about a great many topics. Despite his long time in the Senate, John McCain has not kept up with or dove deep into many issues which are going to be critical in the next 4 years. Issues like the Economy, African Geopolitics, Midwestern issues, Science: These are issues that John McCain has not been able to speak about intelligently without being prepped by his advisers. Now, I know that advisers are going to be necessary. No human being can know something about everything. But I do want my president to take a personal interest in all of the issues, not just the ones which happen to be critical for you because you are a member of some subcommittee. I want my president to know everything that I know about the world PLUS MORE. I know John McCain knows more about certain things than I do, but McCain lacks knowledge about things that I know very well, things that I'm not even that interested about, things that I just managed to learn because I picked up a national geographic magazine or a news paper, and things that a president should know. On the other hand, Obama's level of knowledge about these things always seems to shock and surprise me. Obama has proven to me that he knows more than I do about things a president should know.

Next, McCain had a privileged childhood. The grandson of a four-star general and the son of a four-star general is going to be a member of the upper class. He's never going to grow up eating Spam or mac and cheese. He's going to go to some of the best schools and he's going to interact with children who are going to be tomorrow's CEOs. There are benefits to growing up privileged, of course. Going to the best schools is going to give you a leg up in terms of knowledge. You'll have the opportunities to travel the world and learn more about it. You are (presumably) not going to have to waste your time flipping burgers or working retail to make enough money to buy a beat up chevy to drive your ass around. But it's going to give you a profound sense of what America is that is certainly not the sense I (and many other Americans) share.

Lastly, McCain is absolutely going to enforce the status quo. There was a time when McCain deserved the moniker "Maverick". He actually did approach the middle of the aisle on many issues. In 2000, if I hadn't vote for Nader, I would have actually considered McCain as a possibility (whereas Bush couldn't hold a candle to anyone else in that election). But he must have learned a brutal lesson in 2000. The only way to win the republican vote (or, arguably, the democratic vote) is to polarize, to stick to the yelling points and to hug and appease the televangelists and to complain about the size of government and reduce the opposition to the phrase "tax and spend liberal", repeating it until it loses all meaning. McCain of 2000 is not McCain of 2008. I respect the fact that he disagreed with a lot of what Bush stood for, but McCain's agenda is no longer what it used to be. McCain's agenda is now equivalent to the Republican agenda. And the Republican agenda simply doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 8 years and it isn't going to work in the next 4.

Listen, I'm all for smaller government and state's rights. If each individual state chose how it wanted to handle abortion or health care things would be more manageable. But I don't share the optimism that Republicans share about how human beings go about their daily lives. People are greedy, people are mean, people don't trust each other, people don't make rational decisions and choices, people don't know how to save their money, people in high places don't care about people in low places because they can't relate or because there are more pressing issues, people will only look out for themselves and their immediate family members, people will drive drunk, people will use their weapons to kill other people (guns, knives, baseball bats, or electrical wire), people will speed on the highway, people will put dangerous chemicals in the cheetos because it is cost effective, people will not follow emissions standards because it if fantastically easy to rationalize it as someone else's problem.

For as early as I can remember, the republican agenda, while often admirable like the libertarian agenda, seems to rest on this notion that people are generally good and things will work out on their own without the intervention of some oppressive government. I would like that to be true, and I also think that people are generally good BUT NOT WHEN IT COUNTS. I've seen people I care about a lot, and think very highly of, be complete assholes about really important things. It is a constant struggle for me to keep myself in check, I do stupid things that harm others more often than I care to admit! Therefore I fundamentally deny the conclusions resulting from the republican perspective. Ironically, the republican ideologies of 'lower spending', 'smaller government,' and 'pull yourselves up by your bootstraps interaction with the citizenry' are disappearing from the party actions even though they are more prevolent in the rhetoric, basing the differences between the Democrats and Republicans on false ideologies. But that's for another rant.

In short: McCain is not clever enough to be president, he doesn't share my basic values, and he is stuck in the non-functioning republican ideology, mostly as a result of his campaign tactics. Obama is smart, shares my basic values, and truly wants to change the way the political process runs (whether he'll be able to or not is a different question). Am i going to vote for Obama? I'm not sure yet since I have the luxury of living in California. But if McCain gets into office it will be another blow to my already crumbling expectations of my fellow Americans.

Oh, and if I hear another man on the street interview where the man on the street says "McCain has experience and Obama hasn't got any" or "I think we need Change and Obama can bring us that change" I'm going to throw my shoe at the tv/radio. If a person can't have a more complex thought about these two men running for the highest office in the land then either
A: you aren't doing your interview right
B: they are uninformed and don't deserve to be interviewed and put on the radio
C: they haven't thought about the issue hard enough and don't deserve to be interviewed and put on the radio
D: we are truly doomed as a society.

Thank you"

That's how I would answer the question. It would be edited by the producers, or cut entirely.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Agreed

The funny funny-man John Hodgman makes a sobering point in his blog.

ADVANTAGE PALIN.

The daily show gets daily showed?

On Tuesday Bill Maher came on the daily show. In '99, Bill Maher came on the daily show and had some pretty interesting things to tell John Stewart about McCain.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

I think sarah silverman is very funny

I'm not sure if a gentile is allowed to find this video hilarious, but I do:


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Yeah, low poverty and a good lifestyle provides you with the opportunity to grow taller

John McCain, in the debate last Friday, mentioned that North Koreans are an average 3 inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. He was using this as striking evidence for the difference in lifestyle between a free nation (S.Korean) and a nation under tyranny (N.Korea).

Today I read a cool article in the NYT which uses the population height measure to compare Americans to Western Europeans.

Guess who's shorter?

Friday, September 26, 2008

McCain wins debate?

According to a blog post on the washington post's website, internet ads are appearing which make the claim that McCain 'won' the debate (which hasn't taken place yet).

This is silliness on at least 2 levels.

this made me ell oh ell

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

wow

just.... wow



Friday, September 19, 2008

Say it ain't so Obama!

Obama gets his first 'pants on fire'.

Genius!

One way to feed vagabonds.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

It goes both ways

Obama's campaign is just as guilty.

Sex differences

I just read an article in the paper which describes a couple of cross-cultural studies (personality surveys actually) which show that the magnitude of personality differences between the sexes differs greatly from culture to culture.

Many people believe that gender differences are not a genetic/biological phenomena but a cultural one, and the findings of these cross-cultural surveys might support that. However, the survey also finds that in countries where the gender roles are much stricter (where, for example, women aren't allowed to work and men do very little child raising) the gender differences are much smaller than in countries where both the men and women seem to share the same kinds of work.

I always believed that gender differences arose from a combination of culture and biology (though, biology is the root of the difference since these differences appear in the natural world as well). But the findings that the cultural explanation is not that simple is really exciting.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Overcoming bias

If you can manage to get all the way through Eliezer's maze-like syntax, use of punctuation, and expository style there is something really interesting and exciting and compelling and thought provoking about the blog he co-authors with Robin: Overcoming bias.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Genesis 6, in which God makes clear his plan to erase the great experiment

We learn in this chapter what we should have known in the previous chapter about longevity. It is unclear why this information comes so late.
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.
It's unclear to me exactly what verse 2 means, what it's supposed to imply. Were only boys born for a long time and then, finally girls came around? If that's the case, then how were all those children born? In what time frame are we?

3Then the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’

So the reason why people lived so long was because God's spirit was still strong in the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. But as the blood thinned out (presumably because there were lineages other than Adam and Eve's?) their longevity weakened.

4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

The Nephilim, I had been told, are either giants or very scary warriors. But they don't exist anymore. But even knowing this, it seems like this verse is very opaque. what does it mean for 'the sons of god to go in to the daughters of humans?' Are there any daughters of God? Are the Nephilim being called heroes and warriors of renown? Or are the sons of God the heroes and they defeated the Nephilim? So confusing!

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’ 8But Noah found favour in the sight of the Lord.
So God's experiment failed. He decides to kill everything (animals included, which is strange since they haven't done anything evil). It seems to me that this is a pretty extreme action on God's part. I mean, he did the creating and he gave us free will (presumably). So what makes him think that starting from scratch is going to change anything? Is he planning on taking away free will? or is he just going to not allow our minds to do bad things? But the worst part is that when he starts over again, he doesn't allow Noah to begin at the beginning, in the garden of Eden. That would seem like the fair thing to do. Maybe Noah will be wise enough to not eat of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
I don't think anyone can ever be sure what is meant by the phrase "walked with God" here. It seems to me that it means either 'believed in him' or 'did things that pleased him'. But, at this stage, God hadn't really told anyone how to behave. There were no commandments yet so (I've been told) that without God's will being expressed we were all savages without law. But for some reason Noah knew how to walk with God. Thus, he was spared a drowning death.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13And God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

Thus, God explains how to build the Arc. People have been arguing about these instructions since they've been put on paper, I assume, because to hold all of the creatures that are currently on the planet (and the food it takes to keep them alive for the duration of the flood) you would need a pretty big boat: A boat bigger than any that currently exists on this planet. And it would have taken Noah several years to build this boat.

17For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.’ 22Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

Noah knew what was good for him.

The thing that strikes me the most about chapter 6 is the way we all know the story of God's choice to kill EVERYTHING minus a half dozen people and a couple hundred thousand species of plant and animal and we don't blink an eye at this kind of brutality. I know that when I was a kid I didn't think about it at all, but as I grew older it always troubled me the way that God really treated human life like something worse than a play thing. We hear a lot about God's love and compassion in the new Testament, but we really have to work hard to find it in the old.

Things get even worse in later books. But we'll get to those later. My point is that the more I read the old Testament the more I realize that there is very little wisdom to be taken from it. The old Testament paints an unpleasant picture of God and of humanity and humanity's history. Yet so many Christians seem to have no problem picking passages within it and creating a moral code from them.

I've been watching a bit too much tv.

I've discovered a show called "Top Gear".

It is a fantastic show. The hosts are incredibly funny and the editors of the show really know how to cut the video.

If you have an opportunity, I suggest you watch it. I haven't laughed this much since I watched 40 year old virgin for the first time.

Genesis 5, 200th post!

Text here

5This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, adam');" onmouseout="return nd();">* he made them him');" onmouseout="return nd();">* in the likeness of God. 2Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them ‘Humankind’ adam');" onmouseout="return nd();">* when they were created.

A bit of review from chapters one and two.

3 When Adam had lived for one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

When I was a young tyke I asked some adults why people in the old testament were able to live so long without modern medicine. They told me it was because there was much less pollution in those days.

6 When Seth had lived for one hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh. 7Seth lived after the birth of Enosh for eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters. 8Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

The first human beings' longevity is what, presumably, allowed them to be so good at populating the world so quickly (though by Cain's words the world seemed to be already populated not by Adam and Eve's progeny). But it's unclear whether these folks were having their first child at these late years or whether the author is just highlighting the birth of Seth, Enosh, and the rest of them.

9 When Enosh had lived for ninety years, he became the father of Kenan. 10Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan for eight hundred and fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters. 11Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.

12 When Kenan had lived for seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel for eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters. 14Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared. 16Mahalalel lived after the birth of Jared for eight hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters. 17Thus all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.

18 When Jared had lived for one hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch. 19Jared lived after the birth of Enoch for eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 20Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.

More genealogy.

21 When Enoch had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah for three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 23Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

What does "walk with God" mean in this context?

25 When Methuselah had lived for one hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech. 26Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech for seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters. 27Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.

28 When Lamech had lived for one hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son; 29he named him Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.’ 30Lamech lived after the birth of Noah for five hundred and ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters. 31Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.

"Out of the ground hat the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands" I suspect that by Lamech's declaration, Noah was the first farmer that didn't have a hard time farming (due to God's curse on Cain and his people). I'm not sure whether God told Lamech that he was going to break the curse, or whether God heard Lamech and made it so. Either way, it's poor writing because it cannot be interpreted accurately.

32 After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

And that's the conclusion of Genesis 5, a chapter of lineage.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Why Senators have a hard time getting elected: THE RECKONING

So remember how a few hours ago I was talking about how unfair it was that McCain was being called Pro-rape because of some subsection of some bill?

I also hinted at the fact that the McCain campaign is saying that Obama supported a bill which would "teach kindergartners about sex". It is claimed that the McCain campaign left out the word PREDATORS from their claim (sex predators, not sex).

I just stumbled upon a youtube video from msnbc where a couple of duchebags argue about it. I'm in agreement with one of the duchebags, but certainly not both. Try to guess which one!



Hint: it's not BRAD

In many ways, this "kindergarten sex-gate" is a thousand times worse than what i was describing in my previous post. That's because this isn't an issue about voting for or against an actual proposal, but it's an issue of lying, pulling facts straight out of one's ass.

Am I disappointed because it's happening? a little.

But I'm much more disappointed because it's going to work.

Why Senators have a hard time getting elected

A lesson in how government works:

4 years ago, I remember people (the news media) talking about Kerry's label as a "flip-flopper" and how any Senator, who has been a senate member long enough, is going to end up, several times, voting in conflicting ways on a singular issue. This is because Bills up for vote are never simple things like "A bill to give money to starving orphans".

For example, a republican may propose a bill which does 8 things. Among them is "giving money to starving orphans" and "increasing military spending by 3%". So if you want to give money to starving orphans but don't want to increase military spending you choose which one you want to do more and then you vote Yea or Nay. Problem is, you're screwed either way if you're a Democrat who isn't supposed to want to increase military spending.

The democrats pull the exact same trick in their proposals, of course. That's just the awful way that law-making works in most countries.

So, recently, I saw this story which claims that McCain voted AGAINST making forensic rape exams free. Basically, when someone is raped, the police requires an exam to collect dna samples and other evidence for the crime in order to start an investigation. Prior to 1994, the victim payed for this exam with their own hard earned cash.

Horrible, right?

In 1994, HR 3355 came up in the Senate. From what I understand, within this bill, money was appropriated for rape exams such that the victims would no longer be required to pay for that exam out of their own pocket. And McCain voted Nay. He was among 37 others (2 dems and 36 reps) who voted against the bill. The bill required 50 Yaes in order to pass the Senate, and with the help of some other Republican senators it passed.

So why would McCain vote against a bill that made these rape exams free? Wouldn't we all agree that rape victims should certainly not be made to pay for this exam, no matter how cheap it may be?

Of course. I suspect that the reason why 38 republicans voted against this bill is because it wasn't the "free rape exams bill" but it was actually a much more far reaching, complicated bill to "amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety."

This bill was generally going to provide more federal money for crime prevention programs (or possibly, it would force states to provide more money to these programs). The staunch republican view on bills such as these is "THIS IS A STATE ISSUE AND FEDERAL MONEY SHOULD NOT GO TO THESE PROGRAMS or THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES TO RUN THEIR OWN PUBLIC SAFETY AFFAIRS"

Now, regardless of how we feel about that particular view point I think we must agree that even though McCain voted against this bill it isn't because he is pro-rape. It's probably because he adheres to the standard conservative view.

But guess what? Idiots are out there screaming "MCCAIN IS PRO-RAPE!" because of this Nay vote in August of 1994.

Is this fair? Is this an appropriate attack? I don't think so. I absolutely hate it when Republicans do it to Democrats and I absolutely hate it when Democrats do it to Republicans because it relies on manipulating an ignorant public. And it's impossible to defend these types of attacks because you can't really give the explanation I provided above as a 10 second sound byte. It's a boring explanation and no one has the patience or attention span to hear it.

So what happens next? McCain is pro-rape, Obama wants to teach sex education to Kindergartners and everyone is a big fat liar.

What's the solution? Voters need to wise up. When some reactionary liberal asks you a poll question like "how do you feel about McCain voting against free rape exams" you need to say "That sounds awful but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for such a vote, and I'm going to www.senate.gov to find out exactly what's going on there".

If all voters responded like this to partisan pollsters (and followed through with it) then these baseless attacks would stop working and political groups (and Karl Rove) would stop using them.

more lies from the rovian mccain camp

Depressing

Lie #1

Lie #2

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Spreading the word, I guess



That video is a bit sensationalistic, but people ought to see it anyway.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

More from politifact

John mcCain racks up another 'pants on fire' from politifact's FACT-O-METER with his campaign's new smear on Obama.

Read about that here.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

MaxFunCon

I'm going to attend MaxFunCon. Upon my return, I shall be approximately 500% more awesome.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Why do people do this?

No more bullshit! no more lies!
The story is bad enough on it's own, you don't need to pad it with lists

cheer one's self up with trivialities

So I decide to check out some onion news to cheer myself up:


Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness Of Life

Works every time.

I don't get it.

I'm inclined to agree with this guy.

I'm having a sad day.

Dear Voters, DO RESEARCH. Thank you.

Suppose that one of the presidential nominees said the following:

"My opponent has voted 100% of the time in favor of the no-child-left-behind Act, which has done more harm than good for our nation's children."

Following this statement, you're very likely to get a bunch of applause or hootin' and hollerin'. Why? Because, regardless of whether people understand the favorable or damning aspects of the no-child-left-behind series of bills many of us have gathered some opinion about it and we are either supporters or opposers (but not critics, because that would require us to UNDERSTAND something about the act). But, even if you know nothing about this act and have no opinion about it, if you are listening to your favorite nominee and don't very much like the other guy, this sentence is going to sound good to you and it's going to automatically GIVE YOU an opinion on the no-child-left-behind Act.

Political speeches are full of this kind of bullshit. Why? Because it works.

The average asshole doesn't know anything about the no-child-left-behind Act. The nominee tells him "the no-child-left-behind Act had done more harm than good" combined with "my opponent has voted for this lousy Act 100% of the time". Now, at this point, it doesn't matter if the opponent voted once in favor and then never voted against (1 out of 1 is still 100%). It also doesn't matter whether there is a clear consensus on the efficacy of the Act. What matters is that your pick for the white house is for something good and his opponent is clearly supports something bad.

It makes my blood boil.



I recently saw this clip of Palin saying the following:

"The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

This sentence, as you can see at the end of the clip, is followed by a big cheer from the asshole crowd. Why? Because it sounds great to a bunch of uninformed conservatives (BIG and EXPENSIVE are real bad words to republican voters).

The problem is that, this statement, even in context, makes no fucking sense. Fannie and Freddie are privately owned companies. The government, now stepping in to fix a problem that was left to market forces, is making it "too big and too expensive" for the tax payers.

So what are those assholes clapping at? WHAT ARE THEY CLAPPING AT!!!!!!!! I'll tell you what they're clapping at, they're clapping because most of them don't even know who the fuck Freddie and Fannie are and they don't want to look like ignorant pricks. So they clap at the key word combination BIG+EXPENSIVE+TAX-PAYER

It makes my blood boil.

I had a friend in college who suggested that the voting privilege should only be given to people who were informed about current policy and the policy of the candidates. Namely, people who knew enough about each topic to understand what it means to "open up offshore drilling" or "reduce carbon emissions by 20% in 10 years". I used to think that there were just too many problems with the idea that voting should require some kind of test. That it was better to have an uniformed voter than to delegate all voting power to people who had the time to learn about all these key factors.

But after 2004 I realized that an ignorant man could be elected into office on the basis that:
A) the smarter man is believed to be a flip-flopper
B) people like to imagine that they could have a god damned beer with the president
C) a sizable majority of voters have this crazy notion that Republican = godly and Democratic = Satanly

It makes my blood boil.

I see McCain winning in 2008 because:
A) he was a POW who made it back through the will power gifted by the lord
B) voters seem to think experience counts (regardless of the fact that the level of a candidate's experience fails to correlate with any measure of success in the presidency)
C) The republican party lies to its potential voters and they are too uniformed to realize it.

Nobody gives a shit. None of this horribleness is important enough to make people spend 30 minutes a day learning about the issues. Yeah, I've heard people rationalize their apathy with the assumption that the president, himself, doesn't have any power over long term policy anyway. This kind of thinking magnifies the ignorance a thousand fold.

PS did you know that the guys who brought you the "HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD" product are actually turning a fantastic profit. did you know that there are a substantial number of people who actually read SPAM and even purchase things advertised in that SPAM?

I know this and I'm still shocked by the fact that there are people in America that voted for Bush ultimately because they'd rather have a beer with him than Kerry. That makes me an idiot too, I suspect.

Using the internet to get political information

Politifact is a non-partisan website that takes statements that polititians make and checks their veracity. They will tell you if something said was TRUE, MOSTLY TRUE, HALF-TRUE, BARELY TRUE, FALSE, or a really bad lie (PANTS ON FIRE). The best part is that they spell out exactly why the statements were labeled as such.

They also happen to tally up the statements in an easy to read diagram, by candidate. I used those tallys to make the following (unscientific, oversimplistic) calculations:

(Using data from politifact)

------------------------------------------
Ratio of truth to lies: TRUE/FALSE
True and mostly true statements I count as TRUE
Half true, barely true, false, & pants on fire statements I count as FALSE

OBAMA = 1.216
McCAIN = .531

On average, Obama told 1 lie for every 1.2 truths.
On average, McCain told 2.2 lies for every 1.2 truths.
McCain lies more than twice as often as Obama for the same number of truths.

------------------------------------------
Lie severety = sum of points
true = 2 points
mostly true = 1 point
half truth = -1 point
barely true = -2 points
false = -3 points
pants on fire = -4 points

OBAMA = +2 points
McCAIN = -70 points
------------------------------------------

Of course, a conservative looking at these numbers on the website will automatically assume that politifact is part of the liberal media.

Kick ass experiments

Why I love science so much:

Friday, September 5, 2008

Genesis 4

Enough with the video posts

4Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’

I've always wondered why we, in modern translations of the bible, we continue to use the word "know" in place of the phrase 'copulated with' or some other modern variant. Even my old students' version used this verb. Using this common verb can confuse the casual reader.

2Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. 3In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.
This sure looks like a jerk move by God. I mean, I'm sure God had his reasons for hating on the fruits and loving on the succulent lamb shanks, but you'd think that the author of this chapter would maybe give us a little help deciphering God's motive here. Was he trying to test Cain? If so, why test him when you already know the outcome? I've actually heard people use Genesis 4:4 as an argument for why vegans and vegetarians are not right with God.

So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’

8 Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

We're only 4 chapters into the bible and already 75% of humanity is composed of jerks. Why did the ever so wise Adam and Eve not try to teach Cain that murder was wrong? Where did Cain learn that murder was an acceptable form of mediation? Even after hearing God's wisdom Cain goes out and tricks his brother into death, without skipping a beat.

9Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?’

This is often referred to as the first murder and the first lie. But given that the next few passages suggest that there are a bunch of other human beings around, I very much doubt that this is the case.

10And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! 11And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.’ 13Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! 14Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’

Passage 14 suggests that the world is already populated. We hear no explanation for how that came to pass. Some people make so much fuss over the fact that the bible refutes the claim that "man evolved from monkies" but nobody cares that it also fails miserably in telling us where everyone except for adam, eve, and their crazy kids came from.

15Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. 16Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Here we come to one of the first passages which could lead a discerning reader to some very good wisdom. THERE SHALL BE NO VENGEANCE KILLING. What a simple lesson we could learn from Genesis 4:15-16. Killing a killer only brings more misery, it doesn't bring Abel back.

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.

Alex had a son named Bob, and everyone called him Bob and he had a bicycle he called Bob, whom Bob named after himself, Bob. Bob and Bob had many misadventures, bob bob. And so on.

18To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech. 19Lamech took two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. 21His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

The bible authors loved their genealogies. Unfortunately, they do serve to confuse the bible readers. I wonder if the pipe players know that it was Jubal who bore them.

23 Lamech said to his wives:
‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
24If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’
What?

25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.’ 26To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.

What?

I've never understood the conclusion of this chapter. What does it mean, exactly, to "invoke the name of the Lord? What does Lamech mean with his killings speech?

More genius from GYWO

Get your war on.

Hypocrisy: The revenge

Hey, speaking of hypocrisy, check out this excellent commentary by the geniuses behind the daily show.

EDIT: forgot to add the video

Finland could teach...

I've expressed my admiration for Scandinavian countries. Here's another good short story on Finland.

I think it's interesting that the article's author decided to frame Finland's lesson as one for Latin America.

But I'd like to add that while better teachers (lured by better salaries and even better benefits) would help most education systems the critical component is parent involvement. Parents need to be aware and involved in their kids' educations. It needs to be their top priority.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

huh?

what?



God Damn you fox news.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Is this a laugh or cry moment?

Wow:

Do you see what we've come to?

We've gotta do something about gas prices.

another recommendation, if I might

The Aussie Sia is super talented. Observe:

Sia - Electric Bird
Found at skreemr.com

Sia - The Girl You Lost To Cocaine
Found at skreemr.com


song tips

I was just listening to my iTunes playlist, as I often do while working at the computer, and this song came on:

Iron & Wine - The Trapeze Swinger


Found at skreemr.com


I'm a big fan of Iron & Wine, but I haven't heard this particular song in a while. And as I was listening to it (all 9+ minutes of it) I thought to myself that this would be a fantastic song to run film credits to OR to play as a graduation song.

I've never really approved of any of the graduation songs that I've been subjected to. The problem is that no single person gets a say in what graduation song gets chosen, its done by democracy and so it's done by popularity which automatically makes all of these decisions completely unoriginal. I guess it's also possible that the most popular person chooses a song and everyone agrees because that's what you do in high school or elementary school.

So we used songs like that Sarah McLaughlan song about remembering each other (I actually like a lot of Sarah McLaughlan songs but that mirrorball album got overplayed). I also remember some lame song set to Pachelbel's Canon which came out around the time I graduated high school. That one seemed to be written specifically for high school graduations and it was terrible. And for some reason, I think we used Mariah Carey's 'Hero' for my 8th grade graduation.

Anyway, MUSICAL RESPECT goes to any class who uses Iron & Wine's "trapeze swinger" as a graduation song.

P.S. Iron & Wine will be opening for the Swell Season at a concert this october at SDSU. I highly recommend it. Here is a sample of the Swell Season:

Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova - When Your Minds Made Up


Found at skreemr.com


Glen Hansard, Markéta Irglová & The Frames - Falling Slowly


Found at skreemr.com

Blog Archive