This is socialist, and I don't see how that can be explained away. Shame on the half of Republicans who voted for it. I actually wish they'd made it a 100% tax, just to have the lines even more clearly drawn.
A question: would a 100% tax violate any part of the Constitution? What about a 101% tax? I'm not saying it does; I'm just curious if there'd be anything legal to stop them. The more I think about it, the more I'm intrigued by the concept of a >100% tax on income...well, "intrigued" in the same sense that a biologist can be intrigued by ebola. Fascinatingly horrible.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The war on terrorism and Change we can Hope for
National Review's Andy McCarthy explains why the Obama administration is so hopeychangey different from the late, reviled Bush administration. Especially w/r/t enemy combatants, or "undocumented freedom fighters," as some on The Corner are calling them now.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Great line from Lileks
In the Bleat today:
I was just going to quote his word "miserabilism," which I think is fantastic, but the rest of the sentence turned out to be too good to pass up.
...sometimes I suspect many people in the news business are temperamentally predisposed to miserabilism, because the idea of an unjust world run by monied smileys explains why the cheerleader turned them down for a date in high school.
I was just going to quote his word "miserabilism," which I think is fantastic, but the rest of the sentence turned out to be too good to pass up.
Is getting the state out of marriage a good idea?
Nope, says Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse in The Public Discourse. (Link via Maggie Gallagher at The Corner) I've been reading about this idea on some libertarian blogs; they're naturally more amenable to the idea. But Dr. Morse points out how, even on libertarian standards, it would likely make things worse.
From a conservative standpoint, there's the obvious objection that it would overturn what is certainly hundreds (longer?) of years' worth of custom in a very short time. That's a radical change for causes that may themselves change in a few decades.
From a conservative standpoint, there's the obvious objection that it would overturn what is certainly hundreds (longer?) of years' worth of custom in a very short time. That's a radical change for causes that may themselves change in a few decades.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Jeff Goldstein on language and politics
Jeff Goldstein posts a good essay at Hot Air about the use of language and authorial intent in the context of politics. It's about the Rush Limbaugh "controversy" (I cringe even writing the word--there shouldn't be any controversy at all), but it's widely applicable. Although he doesn't use the phrase, he is arguing against a component of post-modernism. The idea that the author's intent is irrelevant in interpreting a "text" is a hallmark of this movement against logic and reason. It's also self-refuting, of course: where did those post-modernists learn the idea that a text can mean whatever you want it to? Wasn't it written down somewhere, or otherwise communicated to them? He correctly identifies it as a plague of literary criticism today, but it's metastasized and spread into other areas of life, like political discussions.
Read the article--it's very useful.
Read the article--it's very useful.
Monday, March 09, 2009
A little progress on quantum reality
I haven't read this yet but just saw John Derbyshire's discussion in The Corner today. I'm intrigued, especially since I've been getting into the philosophical issues of quantum mechanics (QM) and of general relativity lately.
I did particle physics for a couple of years in grad school, so I've had to work out the mathematics of this subject. The math--and the physical results--are straightforward enough. The debate comes in how we put them into a larger sense of reality. What is our metaphysical context for these? The Copenhagen interpretation--the pretty-much standard philosophy of QM--says that all possible outcomes of a QM experiment exist until the system is measured. That "collapses the wavefunction," forcing a single outcome to become physically real. But the Copenhagen interpretation leaves open the problem of what, exactly, constitutes a "measurement," what is the role, if any, of the observer, and so on. So some serious physicists I know personally have expressed dissatisfaction with it, and they hope that a new philosophical interpretation will come out.
Read the article for yourself. Nature gets weird down at that level. But as my wife just said, "Isn't that why physics is so fun?"
I did particle physics for a couple of years in grad school, so I've had to work out the mathematics of this subject. The math--and the physical results--are straightforward enough. The debate comes in how we put them into a larger sense of reality. What is our metaphysical context for these? The Copenhagen interpretation--the pretty-much standard philosophy of QM--says that all possible outcomes of a QM experiment exist until the system is measured. That "collapses the wavefunction," forcing a single outcome to become physically real. But the Copenhagen interpretation leaves open the problem of what, exactly, constitutes a "measurement," what is the role, if any, of the observer, and so on. So some serious physicists I know personally have expressed dissatisfaction with it, and they hope that a new philosophical interpretation will come out.
Read the article for yourself. Nature gets weird down at that level. But as my wife just said, "Isn't that why physics is so fun?"
New book by a friend
A friend of mine has had a new book published. She's edited a collection of non-fiction essays on mother-daughter relationships, and it has a good review in the new Publisher's Weekly. Scroll down to Because I Love Her.
Best of luck on the book!
Best of luck on the book!
The progress on Loop Quantum Gravity
An article explaining how one theory of quantum gravity is making some progress. I don't understand all the details, but we've had a lecture from Fotini Markopoulou Kalamara of Canada's Perimeter Institute on the subject (in 2003), and she did a nice job explaining it, even to a lay audience.
I had one of my undergrad students try out a research project to look for the effects of quantized spacetime--the speed of light would vary by wavelength. He sorted through gamma ray burst data from the Swift observatory and looked for delays of short wavelengths relative to long ones, as a function of redshift. Of course, he didn't find any (as we expected), but it was a fun proof-of-concept project.
I had one of my undergrad students try out a research project to look for the effects of quantized spacetime--the speed of light would vary by wavelength. He sorted through gamma ray burst data from the Swift observatory and looked for delays of short wavelengths relative to long ones, as a function of redshift. Of course, he didn't find any (as we expected), but it was a fun proof-of-concept project.
Friday, March 06, 2009
NYT map of unemployment rates
This is really interesting. Especially when I find out that West Virginia, of all places, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Defies the stereotypes, doesn't it? The county we live in is comparable in that way to the wealthy D.C. suburbs, except that unemployment here is not on the rise, the way it is there. Great!
Thursday, March 05, 2009
A good line on Chas Freeman
Following up from my previous post:
Politico's James Kirchick makes a good point about Chas Freeman. Freeman brags about having published Walt & Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby" in Saudi Arabia. Recall that the book is big into the conspiracy-theory field of Jewish influence on US policy. An attitude that Israel's supporters are probably disloyal to the US, etc.
Freeman has been in an institution funded by the Saudis and fawns over them. Now we find out about this connection to a Chinese government company, and he complains the Chinese weren't tough enough on democracy activists.
In that context:
Good point.
Politico's James Kirchick makes a good point about Chas Freeman. Freeman brags about having published Walt & Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby" in Saudi Arabia. Recall that the book is big into the conspiracy-theory field of Jewish influence on US policy. An attitude that Israel's supporters are probably disloyal to the US, etc.
Freeman has been in an institution funded by the Saudis and fawns over them. Now we find out about this connection to a Chinese government company, and he complains the Chinese weren't tough enough on democracy activists.
In that context:
A man who for a decade presided over a front group for a theocratic kleptocracy and who believes the title of “king” isn’t sufficient for the fat oil baron who rules that benighted land should pause before endorsing a work that questions the loyalty of others.
Good point.
Obama's NIC chairman nominee finally gets checked out...
Commentary's Jennifer Rubin reports that Chas Freeman is getting a serious look by the Inspector General. I wouldn't have known that he'd been suspected of not filing some disclosure forms, but what I did know about him was bad enough. For all the anti-Israel talk, it's sadly just what I expect out of these people, and I was prepared for it. What really shocked me were his comments about the Chinese communist government--that they didn't crack down early enough and hard enough on the democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
What is an apologist for totalitarianism--and someone explicitly against a democracy movement--doing in our government?!
Well, now it turns out he's "tied to" the China National Offshore Oil Corporation--owned by the Chinese government. We already knew he was involved in a Saudi-funded organization. So what does Obama do now?
What is an apologist for totalitarianism--and someone explicitly against a democracy movement--doing in our government?!
Well, now it turns out he's "tied to" the China National Offshore Oil Corporation--owned by the Chinese government. We already knew he was involved in a Saudi-funded organization. So what does Obama do now?
Oh, come on! (part 2)
West Virginia Democrat wants to outlaw Barbie dolls. Sends the wrong message to young girls and such. Yes, it will get laughed out of our legislature, but why do these people even need to suggest these things? (Via Lileks)
Next vacation, why not rent out a castle?
OK, now this is cool: The Landmark Trust rents out historic homes and castles in Great Britain and Italy (and a few in the US) (Homes, that is. Not castles.)
Just read an article in the WSJ about staying in one of Palladio's villas in Italy through the Landmark Trust. Since I've been reading up on Thomas Jefferson's architecture, that caught my eye. Jefferson was largely inspired by Palladio.
Just read an article in the WSJ about staying in one of Palladio's villas in Italy through the Landmark Trust. Since I've been reading up on Thomas Jefferson's architecture, that caught my eye. Jefferson was largely inspired by Palladio.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Charles Krauthammer on Obama and diplomacy
Wow. Krathammer doesn't spare Obama the blunt terms:
On President Obama’s secret letter to Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev proposing a deal on missile defense:
This is smart diplomacy? This is a debacle. The Russians dismissed it contemptuously.
Look, if we could get the Iranian nuclear program stopped with Russian's helping us in return for selling out the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense, I'm enough of a cynic and a realist to say we would do it the same way that Kissinger agreed to delegitimize and de-recognize Taiwan in return for a large strategic opening with China.
But Kissinger had it done. He had it wired. What happened here is it was leaked. The Russians have dismissed it. We end up being humiliated. We look weak in front of the Iranians, and we have left the Poles and Czechs out to dry in return for nothing.
The Czechs and the Poles went out on a limb, exposed themselves to Russian pressure, and we have shown that Eastern Europe is not as sovereign as it appears if the Russian influence is there, and we will acquiesce in what they consider their own sphere of influence.
This administration has prided itself, flattered itself on deploying smart diplomacy. "Smart diplomacy" is a meaningless idea, but if it has any meaning at all, it is not ever doing something as humiliating, amateurish, and stupid as this.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama's higher-ed plan
The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson takes a skeptical look. Ferguson discusses the division between seeing higher-education as mere job training (a view that grates on me) and education as creating a well-rounded person (that's closer to mine). I like the liberal arts ideal, and I think education is a good in itself (or nearly so). It creates a citizenry with the broad background that lets them see the relationships between different aspects of life, the universe, and everything. Rather than an existence narrowly focused on our chosen jobs.
Hmm...I don't think I've expressed that too clearly, but my point is that I like people to be well rounded.
Anyway, Ferguson notes that the apparently low college graduation rates are largely a result of immigration, and that it ignores the increasingly common return of older adults to college.
One thing that does stand out is the President's remark that high school or college drop-outs are giving up on their country. That line got some applause in Congress. I don't know that it's clearly questioning the patriotism of the drop-outs, as Ferguson and some of the guys at National Review have suggested. But it does fall into the category of treating a person's education as a national resource. In some sense, it is--it contributes to the health of the country. But there's a related tendency to regard it primarily as the possession of the country.
With that comes the attitude that the government can and should direct your path through higher education for its ends. If you don't go to college, you're seen as harming the country. Perhaps you'll be required to do what's best for the country, rather than what you see as best for yourself. The states already do that with regards to schooling up through the age of 16 (at least that's the legal drop-out age in Tennessee, last time I checked). That's been so long established that we don't really question the underlying principle. I don't have any desire to eliminate that, but I disagree with extending the guiding attitude to college. I doubt they'd be able to pass an education requirement for anyone past the age of majority, anyway.
Hmm...I don't think I've expressed that too clearly, but my point is that I like people to be well rounded.
Anyway, Ferguson notes that the apparently low college graduation rates are largely a result of immigration, and that it ignores the increasingly common return of older adults to college.
One thing that does stand out is the President's remark that high school or college drop-outs are giving up on their country. That line got some applause in Congress. I don't know that it's clearly questioning the patriotism of the drop-outs, as Ferguson and some of the guys at National Review have suggested. But it does fall into the category of treating a person's education as a national resource. In some sense, it is--it contributes to the health of the country. But there's a related tendency to regard it primarily as the possession of the country.
With that comes the attitude that the government can and should direct your path through higher education for its ends. If you don't go to college, you're seen as harming the country. Perhaps you'll be required to do what's best for the country, rather than what you see as best for yourself. The states already do that with regards to schooling up through the age of 16 (at least that's the legal drop-out age in Tennessee, last time I checked). That's been so long established that we don't really question the underlying principle. I don't have any desire to eliminate that, but I disagree with extending the guiding attitude to college. I doubt they'd be able to pass an education requirement for anyone past the age of majority, anyway.
OK, I'm back...
Sorry for the long silence. Oddly, there was so much going on in politics that I felt like I had little commentary to contribute!
New posts coming today.
New posts coming today.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Experimental Beatles' "music"
Paul McCartney wants to release a long-hidden experimental piece the Beatles recorded for an electronic music festival--a piece long thought mythical by fans. According to his description,
Not to disparage him personally, but this surprises me. I'm no fan of modern, abstract art, nor of its musical equivalents. But I'm able to understand that in the pieces regarded as "good" by the critics, there is still some planning and intelligence behind the pattern, even if it's deliberately obscure or ugly. So I'm surprised that in the Beatles' case, there wasn't any thought behind it--the sounds were intentionally random.
Well, maybe that's why the other band members vetoed the idea of releasing it earlier. Still, I hope he's able to get it out; I'm sure some of their fans would like to hear it, even if just for the novelty.
"I said all I want you to do is just wander around all the stuff, bang it, shout, play it, it doesn't need to make any sense," McCartney told the program.
"Hit a drum then wander on to the piano, hit a few notes, just wander around. So that's what we did and then put a bit of an echo on it. It's very free."
Not to disparage him personally, but this surprises me. I'm no fan of modern, abstract art, nor of its musical equivalents. But I'm able to understand that in the pieces regarded as "good" by the critics, there is still some planning and intelligence behind the pattern, even if it's deliberately obscure or ugly. So I'm surprised that in the Beatles' case, there wasn't any thought behind it--the sounds were intentionally random.
Well, maybe that's why the other band members vetoed the idea of releasing it earlier. Still, I hope he's able to get it out; I'm sure some of their fans would like to hear it, even if just for the novelty.
If you can read this, you are too close
No kidding! Words made with individual CO molecules, sitting on a copper sheet. Amazing.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Global warming estimates get revised downward
What got me onto that last post was actually this article in the Daily Telegraph. The author credits readers (note: the readers commenting on the blog!) of Anthony Watts' site and Steve McIntyre's with discovering large errors in NASA's global temperature numbers for October 2008. It's amazing the ability of a large number of educated laymen (and I'd imagine a few who work in this field are among the group, too) to spot errors that the official process missed.
It's like Glenn Reynolds puts it, "An army of Davids."
Anyway, the outcome of this week's dust-up is that NASA's Dr. James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was forced to revise the October temperatures downward. In explaining the error, it was admitted that for the Russian temperatures, they came from another organization, and that "GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with" (I'm quoting the Telegraph, not GISS).
Huh. Shouldn't that make us skeptical of some of GISS's claims? At least a little bit?
It's like Glenn Reynolds puts it, "An army of Davids."
Anyway, the outcome of this week's dust-up is that NASA's Dr. James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was forced to revise the October temperatures downward. In explaining the error, it was admitted that for the Russian temperatures, they came from another organization, and that "GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with" (I'm quoting the Telegraph, not GISS).
Huh. Shouldn't that make us skeptical of some of GISS's claims? At least a little bit?
How systematic errors bias global warming measurements
I'm not sure how to describe my opinions on global warming. I'm open-minded about the idea that there is man-made global warming; I consider it a real possibility because we know we're emitting CO2, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That is, it allows visible light from the sun to pass through it, the sun warms the earth, and the warm earth emits infrared light back, but this is partially absorbed by the CO2.) So this could certainly cause the earth to warm. The question is quantitative: by how much?
But there's something that's been bugging me ever since I first heard of the concept of global warming: how well do we know the global temperature going back so many years? Our most accurate method of measuring temperature is a thermometer, but the weather stations are scattered unevenly across the earth and are mostly in populated regions and developed countries. Furthermore, if we're comparing the temperatures today with those of the 19th century (official temperature records in the US go back to the mid-19th century, I keep hearing), well, how widely were those stations placed in 1860? I'll bet we have a large selection bias as far as location goes.
Furthermore, a station that was out in the wilderness in 1860 is more likely to be near a developed area now, as the population has grown. And we certainly know about the heat island effect of cities--temperatures near the city are a few degrees higher than out in rural areas nearby, because of all of that asphalt and such. This alone should cause an artificial rise in one station's temperature record as nearby towns grow.
But surely atmospheric scientists have accounted for these obvious objections, right? I was surprised to find out that the answer is actually "no" or "poorly." Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been running an invaluable project to rate the quality of weather stations, and their possible systematic errors, based on their proximity to artificial heat sources and other biasing effects. He's been finding that a majority of the sites in the US have likely errors of several degrees, which is shocking. There are laughable examples of thermometers being placed right next to (even surrounded by) large, sunny parking lots! These are the kinds of things you'd figure were blatantly-obvious no-nos, but their data have been incorporated into the calculations of global warming. Who knows what the overall effect of these is?
Being an astrophysicist, I'm also interested in the effects of the solar cycle on the earth's climate, but I'll get to that in a later post.
But there's something that's been bugging me ever since I first heard of the concept of global warming: how well do we know the global temperature going back so many years? Our most accurate method of measuring temperature is a thermometer, but the weather stations are scattered unevenly across the earth and are mostly in populated regions and developed countries. Furthermore, if we're comparing the temperatures today with those of the 19th century (official temperature records in the US go back to the mid-19th century, I keep hearing), well, how widely were those stations placed in 1860? I'll bet we have a large selection bias as far as location goes.
Furthermore, a station that was out in the wilderness in 1860 is more likely to be near a developed area now, as the population has grown. And we certainly know about the heat island effect of cities--temperatures near the city are a few degrees higher than out in rural areas nearby, because of all of that asphalt and such. This alone should cause an artificial rise in one station's temperature record as nearby towns grow.
But surely atmospheric scientists have accounted for these obvious objections, right? I was surprised to find out that the answer is actually "no" or "poorly." Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been running an invaluable project to rate the quality of weather stations, and their possible systematic errors, based on their proximity to artificial heat sources and other biasing effects. He's been finding that a majority of the sites in the US have likely errors of several degrees, which is shocking. There are laughable examples of thermometers being placed right next to (even surrounded by) large, sunny parking lots! These are the kinds of things you'd figure were blatantly-obvious no-nos, but their data have been incorporated into the calculations of global warming. Who knows what the overall effect of these is?
Being an astrophysicist, I'm also interested in the effects of the solar cycle on the earth's climate, but I'll get to that in a later post.
Monday, November 10, 2008
In which tech writers forget there's a Rest Of The World
Remarkably narrow-minded article on "Five Useless Gadgets You Should Throw in the Trash" by a writer for Wired. (Of course, Wired) He thinks that printers, scanners, faxes, DVD or CD drives, and regular telephones (landlines, not cell phones) are "useless." He has a few caveats, but not enough to make up for the poor thinking of the rest of the article. This is the kind of thinking I'd liken to socialist central planning--"Why do you need your car? Take a bus everywhere! Why do you need your own house? Just rent an apartment--and there's no grass to mow!" He actually thinks that a printing "service" can replace your printer. I wonder how long their printouts take to get to you. But then, I'm sure you've never printed anything out that you couldn't simply wait a couple of days for, right?
I'm not going to call the author "stupid," as many have (or maybe they just meant the article--there's a decent case for that), but he's amazingly short-sighted.
The comment by "Sean" is priceless.
I'm not going to call the author "stupid," as many have (or maybe they just meant the article--there's a decent case for that), but he's amazingly short-sighted.
The comment by "Sean" is priceless.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
The risk from a carbon market
Think the collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market is giving us problems? Just wait 'til President Obama pushes us into a cap & trade scheme on carbon. Lawrence Solomon shows us how that will set up a "market" that will endanger all sides of the economy.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
WSJ on Michael Crichton
A very nice retrospective on Dr. Michael Crichton here. (And yes, he was a medical doctor!) I've read a lot of his novels and enjoyed every one. He has a talent for giving his characters thought-provoking discussions into the nature of science. Some of his chapters are nothing more than an extended conversation on a single topic, and these have often stuck with me for years afterwards, getting me to think more about it.
The first novel of his that I read was The Andromeda Strain back in junior high, and it was written in the pseudo-documentary style so well (with even the acknowledgements keeping up the pretense) that I kept turning back to the spine to check that I'd actually taken it from the Fiction section of the library!
The WSJ mentions Al Gore's displeasure regarding State of Fear, which critiques the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. It's a little ironic, considering that I've gotten the impression that he'd consulted Gore heavily for Rising Sun some years earlier. (I think Gore might have been mentioned in the acknowledgements, and there's certainly one of those extended dialogue chapters, with a politician who seemed to me to be favorably based on Gore.) The reaction of the Left to Crichton's discussion of global warming is a strange overreaction. I got an earful from a German astrophysicist at a conference in 2005 when some of us were discussing Jurassic Park. This guy was absolutely outraged by Crichton regarding global warming and was using really strong language and just anathematizing the guy. Yikes! Of course, this was also a person (the German fellow) who gave us a heartwarming anecdote about his parents meeting, all thanks to Mao Tse Tung, and so he has a soft spot for the blood-soaked Communist dictator. So he's got a different set of priorities than I do, let's say.
The first novel of his that I read was The Andromeda Strain back in junior high, and it was written in the pseudo-documentary style so well (with even the acknowledgements keeping up the pretense) that I kept turning back to the spine to check that I'd actually taken it from the Fiction section of the library!
The WSJ mentions Al Gore's displeasure regarding State of Fear, which critiques the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. It's a little ironic, considering that I've gotten the impression that he'd consulted Gore heavily for Rising Sun some years earlier. (I think Gore might have been mentioned in the acknowledgements, and there's certainly one of those extended dialogue chapters, with a politician who seemed to me to be favorably based on Gore.) The reaction of the Left to Crichton's discussion of global warming is a strange overreaction. I got an earful from a German astrophysicist at a conference in 2005 when some of us were discussing Jurassic Park. This guy was absolutely outraged by Crichton regarding global warming and was using really strong language and just anathematizing the guy. Yikes! Of course, this was also a person (the German fellow) who gave us a heartwarming anecdote about his parents meeting, all thanks to Mao Tse Tung, and so he has a soft spot for the blood-soaked Communist dictator. So he's got a different set of priorities than I do, let's say.
A load of manure from Reuters
"Media bias largely unseen in US presidential race" To quote Bill Cosby, "Riiiight!"
WSJ predicts GOP gets 30% of the black vote, post-Obama
Now there's a bold prediction! But why not? Blacks are often socially conservative (note their strong support for California's Proposition 8, among other things). James Taranto surprises me with some history: when a minority or marginalized group has one of its own elected to the highest office, it seems to integrate them into the political culture and reduce the sense of ethnic/racial/religious solidarity, politically. Read and decide for yourself.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Arbeit macht frei
Obama's campaign idea of encouraging community service has morphed into requiring it for middle school, high school, and college. (H/T to Derb in The Corner)
UPDATE: They've changed the text on the official website in the past few hours or so. The first time I saw this today, it said it would be required. Now it's part of some kind of deal, apparently in return for money for college, and at the secondary level vaguely worded as a "goal." Well, that part still sounds like a euphemism for a federal requirement.
UPDATE: They've changed the text on the official website in the past few hours or so. The first time I saw this today, it said it would be required. Now it's part of some kind of deal, apparently in return for money for college, and at the secondary level vaguely worded as a "goal." Well, that part still sounds like a euphemism for a federal requirement.
The sinking of MSM Titanic
Funny Day-by-Day cartoon. Pre-election, but it has a timeless quality, I'm afraid.
Protein Wisdom on Sovereignty
He's said it well, and I could hardly agree more. The issue of treaties under our next administration is one that's got me worried...
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
One more thing I hope
is that the popular vote tallies remain as close as Fox News has them right now: 51 Obama vs. 49 McCain. I want this to have been a much closer election than the opinion polls have been predicting, with the last Real Clear Politics average having Obama up by 7.6%.
I've never bought the idea of a "mandate" for the President. The President gets his mandate by being elected, no matter how slim the margin. What I want tonight is for the results to show that McCain was just about as popular with the country as Obama was, despite the near-universal opinion that the country is some near-solid mass pushing for Obama.
I've never bought the idea of a "mandate" for the President. The President gets his mandate by being elected, no matter how slim the margin. What I want tonight is for the results to show that McCain was just about as popular with the country as Obama was, despite the near-universal opinion that the country is some near-solid mass pushing for Obama.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Murtha wins
The offensive jerk from Johnstown, Penna. has apparently won re-election. Maybe now he'll feel free to tell his constituents what he really thinks about them.
Comments from Mark Levin
On The Corner:
"John McCain just gave a classy concession speech. If McCain had won, we were told of possible riots."
Good point.
"John McCain just gave a classy concession speech. If McCain had won, we were told of possible riots."
Good point.
California puts Obama over the top
Fox News has just called it for him. 275 electoral votes.
Well, congratulations to the Democrats for their victory. I'm going to go hide, now.
Well, congratulations to the Democrats for their victory. I'm going to go hide, now.
Too many in a row!
Nuts! Harry Reid hit "change" twice and "mandate" once in the same sentence. I forgot "hope." Adding it to the rules below...
P.S: It's a good thing I'm just drinking water.
P.S: It's a good thing I'm just drinking water.
Murtha calls it for himself. Voters might or might not.
Jack Murtha (Jerk-PA) is holding a press conference to congratulate himself on his win, despite his ignorant, racist, redneck constituents. The networks aren't so sure he's won it, though. Nobody's called it yet, except him!
I'm calling Tennessee for McCain...
OK, that wasn't a big surprise. Pleased to see that McCain's got about 300,000 more votes than Obama so far, though. With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it's going to be really tough for McCain to win 270 electoral votes.
For now, then, I'm at least hoping that McCain gets Virginia and North Carolina. If these Southern states go for a liberal Yankee, I'm going to be too embarrassed to hold my head up tomorrow.
Speaking of which, this will be the first Yankee Democrat to win the presidency since Kennedy. The wife and I were wondering the other day if this would be the left's chance to replay the Kennedy administration. A lot of the hagiography of Kennedy comes form him being an inspiring leader who was killed partway through his first term. In a sense, he didn't get the chance to let them down. My uncle was doing a computerized poll for the Republican party, leading up to the 1964 election, and he thinks that Kennedy wouldn't have won re-election. He was seeing Democratic voters starting to go for Goldwater. Admittedly, this was Texas, but it was movement away from the 1960 results.
So Obama might well get the chance to disappoint his followers. So much expectation is getting attached to him that he can't possibly live up to it all. I doubt his experience is up to the task, although he might be a quick learner and do passably well by the standards of a normal President. But I think that the bar is going to be set much higher for him than for a "normal President." The messianic fervor is just bizarre, and my question is whether it will burn out or keep going for a full term.
For now, then, I'm at least hoping that McCain gets Virginia and North Carolina. If these Southern states go for a liberal Yankee, I'm going to be too embarrassed to hold my head up tomorrow.
Speaking of which, this will be the first Yankee Democrat to win the presidency since Kennedy. The wife and I were wondering the other day if this would be the left's chance to replay the Kennedy administration. A lot of the hagiography of Kennedy comes form him being an inspiring leader who was killed partway through his first term. In a sense, he didn't get the chance to let them down. My uncle was doing a computerized poll for the Republican party, leading up to the 1964 election, and he thinks that Kennedy wouldn't have won re-election. He was seeing Democratic voters starting to go for Goldwater. Admittedly, this was Texas, but it was movement away from the 1960 results.
So Obama might well get the chance to disappoint his followers. So much expectation is getting attached to him that he can't possibly live up to it all. I doubt his experience is up to the task, although he might be a quick learner and do passably well by the standards of a normal President. But I think that the bar is going to be set much higher for him than for a "normal President." The messianic fervor is just bizarre, and my question is whether it will burn out or keep going for a full term.
Election night drinking game
We're coming up with rules and phrases for election night drinking games here. I might have to add a few as the night goes on, but here are some phrases to start with:
UPDATE: Added "hope" to the two-drink list.
One drink:
--------
filibuster
mandate
economy
change
"move the country forward"
Two:
----
hope
some version of "repudiate Bush"
Iraq
racism
redneck
backwards
Palin
Finish the bottle:
-------------
"I, for one, welcome our new messianic overlord!"
"I feel a tingle running up my leg."
"Comrades!"
UPDATE: Added "hope" to the two-drink list.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Hubble back up and running
I didn't see this earlier, but the primary camera on the Hubble is again sending data. That's the Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2). This had been down for a few weeks, not communicating with the ground. They'd been able to send commands up (they thought), but only the Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS) were talking back.
This short item from NASA doesn't make clear the status of the other cameras, so I don't know if there's still any problem remaining. I suspect so, actually. The New York Times article mentions that they booted up the "side 2" electronics on the camera--backup electronics designed for just such an emergency, in case the primary circuits went down. Trouble is, they're designed a little differently than the primary ("side 1") circuits. (You'd have thought they would make an identical copy, wouldn't you? Well, we were both wrong, then...) So it took a bit of work to make sure everything checked out with them.
Let's hope the other cameras are OK!
This short item from NASA doesn't make clear the status of the other cameras, so I don't know if there's still any problem remaining. I suspect so, actually. The New York Times article mentions that they booted up the "side 2" electronics on the camera--backup electronics designed for just such an emergency, in case the primary circuits went down. Trouble is, they're designed a little differently than the primary ("side 1") circuits. (You'd have thought they would make an identical copy, wouldn't you? Well, we were both wrong, then...) So it took a bit of work to make sure everything checked out with them.
Let's hope the other cameras are OK!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Maverick John McCain
Although I certainly want McCain to win, I still enjoy this 5-year-old Paul Shanklin (Rush Limbaugh Show) parody of the "Maverick" TV show theme. If you're not familiar with "Maverick" or only saw the movie (starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, and James Garner--excellent film!), here's the original show's song. And here is Shanklin's parody. Heh, heh...
You know, if McCain hadn't made a career out of snubbing conservatives, he would have a base more fired up for him and would get more votes. As it is, Palin's been the one to draw the crowds and needed conservative support. Which is why I've got to disagree pretty strongly with the Republicans or erstwhile conservatives who've been criticizing the Palin choice as hurting him with "moderates." From an interview I heard on XM radio's P.O.T.U.S. '08 channel (presidential politics channel--like C-SPAN, but even better!), history shows that you win elections more by turning out your base to vote than by attracting votes from moderates. McCain may attract some moderates--that's who he mostly appeals to--but he's really hurting support among the GOP base, and there are a lot more potential votes there. Palin's the least he could do for us.
You know, if McCain hadn't made a career out of snubbing conservatives, he would have a base more fired up for him and would get more votes. As it is, Palin's been the one to draw the crowds and needed conservative support. Which is why I've got to disagree pretty strongly with the Republicans or erstwhile conservatives who've been criticizing the Palin choice as hurting him with "moderates." From an interview I heard on XM radio's P.O.T.U.S. '08 channel (presidential politics channel--like C-SPAN, but even better!), history shows that you win elections more by turning out your base to vote than by attracting votes from moderates. McCain may attract some moderates--that's who he mostly appeals to--but he's really hurting support among the GOP base, and there are a lot more potential votes there. Palin's the least he could do for us.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Another reason to vote for McCain-Palin...
...to "devastate" the bureaucrats at the UN. Quote: "It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."
John Bolton is characteristically straightforward:
Yep.
John Bolton is characteristically straightforward:
"The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
Yep.
Producing x-rays with Scotch tape!
I already knew you could easily generate light by peeling Scotch tape off of something (in fact, it's hard not to, although you need to be in a darkened room to see it), but the Mrs. told me yesterday that you get a decent amount of x-rays if you peel it off in a vacuum. Now, that's neat! It's coming out in this week's issue of Nature, and they're suggesting it as a way of making cheap x-ray sources.
The Obama revolution: "History Repeating"
I was listening to Propellerheads' great pseudo-Bond song, "History Repeating," yesterday, when I noticed the lyrics could nicely describe the Obama Revolution phenomenon:
Well, at least I'll have a little laugh from this to keep me company under the New Regime.
The word is about, there's something evolving,
whatever may come, the world keeps revolving
They say the next big thing is here,
that the revolution's near,
but to me it seems quite clear
that it's all just a little bit of history repeating
The newspapers shout a new style is growing,
but it don't know if it's coming or going,
there is fashion, there is fad
some is good, some is bad
and the joke is rather sad,
that its all just a little bit of history repeating
.. and I've seen it before
.. and I'll see it again
.. yes I've seen it before
.. just little bits of history repeating
Well, at least I'll have a little laugh from this to keep me company under the New Regime.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Frank Schaeffer goes nuts on Orthodox-on-Orthodox violence
I'd never read anything by Frank Schaeffer until today. I don't think I'll bother reading him again. This whole article is just nuts. It's got the hallmarks I've seen elsewhere of a convert (political, religious, or in this case, both) who loses his rationality when discussing the group he left.
Here, he's writing about the Russian invasion of Georgia and essentially defending Russia (at least excusing them). I don't know if I want to bother refuting too many of the...um, "points" he tries to make, because he isn't very consistent and doesn't seem to have thought really hard about it.
Sigh. OK, I just need to say a couple or three things. He seems driven in all of his arguments here by a desire for pan-Orthodox dignity, centered on Russia. If the US (and the West, generally) make contacts with former Soviet republics and satellites, helping their struggling democracies and extending NATO membership, he makes that out as us "encircling" the Orthodox world. That implies that we're threatening the Orthodox world. Somehow, this excuses Russian threats against fellow Orthodox countries like the Ukraine and Moldova, and a flat-out invasion of Orthodox Georgia. Yet when we aid Orthodox countries like Greece, Romania (both NATO members), the Ukraine, and Georgia (both being considered for NATO membership), that's a "threat" to the Orthodox world. The only Orthodox country we've attacked this whole time has been Serbia, and that's only because of the deliberate attacking of civilians and ethnic cleansing.
Does the non-Russian-allied Orthodox world see themselves as under attack from the West? Not from what I can tell. Rather, they see themselves as under attack from Russia. Where would they get that idea? Mostly from Russia attacking them. (Or threatening to attack them.) So is the rest of the Orthodox world as disdainful as he towards America and Bush? Again, not from what I can tell. In fact, these same sorts of places tend to be where Bush is quite popular (Romania, Georgia, and the Ukraine, in particular--not so much in Greece, though). My Orthodox in-laws in Romania tell us how popular Bush and America are there.
Somehow, Schaeffer spins this all into a web of anti-Orthodox bigotry on the part of the West, and he throws a bit of snide remarks against President Bush's being an American Protestant. I don't buy into much psychoanalysis, but "projection," anyone?
What's funniest is that this is all supposed to explain why Russia invaded Georgia, a fellow Orthodox country. I'm tempted to do a take-off on that joke from some late '50s liberal comedian whose name I can't remember: "Every time America attacks an Orthodox country, Russia decides to retaliate by attacking an Orthodox country."
Here, he's writing about the Russian invasion of Georgia and essentially defending Russia (at least excusing them). I don't know if I want to bother refuting too many of the...um, "points" he tries to make, because he isn't very consistent and doesn't seem to have thought really hard about it.
Sigh. OK, I just need to say a couple or three things. He seems driven in all of his arguments here by a desire for pan-Orthodox dignity, centered on Russia. If the US (and the West, generally) make contacts with former Soviet republics and satellites, helping their struggling democracies and extending NATO membership, he makes that out as us "encircling" the Orthodox world. That implies that we're threatening the Orthodox world. Somehow, this excuses Russian threats against fellow Orthodox countries like the Ukraine and Moldova, and a flat-out invasion of Orthodox Georgia. Yet when we aid Orthodox countries like Greece, Romania (both NATO members), the Ukraine, and Georgia (both being considered for NATO membership), that's a "threat" to the Orthodox world. The only Orthodox country we've attacked this whole time has been Serbia, and that's only because of the deliberate attacking of civilians and ethnic cleansing.
Does the non-Russian-allied Orthodox world see themselves as under attack from the West? Not from what I can tell. Rather, they see themselves as under attack from Russia. Where would they get that idea? Mostly from Russia attacking them. (Or threatening to attack them.) So is the rest of the Orthodox world as disdainful as he towards America and Bush? Again, not from what I can tell. In fact, these same sorts of places tend to be where Bush is quite popular (Romania, Georgia, and the Ukraine, in particular--not so much in Greece, though). My Orthodox in-laws in Romania tell us how popular Bush and America are there.
Somehow, Schaeffer spins this all into a web of anti-Orthodox bigotry on the part of the West, and he throws a bit of snide remarks against President Bush's being an American Protestant. I don't buy into much psychoanalysis, but "projection," anyone?
What's funniest is that this is all supposed to explain why Russia invaded Georgia, a fellow Orthodox country. I'm tempted to do a take-off on that joke from some late '50s liberal comedian whose name I can't remember: "Every time America attacks an Orthodox country, Russia decides to retaliate by attacking an Orthodox country."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Internationalist Jerk.
This column really must be read in its entirety to be believed. The whole thing is lousy with contempt for American sovereignty in a way that I had thought was only a caricature of liberal internationalists. This guy actually seems to think that we should worry whom the rest of the world wants us to have as our president!
Advice to the rest of the world: Mind your own business! Go back to making cheese or starting ethnic wars or living off welfare or whatever it is you do best. We'll elect our own president, thank you very much. And you can elect/install/depose your own president/presidente/presidente-para-la-vida/fearless leader. Best of luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
Advice to the rest of the world: Mind your own business! Go back to making cheese or starting ethnic wars or living off welfare or whatever it is you do best. We'll elect our own president, thank you very much. And you can elect/install/depose your own president/presidente/presidente-para-la-vida/fearless leader. Best of luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
