Here we come.
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
Friday, May 27, 2005
Pollibuster
Mystery Pollster has a great analysis of polls on the filibuster. I can't really add anything to that discussion, it is definetly worth a read.
Girls Rule
Qando links to a poll showing 53% support for Hillary Clinton in '08. That's exciting. I don't know if I like her or not, but the part of me that is still playing Girls vs. Boys in kickball is jumping for joy. It would be great to have a female president, but not at the expense of having a good leader so I will reserve judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women felt this way.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
I'm not dead
Just in case you were worried.
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
Monday, May 23, 2005
Links to stuff you've probably already seen.
As my life/career/self-esteem/desire to continue living have all hit rock bottom and with all of that so has my ability to add anything to any discussion in the blogosphere.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Congratulations Class of 05
My little sister graduated from highschool tonight. We have the same alma mater, private, catholic, all girls, you get the idea. We graduate in white formal gowns (usually wedding dresses sans train and veil) and carry red roses. It's a beautiful ceremony and though I'm not a fan of tradition or girliness it made my graduation very special and unique. She looked gorgeous (of course, since we share a gene pool). I'd post pictures but I don't want you cretons oggling my sister.
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
# Ninja and the Migraine
This morning our faithful Ninja arrived at work after a 2 hour battle with a migraine that was only won after calling in reinforcements. In her in box she found an e-mail waiting for her from Dumbass. This e-mail, very politely requested that she do some copy and pasting. However Ninja has been doing this particular copying and pasting every week for the past 6 months. And this week this copying and pasting is going to be particularly useful, and so Ninja, being the amazing copy an paste artist that she is was already starting to do this when she opened the e-mail. Needless to say she was slightly peeved to be reminded to do work that she was already doing. She informed Dumbass that she had the matter well in hand and that his request was unnecessary. Dumbass declared that she was being too "sensitive."
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Liberal MSM (with Meanwhiles)
Instapundit and several other blogs have cited this survey from the University of Conneticut today. (JD, you got your wish, they surveyed the journalists and found out about their political leanings, YAY, now we can disagree about what it means.)
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Friday, May 13, 2005
My name and other issues
I made the decision when I started blogging not to use my real name. The reason for this is manyfold and I wont bore you with them, but perhaps the most important issue is that I could lose my job for the things I have said in this blog. And while I don't like my job very much it does provide food and shelter for me, and I have come to enjoy those things.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
The Birds and the Birds
Conversations with hypothetical offspring of my little sister:
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
Bolton
I'm back today. Left work early yesterday because I was sick, so I WoWed and slept all afternoon. Didja miss me? No? Thought not.
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Typography
Spent the last hour or so reading through this PEW Typology study. (Via Michelle Malkin, okay, I admit it, I want to be her when I grow up.)
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Biggest Idiot on THP (with Meanwhiles!)
Jim Lampley posted this FASCINATING post on The Huffington Post today. Really, full of facts and stuff. Um. Yeah. (Via atrios)
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
I'm not Biased, YOU are!
As an outraged centrist, I am long weary of hearing about how liberal/not liberal enough most of the media is. It is an un-ending conversation. I am not going to propose an end to it unfortunately. I am going to point out however that this conversation is inevitable, and fruitless.
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
Good Advice
Good advice today from John Hawkins. (via Michelle Malkin AGAIN! shock)
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Celeblogs
If I had tags, I would file this under bitter.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Dog Blogging
Yeah so, I think cat blogging is dumb. Dog blogging is equally dumb. But I'm going to do it anyway on the off chance that anyone in the Pittsburgh area is looking to adopt a dog and might actually read this blog. HAH!
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
Drugs Are Bad
And if you do drugs, you are bad. Digby at Hullabaloo has a great post on the "War on Drugs" and how it's really a "war on marajuana." Anyway, go read Digby's article because he's a good writer, and I am not.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Is your sperm the Gay?
The FDA is going to implement new policies that prevent homosexual men from being sperm donors.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
Survey of Superficiality
Oh My god, like, I totally hate it when guys have like, back hair and stuff.
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
- forcing me to read bad poetry
- trying to impress me with extensive knowledge of only one topic
- failing to discuss ANYTHING but that one thing you know a lot about (beer, cars, heavy metal, etc.)
- agreeing with me all of the time
- stalking me
I have one superficial requirement: Men must be taller than 5'10," I'm 6' and I think it is reasonable for me to only date men taller than the shortest member of my family. (Okay smartasses, I know what you're thinking and that does NOT count as a date.)
So yeah, if I'm on the market again anytime soon, (Unlikely) now you know how not to piss me off. Basically, have a personality. I figure personal grooming is something that can be fixed, but boringness there is no cure for.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
What a Dvork
Bill Dvorkin has a fascinating article on bloggers and their role in "unredacting" the "redacted" pentagon document about the Italian hostage. (Via Atrios) Apparently he doesn't think to highly of us.
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
To war, or not to war
A memo from across the pond implies that this matter wasn't so much under discussion. It looks like we were just looking for some justification. That is the full text of the memo (I believe). Some choice bits of nosh:
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Call the ASPCA
I love animals. I feel that since humans have taken over this planet we have a responsibility to care for the furry things whose homes we have made more dangerous or non existant. Especially the critters who we have domesticated. (Horses, cows, dogs, cats... not really chickens cause they are annoying, but you get the idea.) So obviously I would not be pleased when I read the following excerpt from James Dobson's book (from Hullabaloo):
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
Monday, May 02, 2005
My Idea of Torture
is being forced into conversations with devout Christians who assume that since their opinions are based on their faith that I also would agree with them. This, is my idea of torture.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Lucky There's a
FAMILY GUY!!!
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
Friday, April 29, 2005
I know that guy!
Yesterday this post appeared on slashdot. Not long after it was blasted to my old university's message boards.
I KNOW this guy. I think he probably knows me too. We had class together. And now there is an article about him in Business week.
And here is where his website used to be, I hope it will be back soon.
The website was a parody of the Wal-mart Foundation website which according to Dan's new site :
The Wal-Mart Foundation's main purpose is to generate positive public relations for the Wal-Mart brand name and logo; it does so by donating small amounts here and there in an attempt to behave like a philanthropy.
As the Wal-Mart Foundation would never tell you that their goal was to help improve the brand name image of the stores, I figured I would "correct" this through parody. The site uncompromisingly promoted Wal-Mart, missing no opportunity to pretend that the sum total of Wal-Mart's impact on the communities they operate in is positive, and reminding consumers on nearly every page about Wal-Mart's low prices.
I agree with Dan on pricipal that we should not allow ourselves to be fooled by philanthropy divisions of corporations that are shutting down small businesses. After looking at the real website I do notice that there is an aweful lot about what the foundation does and has done, and not a lot about how to get this assistance. But you read it and decide for yourself.
I KNOW this guy. I think he probably knows me too. We had class together. And now there is an article about him in Business week.
And here is where his website used to be, I hope it will be back soon.
The website was a parody of the Wal-mart Foundation website which according to Dan's new site :
The Wal-Mart Foundation's main purpose is to generate positive public relations for the Wal-Mart brand name and logo; it does so by donating small amounts here and there in an attempt to behave like a philanthropy.
As the Wal-Mart Foundation would never tell you that their goal was to help improve the brand name image of the stores, I figured I would "correct" this through parody. The site uncompromisingly promoted Wal-Mart, missing no opportunity to pretend that the sum total of Wal-Mart's impact on the communities they operate in is positive, and reminding consumers on nearly every page about Wal-Mart's low prices.
I agree with Dan on pricipal that we should not allow ourselves to be fooled by philanthropy divisions of corporations that are shutting down small businesses. After looking at the real website I do notice that there is an aweful lot about what the foundation does and has done, and not a lot about how to get this assistance. But you read it and decide for yourself.
Fat and Crazy
A study done over 30 years of 10,000 California residents found an increased risk of Dementia in Obese patients. They found the risk increased from 7% to 8% for overweight people and 9%for obese patients. And when broken out by gender the risk for women who were obese increased even more. The AP did a pretty good job of not claiming causality in this study.
''We really adjusted for everything under the sun that is related to dementia. We brought in stroke, high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, heart disease -- everything that has been implicated -- and yet we still found this effect,'' said the study's leader, Dr. Rachel Whitmer, gerontological epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Foundation. ''That suggests that there's another pathway -- it's not just that being overweight raises the risk of heart disease and diabetes and that's why these people get dementia.''
Innumeracy explains much of the public's confusion about the risks of various drugs and medical treatments. But not all of it. In a classic 1966 study, a group of subjects was told that a man had parked his car on a hill and that the car had rolled back into a hydrant after the man had left. The subjects were sympathetic to the man.
But a second group of subjects, told that the car had rolled into another person after the man walked away, held him responsible, even though the cause was the same.
People might chalk up a minor mishap to chance, but they are reluctant to blame a serious event on bad luck. Someone or something has to be held responsible.
But who is responsible for dementia, or even all of our health problems? It seems like we want to blame health problems on the individual, claiming that if they eat better, lose the weight, do crosswords, take this pill they will be able to live forever. And if that doesn't work we blame the doctors for not trying hard enough to save them.
But maybe some people just have another losing lottery ticket, this time in the genetic lottery.
(UPDATE: the math article link works now)
''We really adjusted for everything under the sun that is related to dementia. We brought in stroke, high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, heart disease -- everything that has been implicated -- and yet we still found this effect,'' said the study's leader, Dr. Rachel Whitmer, gerontological epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Foundation. ''That suggests that there's another pathway -- it's not just that being overweight raises the risk of heart disease and diabetes and that's why these people get dementia.''
So what they are saying is they don't know what causes dementia but that they have these issues in common. Could it be related to metabolism? Or related to something like an overall healthy lifestyle? How did individual behavior factor into this study? They mention all of these health occurances but they dont' tell me about what people ate, how they lived. Also what about genetics? Could their be a gene that makes dementia more likely?
Also I think this article by the NYT should be required reading. It talks about the difference between probability and chance but I also think this excerpt below is relevant:Innumeracy explains much of the public's confusion about the risks of various drugs and medical treatments. But not all of it. In a classic 1966 study, a group of subjects was told that a man had parked his car on a hill and that the car had rolled back into a hydrant after the man had left. The subjects were sympathetic to the man.
But a second group of subjects, told that the car had rolled into another person after the man walked away, held him responsible, even though the cause was the same.
People might chalk up a minor mishap to chance, but they are reluctant to blame a serious event on bad luck. Someone or something has to be held responsible.
But who is responsible for dementia, or even all of our health problems? It seems like we want to blame health problems on the individual, claiming that if they eat better, lose the weight, do crosswords, take this pill they will be able to live forever. And if that doesn't work we blame the doctors for not trying hard enough to save them.
But maybe some people just have another losing lottery ticket, this time in the genetic lottery.
(UPDATE: the math article link works now)
Awards
Normally I hate award shows. Cause they are all about the celebrities, and since the first thing I see every morning is something about Michael Jackson Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt on CNN I don't think they really need more attention. In fact I'm not really a fan of blog-awards either cause they all just go to the blogs everyone reads already. What is the point?
But today Hubris gave awards to all of the people on his blogroll. This is my favorite awards show ever.
I won the "Hubris" for Best Youthful Idealistic Outrage.
Obviously, I am outraged.
Seriously, I never would have started blogging if it weren't for cabal and Hubris's blog. So if you are reading my blog and you don't read his blog (that is sooo unlikely) you should go there right now, because he is a funny funny man. Though if you want to Ogle him you have to go to A Small Victory. Get out of here. Well, GO!
But today Hubris gave awards to all of the people on his blogroll. This is my favorite awards show ever.
I won the "Hubris" for Best Youthful Idealistic Outrage.
Obviously, I am outraged.
Seriously, I never would have started blogging if it weren't for cabal and Hubris's blog. So if you are reading my blog and you don't read his blog (that is sooo unlikely) you should go there right now, because he is a funny funny man. Though if you want to Ogle him you have to go to A Small Victory. Get out of here. Well, GO!
Titles are hard
I just bought Freakanomics cause I saw it on the Daily Show last night. Muuuust read booooks from daily show.......... No actually I'm going to read it because it sounds like a book I wish I had written but am clearly not smart enough to. The Authors have a Blog (reminds me of spinsanity in the days when I thought blogs were lame personal diaries, I guess that's what this has turned into, oh well)
I had some really funny stuff I was going to post last night and now I can't remember what it was. Damnit. It's like when I go to the music store, and I can't remember one band on the very long list of bands whose CDs I still don't own. (The list is so long because every time I go to the music store I can't remember.... It's horrible.) But then I go to the grocery store and I'm all like, Oh yeah, I need to buy the new Daft Punk blah blah, what was it we were going to have for dinner? Oh yeah, food.
Did that sweater have buttons? Oh well, I should wrap this up before I start to ramble.
I had some really funny stuff I was going to post last night and now I can't remember what it was. Damnit. It's like when I go to the music store, and I can't remember one band on the very long list of bands whose CDs I still don't own. (The list is so long because every time I go to the music store I can't remember.... It's horrible.) But then I go to the grocery store and I'm all like, Oh yeah, I need to buy the new Daft Punk blah blah, what was it we were going to have for dinner? Oh yeah, food.
Did that sweater have buttons? Oh well, I should wrap this up before I start to ramble.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Bring your Brat to work day.
The sad thing is, I would SO much rather go hang out with the 13 year olds than talk to the most of the people I work with. With the Exception of like 2 people.
Dumbass is currently being EXTREMELY patronizing to the daughter of one of my (cool) coworkers. She was very nice when I talked to her, and seems pretty bright, we talked about where I went to school for a few minutes. I never know what to say to kids when their parents are around. Of course dumbass is asking her questions like "oh, what do you have in your bag, Oh that's nice. hahahaha... blah blah blah" It is agonizing to listen to, she's not a toddler.
I hate being an adult, this sucks.
Although apparently the kids are trapped in the cafeteria being forced to listen to some presentations and doing ceremonies and stuff. At least I get to surf the internet while being bored out of my scull, they just have to sit there and take it.
When I went to work with my Dad we always did cool stuff like tour factories. Once we went to an aluminum foundry. Which sounded boring until I got to watch guys pour molten metal into molds. That was cool. But The Company that Shall Not Be Named doesn't do anything nearly as cool as pour metal into things.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Orgy University
This article today in Newsweek made me want to gouge my own eyes out with the scissors that are conveniently located on my desk. They are talking about the misconception that college students do nothing but #### like animals. This was never a problem at my school as Playboy consistantly ranks it in the Top 10 least attractive student bodies. (Usually number 2 or 3 because the Drama and Art students save us from being First)
I can't really say why this article bothered me so much, except that maybe none of this is news, nor is any of it important. Maybe it is because it references a book that a old guy wrote about a young girl and that in itself is probably enough to make me feel naseous. I mean I don't think the article is wrong really.
Oral Sex is not sex, lots of hooking up, not a lot of dating blah blah. Maybe it just bothers me because I feel that college is a special place, and that people who aren't in college don't really need to know what is going on there. The second most important thing about college is being able to live your life without your parents. And I think the LAST thing any college student wants is their parents asking them about the "Hook-up" culture on their campus.
Let the kids go at it, they are almost adults, they can take care of themselves now, and if they can't then I'm sure there is still room at the trailer park.
I can't really say why this article bothered me so much, except that maybe none of this is news, nor is any of it important. Maybe it is because it references a book that a old guy wrote about a young girl and that in itself is probably enough to make me feel naseous. I mean I don't think the article is wrong really.
Oral Sex is not sex, lots of hooking up, not a lot of dating blah blah. Maybe it just bothers me because I feel that college is a special place, and that people who aren't in college don't really need to know what is going on there. The second most important thing about college is being able to live your life without your parents. And I think the LAST thing any college student wants is their parents asking them about the "Hook-up" culture on their campus.
Let the kids go at it, they are almost adults, they can take care of themselves now, and if they can't then I'm sure there is still room at the trailer park.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Survey results
I totally forgot, a billion years ago I posted a survey about my blog and 9 people responded. WOOO 9!
And now for AMAZING statistics that mean ABSOLUTELY nothing:
When asked how much my blog sucked
22% of you said Only when Asked Politely
and a whopping 77% told me to Shut up because I'm Fabulous.
Why thank you! Shutting up, now.
7 out of 9 of you said I should keep posting the Dumbass v. Ninja stuff. Fortunately for those other 2 people nothing interesting has happend lately but I will keep that in mind.
And 3 of 9 people were'nt listening when I asked if I should keep posting about stats. So they can just go back to sleep and I'll leave them alone.
You can still take the survey here if you still haven't, cause I have no reason to turn it off.
Jeff Jarvis is still calling for open source polling. Which is still a good idea, but unfortunately I still can't think of a way to get a representative sample. Ideas? (I totally need to start a business or something soon before I go insane.)
And now for AMAZING statistics that mean ABSOLUTELY nothing:
When asked how much my blog sucked
22% of you said Only when Asked Politely
and a whopping 77% told me to Shut up because I'm Fabulous.
Why thank you! Shutting up, now.
7 out of 9 of you said I should keep posting the Dumbass v. Ninja stuff. Fortunately for those other 2 people nothing interesting has happend lately but I will keep that in mind.
And 3 of 9 people were'nt listening when I asked if I should keep posting about stats. So they can just go back to sleep and I'll leave them alone.
You can still take the survey here if you still haven't, cause I have no reason to turn it off.
Jeff Jarvis is still calling for open source polling. Which is still a good idea, but unfortunately I still can't think of a way to get a representative sample. Ideas? (I totally need to start a business or something soon before I go insane.)
Monday, April 25, 2005
My least favorite emotion
Hope
Why Hope? it's such a pretty word and it's so warm and fuzzy.... BLECH. I HATE IT. It only leads to dissappointment.
Example: I am STILL waiting to hear on a job that I interviewed for. I didn't go for a second interview, I KNOW they aren't going to hire me. But some part of my innards is saying "maybe, just maybe, wouldn't it be great." This is the part of me that is going to wail with despair when the fatefull e-mail comes, it will make me want to do nothing but wallow in my own misery for at least 24 hours. (My wallowing time is down from about 2 weeks since I started looking for jobs nearly 2 years ago.)
And now people will say to me But, you MIGHT still get the job, wouldn't that be great? And I will attempt to point out that my pessimism is a defence mechanims agains the gut wrenching dissappointment I will feel later on when I don't get the job. And they will say something innocuous and express that they don't think that's a very nice way to live a life. Then I will entertain visions of them suffering the dissapointment of no longer having a head.
Why Hope? it's such a pretty word and it's so warm and fuzzy.... BLECH. I HATE IT. It only leads to dissappointment.
Example: I am STILL waiting to hear on a job that I interviewed for. I didn't go for a second interview, I KNOW they aren't going to hire me. But some part of my innards is saying "maybe, just maybe, wouldn't it be great." This is the part of me that is going to wail with despair when the fatefull e-mail comes, it will make me want to do nothing but wallow in my own misery for at least 24 hours. (My wallowing time is down from about 2 weeks since I started looking for jobs nearly 2 years ago.)
And now people will say to me But, you MIGHT still get the job, wouldn't that be great? And I will attempt to point out that my pessimism is a defence mechanims agains the gut wrenching dissappointment I will feel later on when I don't get the job. And they will say something innocuous and express that they don't think that's a very nice way to live a life. Then I will entertain visions of them suffering the dissapointment of no longer having a head.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Bullshit and the Beast
This new study,"The Tales we Tell our Children" (via Michele) is crap. (Okay, I can't find a copy of it yet, but it certainly sounds like crap.)
The Claim: Fairy Tales (Cinderella etc) make girls submissive and more likely to be abuse victims.
The Research: Susan, who is studying for her Masters in Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapy course at the University of Derby, interviewed domestic violence victims and parents of primary school children in Leicester for her research.Interviews with Domestic Abuse victims and the parents of pre school children.
Why it's Crap: All this study proves is that Domestic Violence Victims like stories about submissive women. (That there is a correlation) It does NOT prove that reading fairy stories to girls will turn them into submissive women. Just because there is a relationship does NOT mean that it is causal. Without conducting controlled experiments there is NO WAY to prove a causal link between the two.
Today's Bad Headline Award:CHILDHOOD: FAIRY TALES KEY TO VIOLENT ADULT RELATIONSHIPSAgenzia Giornalistica Italia, Italy. While most of them were bad, implying that it is the KEY and not a maybe possible contributing factor wins this Italian paper the honor.
A personal note: I have long lamented and will continue to lament the lack of strong female characters in popular literature. I am very picky about my literature for this exact reason. And while I do think that there is certainly an affect on girls from the total lack of female role models, I don't think that enjoying a good romance makes a woman more likely to be abused. All women want prince charming, the problem is some girls never realize that life is not LIKE the fairy tales they love, that's why they are Fiction!
The Claim: Fairy Tales (Cinderella etc) make girls submissive and more likely to be abuse victims.
The Research: Susan, who is studying for her Masters in Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapy course at the University of Derby, interviewed domestic violence victims and parents of primary school children in Leicester for her research.Interviews with Domestic Abuse victims and the parents of pre school children.
Why it's Crap: All this study proves is that Domestic Violence Victims like stories about submissive women. (That there is a correlation) It does NOT prove that reading fairy stories to girls will turn them into submissive women. Just because there is a relationship does NOT mean that it is causal. Without conducting controlled experiments there is NO WAY to prove a causal link between the two.
Today's Bad Headline Award:CHILDHOOD: FAIRY TALES KEY TO VIOLENT ADULT RELATIONSHIPSAgenzia Giornalistica Italia, Italy. While most of them were bad, implying that it is the KEY and not a maybe possible contributing factor wins this Italian paper the honor.
A personal note: I have long lamented and will continue to lament the lack of strong female characters in popular literature. I am very picky about my literature for this exact reason. And while I do think that there is certainly an affect on girls from the total lack of female role models, I don't think that enjoying a good romance makes a woman more likely to be abused. All women want prince charming, the problem is some girls never realize that life is not LIKE the fairy tales they love, that's why they are Fiction!
Punished for Voting
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.
From Time Magazine
This strikes me as Anti-American. Though I guess it is their perrogative.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Saturday Morning
Dear People who read my blog who were involved in the party last night,
That was awesome, except for those few creepy guys. Who knew that climbing out of a TINY window onto the scariest roof imaginable could be so much fun. I especially enjoyed the compound affect of the height of the house and the giant hill it was sitting on. If I didn't already feel nauseous....
Does anyone remember the name of that brazillian drink? And did anyone find my brain when they were on the roof, I think I left it there?
Someone should thank the hosts.
Anyway, I should wrap this up before I start to ramble.
Happy Hangover... I mean Saturday,
-me
That was awesome, except for those few creepy guys. Who knew that climbing out of a TINY window onto the scariest roof imaginable could be so much fun. I especially enjoyed the compound affect of the height of the house and the giant hill it was sitting on. If I didn't already feel nauseous....
Does anyone remember the name of that brazillian drink? And did anyone find my brain when they were on the roof, I think I left it there?
Someone should thank the hosts.
Anyway, I should wrap this up before I start to ramble.
Happy Hangover... I mean Saturday,
-me
Friday, April 22, 2005
Junk Science or Stupid Journalists? (With Meanwhiles)
This article from Tech Central Station (Via Instapundit)talks about the recent CDC study contradicting the Obesity Epidemic study from a while back.
The TCS column seems to imply that the CDC is presenting us with "Junk Science" and possibly deliberately attempting to mislead us.
All of this raises the question of why the numbers have been so badly wrong. The CDC tells us that this is tricky, technical stuff and estimates are always that -- estimates. Of course the 400,000 deaths per year that has been the foundation of the obesity epidemic was never an estimate -- it was always a "fact". Part of the reason is that the 400,000 number was based, as the authors admit, not on actual weights and heights -- but estimates. And even in those surveys which supposedly used actual weights and heights about 30% of the participants never showed up to be measured.
So, if the CDC told us that these were estimates, who told you they were facts? Hmmmmmm? Because the CDC said it was an estimate apparently. The media is who made it a fact. Not the CDC, so don't blame the academics trying to "estimate" very tricky things. I truly deeply doubt that the CDC is trying to mislead the American people. In fact I bet they are pretty embarrassed that their first estimates were so terrible, and that they went ahead and published them.
But if you want to blame someone for stating the CDC's estimates as facts and scaring the bejeezus out of the American people, blame the media. The media has a history of taking what academics say and turning it into absolute facts. (Hence, why I even bothered starting this blog.) They read "The CDC estimates X" and turn this into, "HEY! X!" which, is not the same.
I think I know why there is this miscommunication. In Academics it is important to put your best foot forward, because everyone who reads your work will be doing their best to tear it to little tiny pieces. So you don't want to come right out and say "Hey, we estimated this so, it's pretty not accurate." because then they wont give credence to anything you have to say. So you hide it and make yourself sound good.
The problem is Journalists, are too busy (or too stupid, sorry) to be bothered critiquing and tearing apart studies. What they do is read the abstract and report on it, basically repeating whatever was said only in stronger language. This leads to the horrible overstatements of things that lead us to suddenly believe that Obesity is the leading cause of death in this country.
For the record I did think that the TCS article was very well written (Better than this one obviously) and factual, it was his seeming anger at the scientists that got me going. While I don't really think the CDC has been doing the greatest job, what they are doing is hard, and I know I couldn't do it so who am I to criticize. But I feel that his statements were misdirected, I really think that the media is more to blame for scaring the fatties than the CDC.
MEANWHILE: Bill at INDC has an amazing write up of how the new CDC study could be even MORE misleading than the old one! I am Shinobi's Joy. He points out possible failings of the study, like, the reasons why people might be over or underweight, and how these reasons could affect their lifespan. These reasons were not taken into account by the CDC. THIS is what I'm talking about people. This is what journalists should be doing, not just swallowing numbers whole and regurgitating them in boldface. YAY BILL!
The TCS column seems to imply that the CDC is presenting us with "Junk Science" and possibly deliberately attempting to mislead us.
All of this raises the question of why the numbers have been so badly wrong. The CDC tells us that this is tricky, technical stuff and estimates are always that -- estimates. Of course the 400,000 deaths per year that has been the foundation of the obesity epidemic was never an estimate -- it was always a "fact". Part of the reason is that the 400,000 number was based, as the authors admit, not on actual weights and heights -- but estimates. And even in those surveys which supposedly used actual weights and heights about 30% of the participants never showed up to be measured.
So, if the CDC told us that these were estimates, who told you they were facts? Hmmmmmm? Because the CDC said it was an estimate apparently. The media is who made it a fact. Not the CDC, so don't blame the academics trying to "estimate" very tricky things. I truly deeply doubt that the CDC is trying to mislead the American people. In fact I bet they are pretty embarrassed that their first estimates were so terrible, and that they went ahead and published them.
But if you want to blame someone for stating the CDC's estimates as facts and scaring the bejeezus out of the American people, blame the media. The media has a history of taking what academics say and turning it into absolute facts. (Hence, why I even bothered starting this blog.) They read "The CDC estimates X" and turn this into, "HEY! X!" which, is not the same.
I think I know why there is this miscommunication. In Academics it is important to put your best foot forward, because everyone who reads your work will be doing their best to tear it to little tiny pieces. So you don't want to come right out and say "Hey, we estimated this so, it's pretty not accurate." because then they wont give credence to anything you have to say. So you hide it and make yourself sound good.
The problem is Journalists, are too busy (or too stupid, sorry) to be bothered critiquing and tearing apart studies. What they do is read the abstract and report on it, basically repeating whatever was said only in stronger language. This leads to the horrible overstatements of things that lead us to suddenly believe that Obesity is the leading cause of death in this country.
For the record I did think that the TCS article was very well written (Better than this one obviously) and factual, it was his seeming anger at the scientists that got me going. While I don't really think the CDC has been doing the greatest job, what they are doing is hard, and I know I couldn't do it so who am I to criticize. But I feel that his statements were misdirected, I really think that the media is more to blame for scaring the fatties than the CDC.
MEANWHILE: Bill at INDC has an amazing write up of how the new CDC study could be even MORE misleading than the old one! I am Shinobi's Joy. He points out possible failings of the study, like, the reasons why people might be over or underweight, and how these reasons could affect their lifespan. These reasons were not taken into account by the CDC. THIS is what I'm talking about people. This is what journalists should be doing, not just swallowing numbers whole and regurgitating them in boldface. YAY BILL!
No wonder I'm a B student
Mobius Stripper has a great post today about her student's exams.
- Pearson’s correlation coefficient relating position of statistics student’s surname in alphabet (46 students wrote the exam) with student’s exam grade: 0.466.
- Probability that the correlation in a simple random sample of size 46 would be so strong if there were, in general, no correlation between surname and exam grade: less than 1%
- Regression equation relating student’s grade y to first initial of student’s surname x: y=52+0.94x
- Predicted grade for Aaron Aaronson: 53%
- Predicted grade for Ziggy Zuckerman: 76%
So what this shows for the non stats folk is that there is a positive relationship between Last Initial and grades. This however doesn't necessarily prove any kind of causal relations hip, or anything at all since the sample is only 46 students. It would have to be done on a much larger scale to prove anything real. But it is pretty surprising.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Gay Rights Stuff.
Microsoft Corporation pulled its support for a gay rights bill in Washington state last month after complaints from a single radical right anti-gay leader, according to an article just published in the Seattle paper, The Stranger (the article is on the news stands already, online Thursday). My sources in Washington state tell me that the vote on the bill, expected in two days (Friday), is SO CLOSE that Microsoft's actions may be pivotal in KILLING THE PRO-GAY LEGISLATION.
Read it all here, Via Atrios
If I had any money I would go out and buy a mac right now.
Additionally,
Texas House says no to gays as foster parents. (via Owlish)
I am going to go find a room far away from everyone and scream right now.
Read it all here, Via Atrios
If I had any money I would go out and buy a mac right now.
Additionally,
Texas House says no to gays as foster parents. (via Owlish)
I am going to go find a room far away from everyone and scream right now.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
April 20th
Nothing interesting to post today. Hope everyone had a lovely... day.. that was today... which was.... Hitler's Birthday! Oh... yea andmy 2 year anniversary with my boyfriend... and obviously no other holiday takes place today. Nope, That's all... can't think of any others.
Hope you had a good one.
Hope you had a good one.
Monday, April 18, 2005
BE REASONABLE!
Disclaimer: What follows is a rant, not intended to be argued. I am pissed off, so I'll probably post this and delete it within the hour, so if you're looking for well organized debate, go to cabal or something.
Last week Jon Stewart made a good point about centrists. No one listens to us because we aren't standing in the middle of the streets with signs yelling "BE REASONABLE!" But this morning that is exactly what I feel like doing.
I read a variety of blogs, most of the blogs on my blogroll are conservative but I also read a few liberal type blogs as well (updates are needed but I can't remember my password). And this morning EVERYONE has managed to PISS me off. Why? Because they are so partisan. It's like racism, your opinion doesn't count cause you're a liberal, and your opinion doesn't count because you're a right wing moonbat. What's a good word for this, Partisanism? Closemindedjerkism? Idiocy? Wrongophobia?(The fear that you might be wrong about something but don't want to show weakness). I don't know, I'm not a clever wordsmith. I AM a pissed off centrist.
WHY? WHY!? do people continue to cling to parties that are clearly doing a shitty job. The Democrats can't do anything productive and the Republicans haven't kept their wingnuts screwed in and they have started to rattle. Screw party loyalty, seriously, take it out back, lube it up if you're feeling generous and SCREW IT! Have opinions, but enough of this left v. right crap. (Don't we get enough of that in professional sports?) Why does it all have to boil down into 2 options? Where's the middle option or even the reasonable option? The option that might actually work well for more than half the population?
Why, can't we have a reasonable discussion about anything anymore? Even I have trouble not blaming the republican party for being idiots and complaining about how the democrats are wimps. But I don't believe that any of that is true. I think that the Partisanists are just yelling louder than the rest of us.
I would like to blame the media, that would be easy. It's the medias fault for boiling it all down into left v right. In their efforts to be inclusive of all veiwpoints they have left out the reasonable viewpoints. (i.e. Not Ann Coulter)
Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that this argument started because the American people are too stupid to handle a middle ground. And that the reason the media is the way it is is because that is how the American people want it. And that makes me feel suicidal.
I don't know whose fault it is, and I don't know how to fix it, but I do know that it really PISSES ME OFF. (I am so Lewis Black today)
(I just want everyone to know that I edited the F word out of this article like 50 times so that I wouldn't "offend" anyone. But then I realized that I don't care if I offend anyone, so FUCK FUCKING FUCKITTY FUCK. sadly I am too lazy to put the other 46 back in.)
Last week Jon Stewart made a good point about centrists. No one listens to us because we aren't standing in the middle of the streets with signs yelling "BE REASONABLE!" But this morning that is exactly what I feel like doing.
I read a variety of blogs, most of the blogs on my blogroll are conservative but I also read a few liberal type blogs as well (updates are needed but I can't remember my password). And this morning EVERYONE has managed to PISS me off. Why? Because they are so partisan. It's like racism, your opinion doesn't count cause you're a liberal, and your opinion doesn't count because you're a right wing moonbat. What's a good word for this, Partisanism? Closemindedjerkism? Idiocy? Wrongophobia?(The fear that you might be wrong about something but don't want to show weakness). I don't know, I'm not a clever wordsmith. I AM a pissed off centrist.
WHY? WHY!? do people continue to cling to parties that are clearly doing a shitty job. The Democrats can't do anything productive and the Republicans haven't kept their wingnuts screwed in and they have started to rattle. Screw party loyalty, seriously, take it out back, lube it up if you're feeling generous and SCREW IT! Have opinions, but enough of this left v. right crap. (Don't we get enough of that in professional sports?) Why does it all have to boil down into 2 options? Where's the middle option or even the reasonable option? The option that might actually work well for more than half the population?
Why, can't we have a reasonable discussion about anything anymore? Even I have trouble not blaming the republican party for being idiots and complaining about how the democrats are wimps. But I don't believe that any of that is true. I think that the Partisanists are just yelling louder than the rest of us.
I would like to blame the media, that would be easy. It's the medias fault for boiling it all down into left v right. In their efforts to be inclusive of all veiwpoints they have left out the reasonable viewpoints. (i.e. Not Ann Coulter)
Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that this argument started because the American people are too stupid to handle a middle ground. And that the reason the media is the way it is is because that is how the American people want it. And that makes me feel suicidal.
I don't know whose fault it is, and I don't know how to fix it, but I do know that it really PISSES ME OFF. (I am so Lewis Black today)
(I just want everyone to know that I edited the F word out of this article like 50 times so that I wouldn't "offend" anyone. But then I realized that I don't care if I offend anyone, so FUCK FUCKING FUCKITTY FUCK. sadly I am too lazy to put the other 46 back in.)
Friday, April 15, 2005
A Survey of Bias
Today Jeff Jarvis linked to a survey from the Parent's Television Council. And lordy, if it isn't a perfect example of a biased survey. It's like manna from heaven. So Go take it, and then come back here and read my analysis of the questions.
Let's start with question 1, they are already showing bias because they assume that everyone has been to their stupid website. (The lowest option is infrequently.) HAH, well I never have until now so boo.
Questions 14-16 are about the Parents Television Seal of Approval. Interestingly they ask if you would be more likely to do something based on this seal. But they don't gauge HOW much more likely. Personally I would actually be LESS likely to get something with the PTC Seal, because I hate them. But this is not an option, I can only say Yes or No. This is great for the PTC because anyone who this would affect in the slightest is going to say yes, without any kind of measure of it's importance. Which, in reality isn't very useful, but I'm sure in PTC land it has all kinds of uses.
Also Question 24 assumes that you have tried to block cable channels. It then asks if you were succsessful at it. I tried to not answer it, but they wouldn't let me. So someone who has never blocked channels is honest they will have to say No or Somewhat to whether or not they were succsessful at doing so. This will jack up the percentage of people who say they weren't successful at blocking cable channels. This means that PTC will be able to take these results and complain that blocking cable channels is too difficult and therefore ineffective! (Do you see the evil? for here it lies)
Question 28 is interesting because none of those issues are important to me at all. So for me to rank them would be like me ranking which brussel sprouts I like more, I'm just going to put the small ones first. There are much better ways of asking this question.
I tried to create a new and improved one on surveymonkey, but I have a 10 question limit. Maybe I can do it as three surveys. We shall see. Or maybe I"ll shell out 20 bucks. (Unlikely)
UPDATE: OK kids, here is the Abridged Revised PTC survey. I left out the video game part, maybe I'll add it later, but I have to go work now.
Please take PART ONE first and then PART TWO! (Please take both or you will damage the already shakey integrity of my survey.)
Let's start with question 1, they are already showing bias because they assume that everyone has been to their stupid website. (The lowest option is infrequently.) HAH, well I never have until now so boo.
Questions 14-16 are about the Parents Television Seal of Approval. Interestingly they ask if you would be more likely to do something based on this seal. But they don't gauge HOW much more likely. Personally I would actually be LESS likely to get something with the PTC Seal, because I hate them. But this is not an option, I can only say Yes or No. This is great for the PTC because anyone who this would affect in the slightest is going to say yes, without any kind of measure of it's importance. Which, in reality isn't very useful, but I'm sure in PTC land it has all kinds of uses.
Also Question 24 assumes that you have tried to block cable channels. It then asks if you were succsessful at it. I tried to not answer it, but they wouldn't let me. So someone who has never blocked channels is honest they will have to say No or Somewhat to whether or not they were succsessful at doing so. This will jack up the percentage of people who say they weren't successful at blocking cable channels. This means that PTC will be able to take these results and complain that blocking cable channels is too difficult and therefore ineffective! (Do you see the evil? for here it lies)
Question 28 is interesting because none of those issues are important to me at all. So for me to rank them would be like me ranking which brussel sprouts I like more, I'm just going to put the small ones first. There are much better ways of asking this question.
I tried to create a new and improved one on surveymonkey, but I have a 10 question limit. Maybe I can do it as three surveys. We shall see. Or maybe I"ll shell out 20 bucks. (Unlikely)
UPDATE: OK kids, here is the Abridged Revised PTC survey. I left out the video game part, maybe I'll add it later, but I have to go work now.
Please take PART ONE first and then PART TWO! (Please take both or you will damage the already shakey integrity of my survey.)
Thursday, April 14, 2005
FYE
Not the store, I'm too lazy to type the whole phrase out.
Website from my buddy Pat and some of his friends.
http://www.namebritbritsfetus.blogspot.com/
So you can help Miss Spears pick out a nice name for her baby. (Or a not so nice name) Whoever correctly guesses the name (or is the funniest) gets a PRIZE! You have 9 months give or take to be creative.
BLOGROLLED!!
Website from my buddy Pat and some of his friends.
http://www.namebritbritsfetus.blogspot.com/
So you can help Miss Spears pick out a nice name for her baby. (Or a not so nice name) Whoever correctly guesses the name (or is the funniest) gets a PRIZE! You have 9 months give or take to be creative.
BLOGROLLED!!
I was Left Behind
New York times,
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
I don't necessarily disagree with the NYT's take on this study. Although I do think they should have waved a big red flag about it not being representative and that the minority populations in particular were not representative. They do this very far down in the article. Overall this study had a number of caveats, so people should not begin burning the NCLB act in effigee or something.
But I think the reason that the results of this study were more negative is becaue they looked at it on a unique level, which is student growth. This will actually tell you a lot more about the individuals than just looking at the overall changes in scores. I couldn't find any of the other studies to compare , apparently I'm not good at googling. It would be interesting to see if these results could be replicated by a more representational study because after all we are interested in developing the individual students as well as the entire student body.
The findings of this study are consistant with concerns that I have heard from teachers and concerns that I myself would have. In pushing for passing tests, you neglect the growth of more advanced students and it becomes all about passing the test. But NORC is doing a longitutinal study that will hopefully give interesting results. Unfortunately it is still too early to tell.
(Via Eduwonk& Instapundit)
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
I don't necessarily disagree with the NYT's take on this study. Although I do think they should have waved a big red flag about it not being representative and that the minority populations in particular were not representative. They do this very far down in the article. Overall this study had a number of caveats, so people should not begin burning the NCLB act in effigee or something.
But I think the reason that the results of this study were more negative is becaue they looked at it on a unique level, which is student growth. This will actually tell you a lot more about the individuals than just looking at the overall changes in scores. I couldn't find any of the other studies to compare , apparently I'm not good at googling. It would be interesting to see if these results could be replicated by a more representational study because after all we are interested in developing the individual students as well as the entire student body.
The findings of this study are consistant with concerns that I have heard from teachers and concerns that I myself would have. In pushing for passing tests, you neglect the growth of more advanced students and it becomes all about passing the test. But NORC is doing a longitutinal study that will hopefully give interesting results. Unfortunately it is still too early to tell.
(Via Eduwonk& Instapundit)
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Man that poll was gay
Sports Illustrated conducted a poll on attitudes towards gays in professional sports. This article is absolutely my favorite.
Why is this article my favorite? Please see what follows
An NBC/USA Network poll, published in Sports Illustrated, found that 86
percent of 949 people surveyed say they'd have no problem with an openly gay
male athlete. But when the question went another step -- would your team be hurt
by having a gay athlete? -- 24 percent answered yes.
Why is this article my favorite? Please see what follows
Which proves one of two things:
• People can't even figure out what they think, let alone how all of society should react.
• People aren't listening, and will say anything to get the telemarketers off the phone.Researchers left out one important detail: how many times the pollees were heard saying, ``Not that there's anything wrong with that.''
But 365gay.com has no qualms about creating a very optimistic headline that
is not entirely accurate. (Okay, it's not accurate at all)Poll: Most Support Gay Pro Athletes Global Scan Canada is promoting the Gay Agenda as well Most Americans OK With Homosexual Athletes.
DeLay's Dilemma
Most Entertaining article EVER!
LOL Ohhhh My god. It's like a window into the strategy of Republicans. BLAME THE DEMOCRATS.
But why should I say again what someone else has already said-
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hoping to hold support among fellow
Republicans, urged GOP senators Tuesday to blame Democrats if asked about
his ethics controversy and accused the news media of twisting supportive
comments so they sounded like criticism.
LOL Ohhhh My god. It's like a window into the strategy of Republicans. BLAME THE DEMOCRATS.
But why should I say again what someone else has already said-
"Democrats should save their money. Why murder someone who is committing
suicide?" said a senior GOP lawmaker, on condition of anonymity. (via Atrios)
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Day of Homophobic Assholes
Wow, I couldn't even keep the anger out of the title this time. MSNBC has an article about the "Day of Truth" which is scheduled to be the day after the "Day of Silence." The Day of SIlence is billed as a day condemning the harassment of homosexual students in schools. But this is all a cover you realize, the Day of Silence is just another way of promoting the Gay Agenda.
What Gay Agenda you ask? Well, clearly all gays want everyone else to be gay! How could you have forgotten already. Remember Spongebob? He's all about turning everyone gay. Because if one person is gay, then everyone should be gay. And once everyone is gay then the human race will die out, the ultimate goal of the gays! First they are going to make it OK to be gay, and then they will brainwash you until you too are Gay! You have to be careful because the gays can so easily brainwash you. While reading this article be careful of the quotes from the GLSEN, you might catch THE GAY!
This article does bring up a good point though. If the gays get their day, so do the Homophobic Assholes. They don't have a right to expect us to agree with them, but they do have a right to make sure that everyone knows they are Homphobic Assholes.
What Gay Agenda you ask? Well, clearly all gays want everyone else to be gay! How could you have forgotten already. Remember Spongebob? He's all about turning everyone gay. Because if one person is gay, then everyone should be gay. And once everyone is gay then the human race will die out, the ultimate goal of the gays! First they are going to make it OK to be gay, and then they will brainwash you until you too are Gay! You have to be careful because the gays can so easily brainwash you. While reading this article be careful of the quotes from the GLSEN, you might catch THE GAY!
This article does bring up a good point though. If the gays get their day, so do the Homophobic Assholes. They don't have a right to expect us to agree with them, but they do have a right to make sure that everyone knows they are Homphobic Assholes.
Other reasons
That I dislike the military. Apparently many soldiers being deployed overseas are just dumping their pets . On some level I can understand how this would be a small issue compared to the fact that these soldiers are going overseas to what might be their own deaths. But, humans domesticated these animals, and we made them unable to survive in the wild. It is our responsibilty to care for them, not put them to sleep because they are inconvenient. It is not their fault that they can no longer hunt and live on their own. We did this to them with careful breeding over thousands of years. How can we now just turn them loose to starve or worse, kill them for what our ancestors did.
Purchasing or adopting an animal means that you are assuming responsibility for that animal until the day it keils over from old age or it is so ill that it cannot be made better. And it infuriates me to no end that some people would be willing to just leave a helpless animal behind when they move because it is too difficult to take them along. And these dogs get surrendered, then spend ages in the shelter until they go cage crazy and have to be put down. Where is the culture of life now?
Purchasing or adopting an animal means that you are assuming responsibility for that animal until the day it keils over from old age or it is so ill that it cannot be made better. And it infuriates me to no end that some people would be willing to just leave a helpless animal behind when they move because it is too difficult to take them along. And these dogs get surrendered, then spend ages in the shelter until they go cage crazy and have to be put down. Where is the culture of life now?
Blargh
"Looks like somebody's got a case of the Tuesdays"
Jeff Goldstein might have quit blogging.
So to comfort myself I took a quiz I found at ASV
Jeff Goldstein might have quit blogging.
So to comfort myself I took a quiz I found at ASV
We recommend this sexy site: wittybanter.net
Which Sesame Street Muppet Are You?
Monday, April 11, 2005
Back in the Burgh
Hi Boys and Girls,
I'm BACK. NYC was great. Interview went pretty well. Now the agony of Thank you notes and waiting.
Nothing to post yet, I'm a lazy blogger.
I'm BACK. NYC was great. Interview went pretty well. Now the agony of Thank you notes and waiting.
Nothing to post yet, I'm a lazy blogger.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
New York New York!
In New York City till Saturday. Also, got invited for a second interview in Chicago, this would make 5 weeks running that I haven't worked a full week so I'm going to try to work something out. Good news though cause I really want that job.
More stats brewing for when I get back. Sorry for the lack of substance this week.
Happy Friday!
More stats brewing for when I get back. Sorry for the lack of substance this week.
Happy Friday!
Beverage Validation
It seems like for years I have been listening to this absurd conversation about who actually owns Dr. Pepper, Coke or Pepsi. And for years I have been pointing out that Dr. Pepper and 7UP are distributed in conjunction with both Coke and Pepsi, and saying that this implies that these two beverages are owned by neither Coke nor Pepsi.
Finally, today, I have found out that I am right.
They are owned by the Cadbury Schweppes company, an english company which also distributes Orangina, Snapple, and yes boys and girls, CADBURY EGGS! Mmmmm this is my new favorite company!
Thank you, that is all.
Finally, today, I have found out that I am right.
They are owned by the Cadbury Schweppes company, an english company which also distributes Orangina, Snapple, and yes boys and girls, CADBURY EGGS! Mmmmm this is my new favorite company!
Thank you, that is all.
Searching
While looking around for something Statsy to write about I found this article in the NYTs-
Democrats Block Nomination Over Morning-After Pill
Let me state right now that I've never been really a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'm glad she is doing this. It would be nice to have a decision. It would be even NICER to be able to get the Morning-After Pill at the drug store without a Dr.S Appt. Even though it isn't the kind of thing that should be used a lot.... birth control is much better for your system. And this Pill makes you CRAZY. (Not that I've ever used it..... or... ended up crying hysterically for 4 hours for no apparent reason.... nope.... not me.) Anyway, Yeah FDA, Get on this!
Democrats Block Nomination Over Morning-After Pill
Let me state right now that I've never been really a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'm glad she is doing this. It would be nice to have a decision. It would be even NICER to be able to get the Morning-After Pill at the drug store without a Dr.S Appt. Even though it isn't the kind of thing that should be used a lot.... birth control is much better for your system. And this Pill makes you CRAZY. (Not that I've ever used it..... or... ended up crying hysterically for 4 hours for no apparent reason.... nope.... not me.) Anyway, Yeah FDA, Get on this!
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Token Posting
I have nothing to say today. Something must be wrong. I spent all morning reading Penny Arcade and now all I want is my boss to leave so I can go home and play WoW.
But since I'm STUCK here, Atrios has some interesting posts highlighting GW's understanding of the US banking system which I found pretty entertaining. And another one about his Social Security campaign. I'm entertained.
But since I'm STUCK here, Atrios has some interesting posts highlighting GW's understanding of the US banking system which I found pretty entertaining. And another one about his Social Security campaign. I'm entertained.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
SWEET
Guess whose getting flown to NYC to interview at a consulting firm? me Me ME! ThoughI still have to find somewhere to stay. Hotels are SOOO expensive in manhattan and I don't want to stay by JFK. Damn. Oh well, at least I'm saving on airfare.
I hate corresponding with HR people though, I find myself over analyzing every single word and wondering if it is the one thing that will result in them not hiring me. But you know what, I'm fabulous and if they don't like that I said interview instead of appointment, or that I double checked the time of the interview then they can just Fuck Off. Seriously
Hey, have you taken my survey yet? Cause I'm up to 4 whole responders.... and I know only 10 people read this blog, but that leaves 6 people who haven't taken it. But it's 4 questions people, don't make me feel like a bigger loser.
I hate corresponding with HR people though, I find myself over analyzing every single word and wondering if it is the one thing that will result in them not hiring me. But you know what, I'm fabulous and if they don't like that I said interview instead of appointment, or that I double checked the time of the interview then they can just Fuck Off. Seriously
Hey, have you taken my survey yet? Cause I'm up to 4 whole responders.... and I know only 10 people read this blog, but that leaves 6 people who haven't taken it. But it's 4 questions people, don't make me feel like a bigger loser.
Idiots on the Senate floor
Lefty blogs are up in arms over recent remarks by Sen Cornyn. The Washington Post has more on his remarks. Everyone is linking Mathew Yglesias's post, because it is pretty good. (via atrios) But I do wonder if there is some level of overreaction here. Is this really a call to arms?
The Instapundit makes a good point. Even if there was no threat before, any further violence against judges could potentially be blamed on Cornyn and Republicans! Oh dear. Maybe the Righty's should get on this too.
Here's an editorial from the NYT that makes soem good points, they are talking about Delay's remarks though, not Cornyn's.
I think some of the lefty's may be taking the Texas Militia conspiracy a leeeetle far. But I think Cornyn was definetly out of line, and if there are any attacks on judges in the near future I will want his head.
I have been and will continue to be disgusted by people who get up in arms when judicial decisions don't go their way. So here is my note for the wingnuts, moonbat, crazies who have the gall to get angry at judges,
Sir or Madam,
Surprise!!! Not everyone agrees with you! I know it is confusing because when you watch your news channel all the pundits on there are always talking about how dumb the people you disagree with are. But there is a reason we need judges. Their job is to protect the people who disagree
with you, and defend their right to disagree with you and do things that you might not like. And if you don't like it, then LEAVE! We don't want you in this country!You make me sick, and if I could I would have you sterilized for being an idiot, but I can't, because the judges in this country wont let me. Even if I were President and all of my friends who agreed with me were Govorners and
Senators, I couldn't have you sterilized because the courts wouldn't let me. (Unless of course we turn them into puppets of the presiding party before then.... MWAHAHAHA) So, it might be in your best interest to respect the courts, lest I someday take power.Regards,
Shinobi
Monday, April 04, 2005
Oral Sex in the Media
So today after reading an article in the NYT's on hooking up which I quite enjoyed, (I dimly recall a Cabal discussion about this.Article is interesting) I found this dissapointing article
Young teens say oral sex not really sex. And I was in SUCH a good mood after the Pope article.
The Press is clearly trying to terrify every parent of a highschool aged student because, especially fathers of girls. What, do you want all children grounded for life or something? (Over Easter I hung out with my sister and her friend, and her friend's parents were clearly PSYCHO they had her overmedicated, but were taking her anxiety medication away. I mean, I know teenage girls are rough, but come on! Let's not give psycho parents more opportunities to be psycho.)
And then let us examine the part of the excerpt that I have bolded. Not to go with the "people from california are crazy" motif, but, well uhm, California is not the same as the rest of the world, I'm sorry. Maybe if they did like 4 schools in different regions of the US. But 2 schools, both in California. What a completely worthless study. So what we've learned is that students at 2 schools in california think Oral sex is okay. This is NOT viable for the rest of the US population. AT ALL!
I also think that an important thing to examine in this study is who is having all this oral sex, is it the boys or the girls? Is it an even split? I tried to get to the study but I am poor and have no reason to subscribe to the journal of pediatrics. Anyway, there may be no difference, that would be interesting, any information along those lines would be interesting.
Bad Headline Award:Oral Sex Safe and Not Really Sex, Say US TeensABC News - 2 hours ago
This one was tough, because they were all about the same, but since ABC is so visible AND they imply in the title that it is all US Teens, they win. Congratulations ABC News. OO and they don't even mention how limited the study was. BOOOOO Reuters, you get an F.
Young teens say oral sex not really sex.
About one in five ninth-graders report having had oral sex and almost
one-third say they intend to try it during the next six months, a small study of
teens at two California schools reports
The Press is clearly trying to terrify every parent of a highschool aged student because, especially fathers of girls. What, do you want all children grounded for life or something? (Over Easter I hung out with my sister and her friend, and her friend's parents were clearly PSYCHO they had her overmedicated, but were taking her anxiety medication away. I mean, I know teenage girls are rough, but come on! Let's not give psycho parents more opportunities to be psycho.)
And then let us examine the part of the excerpt that I have bolded. Not to go with the "people from california are crazy" motif, but, well uhm, California is not the same as the rest of the world, I'm sorry. Maybe if they did like 4 schools in different regions of the US. But 2 schools, both in California. What a completely worthless study. So what we've learned is that students at 2 schools in california think Oral sex is okay. This is NOT viable for the rest of the US population. AT ALL!
I also think that an important thing to examine in this study is who is having all this oral sex, is it the boys or the girls? Is it an even split? I tried to get to the study but I am poor and have no reason to subscribe to the journal of pediatrics. Anyway, there may be no difference, that would be interesting, any information along those lines would be interesting.
Bad Headline Award:Oral Sex Safe and Not Really Sex, Say US TeensABC News - 2 hours ago
This one was tough, because they were all about the same, but since ABC is so visible AND they imply in the title that it is all US Teens, they win. Congratulations ABC News. OO and they don't even mention how limited the study was. BOOOOO Reuters, you get an F.
OH MY GOD
SO! I was totally like reading like this article about like the pope and stuff, and like they were like right or something and it was crazy. Ow, sorry. So they did a survey of catholics blah blah about the pope blah blah. And I thought, here it comes "Survey Says, Pope a Crossdresser!" But no, they actually were pretty responsible about reporting this survey. I am in shock.
Stunned, I can't figure out who wrote this article to send them love letters, but I am gonna keep looking.
Fifty-five percent said the next pope should allow women to become priests,
while 44 percent said he should not. The question's margin of error means the
difference is too close to draw strong conclusions
Stunned, I can't figure out who wrote this article to send them love letters, but I am gonna keep looking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
