Philosoraptor
Friday, July 17, 2009
Might Palin Start A Third Party?
Don't get excited...I have no information to that effect.
I was just thinking that the GOP establishment is unlikely to accept her as a candidate, and that she might not be willing to play second fiddle again.
And she seems loony/narcissistic enough to do that even if it will clearly split the conservative vote.
A blogger can dream, can't he?
Don't get excited...I have no information to that effect.
I was just thinking that the GOP establishment is unlikely to accept her as a candidate, and that she might not be willing to play second fiddle again.
And she seems loony/narcissistic enough to do that even if it will clearly split the conservative vote.
A blogger can dream, can't he?
Pitchgate
The true mark of a good president, of course, is his pitching ability.
On the bright side, it is probably not possible for The Corner to get any more pathetic...
The true mark of a good president, of course, is his pitching ability.
On the bright side, it is probably not possible for The Corner to get any more pathetic...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Student At The U of Oregon Wonders Whether It Matters That All His Profs Are Democrats;
In Response, Liberal Professors Ridicule and Scream At Him
Niiiiiice. (At the Christian Science Monitor.)
I've had similar experiences, actually, though the psychotic reactions have normally come from the far left--and I wonder whether the loony professors in this story might not actually be farther left than liberal. Just a hypothesis, of course. Some liberals are loony too.
Note the extra bonus anti-southern comment by one of the profs in question. Lord knows we is all ignernt racists underneath that thar Manson-Dixie whatsis. Why, the average street person in Eugene Oregon is actually notably more intelligent than tenured professors at our best universities. True fact.
In Response, Liberal Professors Ridicule and Scream At Him
Niiiiiice. (At the Christian Science Monitor.)
I've had similar experiences, actually, though the psychotic reactions have normally come from the far left--and I wonder whether the loony professors in this story might not actually be farther left than liberal. Just a hypothesis, of course. Some liberals are loony too.
Note the extra bonus anti-southern comment by one of the profs in question. Lord knows we is all ignernt racists underneath that thar Manson-Dixie whatsis. Why, the average street person in Eugene Oregon is actually notably more intelligent than tenured professors at our best universities. True fact.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Austin Mountain, Shenandoah National Park, Virginia / Big Ass BearMy new Indian name should be Hikes With Wrong Lens... If I'd had the 300mm I'd have gotten a great shot.
Anyway, had a great hike today on Austin mountain. Four bear sightings, including the one in the lower three pix. I've been hiking around with my digital Rebel slung over my shoulder, which (given that I've already got at least a water pack on), is rather a pain. So this time I think to myself: those bears are always gone in an instant anyway...there's
never enough time to get a good shot. I'll just take the Sigma 17-200 in case I see another Timber rattler, and I'll keep it in my pack, as those things generally don't run off. So of course, less than a mile in, I see a BIG ASS BEAR (see pix right). And it just stands in the trail. I snap some shots, then start making some noise--it's apparently not good to sneak up on even mere black bears, and I don't want to get this one in trouble. Well, it trots down the trail a bit, but...doesn't really seem too concerned. In fact, it slows to a walk and just stays on the trail. In fact, it seems rather disinclined to make way. So, I'm making some noise and hanging back... 
But the bear is acting a bit odd, and I want to see where it leaves the trail...there's lots of visibility forward here, and it's moving so slowly that I'm having a hard time walking more slowly than it is. I saw a big cub run across the trail awhile before I saw this animal, and so I'm treating it as if it's the sow of that cub...that is, giving it plenty of room.
Now, normally I have a can of bear spray clipped on my pack. You don't need it around these parts, but it's there and I don't take it off. But I noticed as I was leaving
this morning that it wasn't there. I made a cursory search, but had to get going...and, as I said, you don't really need it in the SNP. But I'm not wild about the way this bear is acting. At one point it semi-turns around and may or may not have taken a seemingly bad-natured swipe at a sapling. This I don't care for much. So I give up my strategy of hoping to see where it leaves the trail, and just stay put while it ambles over the next rise. As I walked on, I loudly explained to the local bears that my Indian name is actually Avoids Sneaking Up On Bears, or Greatly Admires Bears, or Tastes Really Bad... Soon the trail forked, and the grass going the other way indicated lots of traffic, so I hoped it went that way. Though for the next several miles, the Austin Mountain trail showed really heavy bear signs. Later on, I heard a bear making its way up the mountain toward the trail. I was a bit skittish from my earlier encounter, and as soon as it popped out onto the trail--looking away from me, so I would have had time to get a pic--I said "Hey, bear!" It was about a yearling cub, it looked around like WTF!!1 and took off post haste. If I'd have waited long enough to see that it was small I would have realized that I didn't need to say anything and could have gotten the shot. Ah well.
Austin Mountain--great hike, lots of bears, philosoraptor says: check it out.
Do Radical Professors Produce Radical Students?
Maybe not.
I haven't looked at the details of the study yet, so I don't have any opinion about its value...though, sadly, I have a sort of background skepticism about such studies...
There are still obvious reasons to be concerned about the prevalence of radical professors, of course. But it'd be a relief to find out that they weren't effectively brainwashing their students.
Howley refers to right-wing "hysteria" about this issue...and that's probably an accurate term. What puzzles me, however, is why liberals are so dismissive of the problem. (a) Radicals are not liberals; radicals tend to have decidedly illiberal views. So if liberals think that radical professors are their allies, they are largely mistaken. (b) Even if (and to the extent that) radical professors are the allies of liberals, I take it that liberalism is opposed to bias and brainwashing in all their forms. Ergo liberals shouldn't be sanguine about students being brainwashed, even if they are being brainwashed with liberal-friendly doctrines.
My own experience suggests that exposure to radical professors does influence students. Many students are savvy about this stuff, and just dismiss the brainwashers. On many students, the propaganda has the opposite of the intended effect, and they are driven to the right. But many students are led down a path to moonbatism...a path they would probably never discovered on their own. Perhaps it all balances out...but I'd be rather surprised if it did.
Guess I'd better actually read the paper in question, huh?
Maybe not.
I haven't looked at the details of the study yet, so I don't have any opinion about its value...though, sadly, I have a sort of background skepticism about such studies...
There are still obvious reasons to be concerned about the prevalence of radical professors, of course. But it'd be a relief to find out that they weren't effectively brainwashing their students.
Howley refers to right-wing "hysteria" about this issue...and that's probably an accurate term. What puzzles me, however, is why liberals are so dismissive of the problem. (a) Radicals are not liberals; radicals tend to have decidedly illiberal views. So if liberals think that radical professors are their allies, they are largely mistaken. (b) Even if (and to the extent that) radical professors are the allies of liberals, I take it that liberalism is opposed to bias and brainwashing in all their forms. Ergo liberals shouldn't be sanguine about students being brainwashed, even if they are being brainwashed with liberal-friendly doctrines.
My own experience suggests that exposure to radical professors does influence students. Many students are savvy about this stuff, and just dismiss the brainwashers. On many students, the propaganda has the opposite of the intended effect, and they are driven to the right. But many students are led down a path to moonbatism...a path they would probably never discovered on their own. Perhaps it all balances out...but I'd be rather surprised if it did.
Guess I'd better actually read the paper in question, huh?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Lockheed's F-22 Propaganda
I forgot to mention that after I posted on the F-22 question last year, I got an e-mail from a PR flack working for Lockheed, in which said flack sent me no less than three links to op-eds...all of which turned out to have been written by people with links to Lockheed-Martin...about how awesome the F-22 is. There were also the standard sophistical arguments about how many jobs would be lost if F-22 production were slowed or terminated.
But building ultra-high-tech fighters is a really bad way to create jobs. Those jobs tend to be highly-skilled, high-paying jobs...and so you make fewer of them. If you need an ultra-high-tech fighter, then by all means build one; but if you need to create jobs, build roads or something. Anything we build is going to create or sustain jobs, so that's not an argument for the F-22 as opposed to whatever else we might do with the money. But there probably aren't many things we could build that would make fewer jobs per dollar than an F-22.
The PR flack in question was nice enough, but I find it nauseating that companies like Lockheed spend money (money which ultimately probably came from our tax dollars) to buy ads trying to cajole us into buying weapons that we may not need...hence which may ultimately make the country less safe. (Of course I find it nauseating that anyone would ever be or hire a PR flack at all, but that's a whole other story...)
Let me say again that I'm not anti-F-22; I'm just against spending defense dollars in suboptimal ways, and I'm not convinced that money spent on the F-22 is money optimally spent.
I forgot to mention that after I posted on the F-22 question last year, I got an e-mail from a PR flack working for Lockheed, in which said flack sent me no less than three links to op-eds...all of which turned out to have been written by people with links to Lockheed-Martin...about how awesome the F-22 is. There were also the standard sophistical arguments about how many jobs would be lost if F-22 production were slowed or terminated.
But building ultra-high-tech fighters is a really bad way to create jobs. Those jobs tend to be highly-skilled, high-paying jobs...and so you make fewer of them. If you need an ultra-high-tech fighter, then by all means build one; but if you need to create jobs, build roads or something. Anything we build is going to create or sustain jobs, so that's not an argument for the F-22 as opposed to whatever else we might do with the money. But there probably aren't many things we could build that would make fewer jobs per dollar than an F-22.
The PR flack in question was nice enough, but I find it nauseating that companies like Lockheed spend money (money which ultimately probably came from our tax dollars) to buy ads trying to cajole us into buying weapons that we may not need...hence which may ultimately make the country less safe. (Of course I find it nauseating that anyone would ever be or hire a PR flack at all, but that's a whole other story...)
Let me say again that I'm not anti-F-22; I'm just against spending defense dollars in suboptimal ways, and I'm not convinced that money spent on the F-22 is money optimally spent.
Irish Anti-Blasphemy Law Passes
Wow. Here's something alarming: Ireland apparently just passed an anti-blasphemy law. An excerpt, from the other end of the link:
(i) Write or say something "grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred" by some religion or other,
and
(ii) Intend to cause outrage by the writing or utterance,
and
(iii) The writing or utterance must, in fact, cause "outrage among a substantial number" of adherents of the religion in question
So, basically, you can't say something really obnoxious about some religion in an attempt to stir up its adherents...or, rather, you can, but if you're successful, you've broken the law.
So the law is far less outrageous that some would have us believe. Apparently all genuine, serious criticisms of any religion are still lawful.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it still looks like an utterly mad law to me--a blatant violation of one's inalienable right to free speech. But this is the sort of thing legal scholars will have something interesting to say about, and there's no reason for folks like me to spend any time on it until such folks have had their say. There's no doubt there are some well-known and important issues in play here, and legal scholars are the ones who'll know the lay of that land.
(Via Sullivan's digs.)
Wow. Here's something alarming: Ireland apparently just passed an anti-blasphemy law. An excerpt, from the other end of the link:
Section 36
(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
There are lots of loose criticisms of this law flying around on the web...but, contrary to what some are saying, e.g. denying the infallibility of the Pope, or denying that Joseph Smith was visited by a flaming salamander or making fun of atheism or whatever doesn't seem to be prohibited by this law. Rather you've got to:(i) Write or say something "grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred" by some religion or other,
and
(ii) Intend to cause outrage by the writing or utterance,
and
(iii) The writing or utterance must, in fact, cause "outrage among a substantial number" of adherents of the religion in question
So, basically, you can't say something really obnoxious about some religion in an attempt to stir up its adherents...or, rather, you can, but if you're successful, you've broken the law.
So the law is far less outrageous that some would have us believe. Apparently all genuine, serious criticisms of any religion are still lawful.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it still looks like an utterly mad law to me--a blatant violation of one's inalienable right to free speech. But this is the sort of thing legal scholars will have something interesting to say about, and there's no reason for folks like me to spend any time on it until such folks have had their say. There's no doubt there are some well-known and important issues in play here, and legal scholars are the ones who'll know the lay of that land.
(Via Sullivan's digs.)
Shorter "Sarah Palin"
So here's a piece from the Post by "Sarah Palin"--who, weirdly, writes like 7,000 times more coherently than she speaks! (Though, to tell the truth, still not that coherently...) And who also weirdly seems to have suddenly taken an interest in and learned something about energy policy! What could possibly account for these facts about this editorial with her name on it???
Anyway, shorter "Sarah Palin":
So here's a piece from the Post by "Sarah Palin"--who, weirdly, writes like 7,000 times more coherently than she speaks! (Though, to tell the truth, still not that coherently...) And who also weirdly seems to have suddenly taken an interest in and learned something about energy policy! What could possibly account for these facts about this editorial with her name on it???
Anyway, shorter "Sarah Palin":
Because they all hate the baby Jesus, those Washington bureaucrats don't want us to use the energy sources that He put right under our feet, and which he explicitly intended for us to burn in order to warm the atmosphere! Obama's atheist, anti-Jesistical "cap-and-tax" policy is intended to send your hard-earned money straight to the commies so they can clobber or bushwack or do other folksily violent things to us.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Politicians Hitting on David Brooks
and
Some Unfair Criticism From Hilzoy
L
O
L
Brooks mentions all this by way of supporting his claim that politicians are emotional freaks who invade your personal space. In a few seconds he says "I can only imagine what happens to you guys"--that is, apparently, women. Then he again indicates that it's a problem for females:
Hilzoy:
Me, I firmly believe that all guys who grope or otherwise sexually harass women ought to be punched squarely in the nose. I have a kind of zero tolerance policy about this kind of thing. (Though you have to watch out not to get overly zealous, interfering with normal human consensual flirting and all that...but that goes without saying.)
But it's absolutely unfair to unload on Brooks with all this stuff. He's in no way denying that women have it worse--in fact he explicitly acknowledges it. He mentions a hilarious anecdote in passing, and that's all.
Cut him some slack.
and
Some Unfair Criticism From Hilzoy
L
O
L
BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.Hilzoy apparently thinks it's not o.k. for Brooks to mention this given that women have to put up with much worse...which is ridiculous.
Brooks mentions all this by way of supporting his claim that politicians are emotional freaks who invade your personal space. In a few seconds he says "I can only imagine what happens to you guys"--that is, apparently, women. Then he again indicates that it's a problem for females:
I’ve spoken to a lot of young women who are Senate staffers and they’ll have these middle age guys who are sort of in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Emotionally needy, they don’t know how to do it and sort of like these St. Bernards drooling everywhere. And you find a lot of this happens in mid-life and among very powerful people who are extremely lonely.Brooks's words and actions are unimpeachable here. He just mentions this in passing, because it's funny and supports his point. (And look--it's important for us to know that our politicians are freaks!) He immediately makes it clear that he knows women have it worse. Heck, in what seems to be a response to what seems to be a question about why he didn't ask the senator to remove his hand from his (Brooks's) "inner thigh," he (Brooks) says "I’m trying not to be too dignified and stuffy." So it seems that Brooks is even trying to be cool about this possibly-homoerotic invasion of his personal space. You'd think a conservative American male would get some props for that from liberals...but apparently not.
Hilzoy:
News flash: This has been happening to people forever, at least if you count women as people. Back when George Washington was writing out his "Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation", which Brooks cites as an example of the Dignity Code, Thomas Jefferson was hitting on Sally Hemings. A professor whose class I was enrolled in once grabbed my breasts at a party. Every woman I know has stories like this. Maybe being groped in a public setting is a novel experience for straight guys; not being a straight guy, I wouldn't know. But if it is, that isn't because no one ever groped anyone in a public setting before.Chill out, sister Hilzoy. Nobody's denying any of that stuff, least of all Brooks. It's just not relevant here. The professor who grabbed you deserves an ass-kicking--we're all on board with that. But that has nothing to do with what Brooks is saying.
Me, I firmly believe that all guys who grope or otherwise sexually harass women ought to be punched squarely in the nose. I have a kind of zero tolerance policy about this kind of thing. (Though you have to watch out not to get overly zealous, interfering with normal human consensual flirting and all that...but that goes without saying.)
But it's absolutely unfair to unload on Brooks with all this stuff. He's in no way denying that women have it worse--in fact he explicitly acknowledges it. He mentions a hilarious anecdote in passing, and that's all.
Cut him some slack.
Labels: David Brooks, inner thigh, touchy touchy, wide stance
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Holder To Investigate Bush Administration Torture?
I'm probably the last to hear about this:
My standard line is roughly:
(a) Moral consideration trump prudential considerations.
(b) We're asking whether we should investigate, not whether we should convict.
(c) Discovering the truth about such matters is, actually, in the long-term prudential interest of the country.
(See how I get to have my cake ((a)) and eat it too ((c))? Clever, eh?)
Questions of this kind are at the heart of who we are as a nation. I'm inclined to think that we have to find out the truth here, whatever it may be. By this point I am, of course, ready to believe almost anything about Bush, Cheney and company--but if I'm wrong, I certainly want to know it. And even I cannot really believe e.g. that Cheney encouraged torture after the invasion to bolster his unwarranted assertions about an Iran-al Qaeda link. That really is Papa Doc territory.
I worry that Republicans have an inclination to a kind of thuggish authoritarianism that, personified, would say something like: "We'll do what we want, and if you gain power and try to hold us accountable, we'll demagogue the issue and take control again." The Dems, on the other hand, seem to be motivate by some mixture of forgiveness and cowardice that I can't quite sort out, which, if personified, would say something like: "maybe if we just let them get away with this one they won't get any madder." (That type of mixture, incidentally, seems common to me.)
Part of the Republican base is easily angered. Heck, they seem to be always already mad. And the worse elements of the GOP will be able to whip them into a frenzy if this investigation spins up. And that will be bad. But if we allow ourselvs to take that into account, we are basically saying that we can never investigate any major Republican wrong-doing. That is to give them carte blanche to do whatever they like. And that would mean the end of the rule of law in America. The sane parts of the GOP don't want that, either, and it's time for those sane parts to assert themselves rather more forcefully.
I'm probably the last to hear about this:
Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform.Well, that about sums up the situation, yes?
My standard line is roughly:
(a) Moral consideration trump prudential considerations.
(b) We're asking whether we should investigate, not whether we should convict.
(c) Discovering the truth about such matters is, actually, in the long-term prudential interest of the country.
(See how I get to have my cake ((a)) and eat it too ((c))? Clever, eh?)
Questions of this kind are at the heart of who we are as a nation. I'm inclined to think that we have to find out the truth here, whatever it may be. By this point I am, of course, ready to believe almost anything about Bush, Cheney and company--but if I'm wrong, I certainly want to know it. And even I cannot really believe e.g. that Cheney encouraged torture after the invasion to bolster his unwarranted assertions about an Iran-al Qaeda link. That really is Papa Doc territory.
I worry that Republicans have an inclination to a kind of thuggish authoritarianism that, personified, would say something like: "We'll do what we want, and if you gain power and try to hold us accountable, we'll demagogue the issue and take control again." The Dems, on the other hand, seem to be motivate by some mixture of forgiveness and cowardice that I can't quite sort out, which, if personified, would say something like: "maybe if we just let them get away with this one they won't get any madder." (That type of mixture, incidentally, seems common to me.)
Part of the Republican base is easily angered. Heck, they seem to be always already mad. And the worse elements of the GOP will be able to whip them into a frenzy if this investigation spins up. And that will be bad. But if we allow ourselvs to take that into account, we are basically saying that we can never investigate any major Republican wrong-doing. That is to give them carte blanche to do whatever they like. And that would mean the end of the rule of law in America. The sane parts of the GOP don't want that, either, and it's time for those sane parts to assert themselves rather more forcefully.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Some F-22 vs. SU-35 BVR Simulation Data
Simulation data from DERA gives the following win %s [beyond visual range] against the SU-35:
[So this is not dogfighting. But, then, part of the point of the F-22 is to kill targets before they see you.]
F-22: 91%
Eurofighter: 82%
Rafale: 50%
F-15(C?): 43%
F-18+: 25%
F-18(C?): 21%
F-16(C?): 21%
(Incidentally: looks like the Russians finally have something that can best the F-15...)
Simulation data from DERA gives the following win %s [beyond visual range] against the SU-35:
[So this is not dogfighting. But, then, part of the point of the F-22 is to kill targets before they see you.]
F-22: 91%
Eurofighter: 82%
Rafale: 50%
F-15(C?): 43%
F-18+: 25%
F-18(C?): 21%
F-16(C?): 21%
(Incidentally: looks like the Russians finally have something that can best the F-15...)
