Boy undecided people are ugly. Don't be ugly, make a decision.
You could almost see up that black old ladie's dress, that is seared - seared in my mind.
The only time the crowd laughed when Kerry was speaking was when they laughed at him.
Word in that Chris Mathews though bush won. That settles it for me.
cube
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Teaching illogic
I agree fully point of broken quanta post on studying what teaching methods work and do not work in education.
I also feel the world looks at teaching a little differently than I do. I firmly believe that teaching is the psychological art of manipulating kids into learning. Basically, teaching is one dirty trick after another, with the splendid result of kids actually learning. Things like incentives, random rewards (which have the effect of creating additive behavior), bad cop-good cop, the well known carrot-stick approach, and the speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick theory could generate huge changes in the educational system.
My intent was not to expose my education theory, but to comment on comment left on the post:
Brian says, "How would you like it if your bosses told you that you would henceforth be held personally accountable for a bunch of shit that you don't have anything to do with?"
The basic question I fell Brian is proposing is, "Do teachers have anything to do with children learning?"
Obviously they do. For a person to suggest teachers do not influence a child's learning, or what I like to call "teach", would negate the need for having teachers. If teachers do not teach children, why do you need teachers. Brian, in this short quote, seemed to be taking this position, but wasn't really. Brian was taking the position of "teachers as facilitators".
The facilitator argument rides the line in between holding teachers wholly accountable for teaching and not holding them accountable at all. When looking at teacher accountability, there are only two viable options. On argument states that teachers are wholly accountable. Another one says teachers can only "facilitate" learning and are not in control of the myriad factors affecting their children's ability to learn, achievements, and test scores. Still another one is the one which I have ruled out. These three groups are respectively called "wholly accountables", "facilitators", and "illogics".
While the two viable options seem close, the wholly accountables are actually the enemy of the facilitators.
"AFT (American Federation of Teachers) members in every division are increasingly threatened by privatization and contracting out. "
"The National Education Association is strongly opposed to privatization because of the threat that it poses to the quality of education, the accountability of public schools to the communities they serve, and to the well being of children in school."
I have placed these two groups into the facilitator group by ruling out their placement into the illogics and wholly accountables groups. I do not think these above groups belong into the illogics group because that would be borderline evil. The people who support privatization would like to be considered wholly accountables, but upon closer inspection you find that this group may exist theoretically, but not in realality.
If you where to put your child the hands of a private school and your child did not learn, it would be their fault. You could ask for a refund, if they where true wholly accountables. Good luck trying to get your money back. I bet if you did that, the person who wants to be considered a "wholly accountable" would turn into a "facilitator" right before your eyes. It would then be your fault that the kid did not learn or some other random reason.
The only group remaining is the facilitator group. This only difference in the members of this group is the amount of accountability each member believes teachers should have. I tend to favor more and not less accountability in most things and I do not see how teaching is any different.
cube
I also feel the world looks at teaching a little differently than I do. I firmly believe that teaching is the psychological art of manipulating kids into learning. Basically, teaching is one dirty trick after another, with the splendid result of kids actually learning. Things like incentives, random rewards (which have the effect of creating additive behavior), bad cop-good cop, the well known carrot-stick approach, and the speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick theory could generate huge changes in the educational system.
My intent was not to expose my education theory, but to comment on comment left on the post:
Brian says, "How would you like it if your bosses told you that you would henceforth be held personally accountable for a bunch of shit that you don't have anything to do with?"
The basic question I fell Brian is proposing is, "Do teachers have anything to do with children learning?"
Obviously they do. For a person to suggest teachers do not influence a child's learning, or what I like to call "teach", would negate the need for having teachers. If teachers do not teach children, why do you need teachers. Brian, in this short quote, seemed to be taking this position, but wasn't really. Brian was taking the position of "teachers as facilitators".
The facilitator argument rides the line in between holding teachers wholly accountable for teaching and not holding them accountable at all. When looking at teacher accountability, there are only two viable options. On argument states that teachers are wholly accountable. Another one says teachers can only "facilitate" learning and are not in control of the myriad factors affecting their children's ability to learn, achievements, and test scores. Still another one is the one which I have ruled out. These three groups are respectively called "wholly accountables", "facilitators", and "illogics".
While the two viable options seem close, the wholly accountables are actually the enemy of the facilitators.
"AFT (American Federation of Teachers) members in every division are increasingly threatened by privatization and contracting out. "
"The National Education Association is strongly opposed to privatization because of the threat that it poses to the quality of education, the accountability of public schools to the communities they serve, and to the well being of children in school."
I have placed these two groups into the facilitator group by ruling out their placement into the illogics and wholly accountables groups. I do not think these above groups belong into the illogics group because that would be borderline evil. The people who support privatization would like to be considered wholly accountables, but upon closer inspection you find that this group may exist theoretically, but not in realality.
If you where to put your child the hands of a private school and your child did not learn, it would be their fault. You could ask for a refund, if they where true wholly accountables. Good luck trying to get your money back. I bet if you did that, the person who wants to be considered a "wholly accountable" would turn into a "facilitator" right before your eyes. It would then be your fault that the kid did not learn or some other random reason.
The only group remaining is the facilitator group. This only difference in the members of this group is the amount of accountability each member believes teachers should have. I tend to favor more and not less accountability in most things and I do not see how teaching is any different.
cube
For my purposes
Keywords: Libya, Gaddafi, Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
cube
A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
cube
"We're Screwed!!!"
I just got this email at work, it was addressed to all the professional staff (think programmers, implementation people, and managers)
All,
Argent, a process engineering and management consulting company, will be in our offices October 11-13. The purpose of their visit is to "observe" our operations, review our workflow, facility layout, etc. During their visit, they may ask to speak with some of you from time to time, but it should not be for very long. I will try and have them schedule meetings times so they do not interrupt anyone. If you have any questions, let me know.
Thanks,
"dumb guy I dislike"
The bob's are coming, and my life just grew on step closer to office space.
My office has: The perky girl with the annoying voice, the birthday cake every month, a couple of the cool programmers (" my O - O- O face").
We did have: The guy that came and said hello everyday with a cup of coffee in his hands (he died in a car crash), the odd guy that muttered (fired - what a surprise).
I will update this page as I think of more.
I think I know what movie I am going to watch this weekend.
cube
All,
Argent, a process engineering and management consulting company, will be in our offices October 11-13. The purpose of their visit is to "observe" our operations, review our workflow, facility layout, etc. During their visit, they may ask to speak with some of you from time to time, but it should not be for very long. I will try and have them schedule meetings times so they do not interrupt anyone. If you have any questions, let me know.
Thanks,
"dumb guy I dislike"
The bob's are coming, and my life just grew on step closer to office space.
My office has: The perky girl with the annoying voice, the birthday cake every month, a couple of the cool programmers (" my O - O- O face").
We did have: The guy that came and said hello everyday with a cup of coffee in his hands (he died in a car crash), the odd guy that muttered (fired - what a surprise).
I will update this page as I think of more.
I think I know what movie I am going to watch this weekend.
cube
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Turkey
Turkey has been trying to get into the EU for quite some time now. They are almost in. There is one final hurdle to jump, "EU leaders are expected to deliver a final opinion on whether to open talks with Turkey."
Contrary to popular belief the EU and Turkey do have something in common. They both hate Jews. Hah Hah...I am just kidding, people.
I really do not want to concentrate on the present circumstances of Turkey and the EU. I know very little about each of the parties goals, what membership into the EU means, and why it matters. I would like to take a look at what could happen if Turkey is not allowed in. What would happen if they are forcefully denied entry into the EU?
If turkey wanted in and they were denied, I think there would be a back lash of anger from the population. They are apart of NATO, but they cannot play with the EU. There could be many different reactions from turkey. One options is that out of spite they could seek a comparable trade deal with a competitor. Some of their options are seeking entry into an Asian trading bloc, seeking a trade agreement with the US, or trying to create a Muslim trading bloc.
I have no opinion on the viability of them seeking entry into an Asian trading bloc (if one even exist). They do not really like America, but their is a small chance that they would be willing to join in a trade agreement out of spite, especially if our nation building projects turn our real good.
The third and final option is the most interesting one. There could be several Muslim nations, in the not so far flung future, that could be ready to exercise their collective power to compete against the EU. From my limited knowledge of the area some of the countries that come to mind are: Afghanistan (30 million), Iraq (25 million), Kuwait (2 million), Libya (5 million), Turkey (70 million), Pakistan ( 160 million). If all of the individual problems are solved at once, you could have a large group of people looking to make their lives better. If they collectively decide a trading block is the way to do that you could end up with some strange results.
The EU is able to provide some very power incentives to promote democratic reform and economic reform. Could a MU (Muslim Union) provide similar incentives? Possibly, if there was a strong core of members who supported the democratic polices they were trying export. The idea is an interesting thought experiment.
cube
Contrary to popular belief the EU and Turkey do have something in common. They both hate Jews. Hah Hah...I am just kidding, people.
I really do not want to concentrate on the present circumstances of Turkey and the EU. I know very little about each of the parties goals, what membership into the EU means, and why it matters. I would like to take a look at what could happen if Turkey is not allowed in. What would happen if they are forcefully denied entry into the EU?
If turkey wanted in and they were denied, I think there would be a back lash of anger from the population. They are apart of NATO, but they cannot play with the EU. There could be many different reactions from turkey. One options is that out of spite they could seek a comparable trade deal with a competitor. Some of their options are seeking entry into an Asian trading bloc, seeking a trade agreement with the US, or trying to create a Muslim trading bloc.
I have no opinion on the viability of them seeking entry into an Asian trading bloc (if one even exist). They do not really like America, but their is a small chance that they would be willing to join in a trade agreement out of spite, especially if our nation building projects turn our real good.
The third and final option is the most interesting one. There could be several Muslim nations, in the not so far flung future, that could be ready to exercise their collective power to compete against the EU. From my limited knowledge of the area some of the countries that come to mind are: Afghanistan (30 million), Iraq (25 million), Kuwait (2 million), Libya (5 million), Turkey (70 million), Pakistan ( 160 million). If all of the individual problems are solved at once, you could have a large group of people looking to make their lives better. If they collectively decide a trading block is the way to do that you could end up with some strange results.
The EU is able to provide some very power incentives to promote democratic reform and economic reform. Could a MU (Muslim Union) provide similar incentives? Possibly, if there was a strong core of members who supported the democratic polices they were trying export. The idea is an interesting thought experiment.
cube
Not one to pussy out
Dawn called out the bush supporters, and i bit the line hard.
At 09.28.04 - 6:37 pm I said:
bush's poll numbers with jump by an avergage of 4 percentage points.
in other words he will win.
I placed five dollars on Bush and lost.
I sent an email over to dawn saying.
dawn,
I owe you five dollars.
How do you want payment?
EFT, check, money order, or pay pal.
dammit i lost,
cube
She replied, "woo hoo! paypal, baby!!"
I have paid the required amount through paypal.
cube
At 09.28.04 - 6:37 pm I said:
bush's poll numbers with jump by an avergage of 4 percentage points.
in other words he will win.
I placed five dollars on Bush and lost.
I sent an email over to dawn saying.
dawn,
I owe you five dollars.
How do you want payment?
EFT, check, money order, or pay pal.
dammit i lost,
cube
She replied, "woo hoo! paypal, baby!!"
I have paid the required amount through paypal.
cube
Intresting
CNN Quick Vote
Did the vice presidential debate help you decide which way you will vote?
Yes 51% 173671 votes
No 49% 167526 votes
Total: 341197 votes
cube
Did the vice presidential debate help you decide which way you will vote?
Yes 51% 173671 votes
No 49% 167526 votes
Total: 341197 votes
cube
Bring it on
The United States on Wednesday filed a World Trade Organization complaint over what it called unfair European subsidies to aircraft manufacturer Airbus, the European rival of U.S.-based Boeing.....
...The European Union pledged to file its own case in response.
Our position, and we've said this time and again ... is, if there's a U.S. complaint there will be a European complaint, European Commission spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez said....
Personally I think that each country in the WTO should pursue their own interests. If everyone is watching out for their selves and making sure they are not screwed over by any trade deals, everyone will have fair trade deals. I think large negotiations designed to reach trade agreements on many issues are nice, if you can get them. If every country that had a problem with the way the US or the EU traded (farm subsides and the like) and filed separate complaints on different problems, we would have had many of the major problems solved. Instead they have been trying to get one major trade deal passed. If they effort that was spent on that was spent on each countries issue, I wonder if the large trade deal would be necessary.
About the Airbus case, I think that the EU would have filed a complaint long ago if they thought they were getting an unfair deal. The fact that they are going to file only in reaction to our complaint should tell you something.
cube
Update: Airbus swoops back at Boeing.
Some of the charges that Airbus has are here.
...The European Union pledged to file its own case in response.
Our position, and we've said this time and again ... is, if there's a U.S. complaint there will be a European complaint, European Commission spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez said....
Personally I think that each country in the WTO should pursue their own interests. If everyone is watching out for their selves and making sure they are not screwed over by any trade deals, everyone will have fair trade deals. I think large negotiations designed to reach trade agreements on many issues are nice, if you can get them. If every country that had a problem with the way the US or the EU traded (farm subsides and the like) and filed separate complaints on different problems, we would have had many of the major problems solved. Instead they have been trying to get one major trade deal passed. If they effort that was spent on that was spent on each countries issue, I wonder if the large trade deal would be necessary.
About the Airbus case, I think that the EU would have filed a complaint long ago if they thought they were getting an unfair deal. The fact that they are going to file only in reaction to our complaint should tell you something.
cube
Update: Airbus swoops back at Boeing.
Some of the charges that Airbus has are here.
Update on the SETI signal
I watched part of contact this weekend, so I was wondering what happened to this news story.
The signal, named SHGbo2+14a, apparently emanating from a point between the constellations Pisces and Aries, had been picked up twice by an ingenious SETI scheme which harnesses screensaver programs on millions of personal computers to sift through cosmic noise picked up by a giant radio telescope in Puerto Rico.
Alas: There's nothing there to show SHGbo2+14a is ET's calling card.
Indeed, it is only one of a batch of low-grade "candidate" signals that have been sifted from trillions -- and, given the risk that it could be a statistical freak or the result of equipment interference, it has so far not even been upgraded to the category of "promising," says SETI's Seth Shostak.
Then the article tries to discredit SETI.
No, according to rival theories aired last week in the British weekly science journal Nature, which suggest we have been looking for evidence in the wrong place.
"To send a long message on a radio beam, repeatedly over a very long time...Is a hugely inefficient use of energy."
I would agree with this if the aliens trying to contact us where not an advanced race, followed the human rules of economics, and had a short lifespan. When an article start talking about what an alien would judge as efficient and inefficient, I start to discount it.
The message in the bottle analogy does not hold water with me. Space is mostly space, but if you ever actually get close to anything, you will most likely just crash into it. The land to water ratio is vastly larger than the stuff to space ratio. In other words you chances of getting a message across an ocean are much higher than getting space probe next to an actual space object. A low percentage of "space probes" would actually remain viable, due to the lack of anything there. If a message in a bottle gets close to anything, it is probably what you want (an inhabited land mass). If a space probe gets close to an actual object, it is most likely not what you want and the space probe will most likely crash into it.
Radio waves have none of those limitations. They cover large areas at once. They cover the vastness of space as well as can be hoped (the speed of light). The only limitation is that they grow weaker and less defined the longer they travel. Which is where the energy-efficient argument comes in. The more power you pump into the longer they last. That argument assumes that energy efficiency is something aliens care about. Though I guess searching for radio waves assumes that aliens don't care about energy efficiency. If you were going to get contact from aliens, which ones would you go looking for: the really advanced ones using radio waves or the ones sending space probes out for fun.
Radio waves may not be a good means of communicating through space, but they are an excellent means of first contact. After first contact is made, I don't know what is a good way of talking to aliens, but then again the only person who knows that is the crazy person down the street.
cube
The signal, named SHGbo2+14a, apparently emanating from a point between the constellations Pisces and Aries, had been picked up twice by an ingenious SETI scheme which harnesses screensaver programs on millions of personal computers to sift through cosmic noise picked up by a giant radio telescope in Puerto Rico.
Alas: There's nothing there to show SHGbo2+14a is ET's calling card.
Indeed, it is only one of a batch of low-grade "candidate" signals that have been sifted from trillions -- and, given the risk that it could be a statistical freak or the result of equipment interference, it has so far not even been upgraded to the category of "promising," says SETI's Seth Shostak.
Then the article tries to discredit SETI.
No, according to rival theories aired last week in the British weekly science journal Nature, which suggest we have been looking for evidence in the wrong place.
To send a long message on a radio beam, repeatedly over a very long time and across a wide galactic scale, in the hope that someone eventually receives it, is a hugely inefficient use of energy.
It would be more energy-efficient to send out space probes or inscribed artefacts, "effectively messages in a bottle," suggests Woodruff Sullivan, an astronomer at the University of Washington in Washington state.
Now I take offense to this, they actually insulted my intelligence."To send a long message on a radio beam, repeatedly over a very long time...Is a hugely inefficient use of energy."
I would agree with this if the aliens trying to contact us where not an advanced race, followed the human rules of economics, and had a short lifespan. When an article start talking about what an alien would judge as efficient and inefficient, I start to discount it.
The message in the bottle analogy does not hold water with me. Space is mostly space, but if you ever actually get close to anything, you will most likely just crash into it. The land to water ratio is vastly larger than the stuff to space ratio. In other words you chances of getting a message across an ocean are much higher than getting space probe next to an actual space object. A low percentage of "space probes" would actually remain viable, due to the lack of anything there. If a message in a bottle gets close to anything, it is probably what you want (an inhabited land mass). If a space probe gets close to an actual object, it is most likely not what you want and the space probe will most likely crash into it.
Radio waves have none of those limitations. They cover large areas at once. They cover the vastness of space as well as can be hoped (the speed of light). The only limitation is that they grow weaker and less defined the longer they travel. Which is where the energy-efficient argument comes in. The more power you pump into the longer they last. That argument assumes that energy efficiency is something aliens care about. Though I guess searching for radio waves assumes that aliens don't care about energy efficiency. If you were going to get contact from aliens, which ones would you go looking for: the really advanced ones using radio waves or the ones sending space probes out for fun.
Radio waves may not be a good means of communicating through space, but they are an excellent means of first contact. After first contact is made, I don't know what is a good way of talking to aliens, but then again the only person who knows that is the crazy person down the street.
cube
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Airline's problems
I am sure you heard that US Airways is crashing. The dig is in the "more than $700 million in federally backed loans it received during its last bankruptcy", which the airline could easily leave at the gate. There are many people caught in this mess.
"Pilots "screamed" at the Pennsylvania representatives and took pictures of them as they left a meeting room at the Key Bridge Marriott in Arlington, Va."
Apparently they are so mad, they are taking pictures of people. Damn. What has the world come to?
The airline industry has it's share of problems, most dealing with people not wanting to fly or not needing to. 9-11 is the cause of the first problem. The second problem is the cause of technology and an economic downturn. Emails, phones, and video conferencing are reducing the need to go see people face to face. The decrease in economic activity has resulted in cost cutting across the board. These problems where gracious enough to affect all airlines at the same time, not just US Airways, and to the credit of US Airways I have not heard them blame those to factors.
While it will hurt many people, I think US airways should be put in the hanger. I personally don't feel that the airline that industry is that complicated. Every airline has the same federal rules, same or similar hardware, and same price for jet fuel. The only things I see that could be different is negotiated differences. These could include any of the above, except federal rules, labor,and airport fees. The only concept that comes into play in the differences is economies of scale, a simple business concept. I am sure demand changes through out the year, but that is not overly complicated and probably can be predicted after couple years. Airlines are just really fast taxis. Their goals is simple and their business model should be as well.
Every airline is so similar to every other airline that there seems to be little room for error or gain. The only way the airline industry can grow better as a whole is to let the worse players exit the field. If there is a median level of efficiency, it will remain unchanged if the worst players stay in the game. It could even move downward. The worst will grow worse wiping out any gains the sector makes as a whole. For the median level of efficiency to move ever upward , the lowest ones must be removed.
US Airways has declared bankruptcy once before. If they do it again, they should be shut down.
cube
"Pilots "screamed" at the Pennsylvania representatives and took pictures of them as they left a meeting room at the Key Bridge Marriott in Arlington, Va."
Apparently they are so mad, they are taking pictures of people. Damn. What has the world come to?
The airline industry has it's share of problems, most dealing with people not wanting to fly or not needing to. 9-11 is the cause of the first problem. The second problem is the cause of technology and an economic downturn. Emails, phones, and video conferencing are reducing the need to go see people face to face. The decrease in economic activity has resulted in cost cutting across the board. These problems where gracious enough to affect all airlines at the same time, not just US Airways, and to the credit of US Airways I have not heard them blame those to factors.
While it will hurt many people, I think US airways should be put in the hanger. I personally don't feel that the airline that industry is that complicated. Every airline has the same federal rules, same or similar hardware, and same price for jet fuel. The only things I see that could be different is negotiated differences. These could include any of the above, except federal rules, labor,and airport fees. The only concept that comes into play in the differences is economies of scale, a simple business concept. I am sure demand changes through out the year, but that is not overly complicated and probably can be predicted after couple years. Airlines are just really fast taxis. Their goals is simple and their business model should be as well.
Every airline is so similar to every other airline that there seems to be little room for error or gain. The only way the airline industry can grow better as a whole is to let the worse players exit the field. If there is a median level of efficiency, it will remain unchanged if the worst players stay in the game. It could even move downward. The worst will grow worse wiping out any gains the sector makes as a whole. For the median level of efficiency to move ever upward , the lowest ones must be removed.
US Airways has declared bankruptcy once before. If they do it again, they should be shut down.
cube
I do know a little bit about this
Poincare conjecture is a mathematical problem that is one of the millennium problems. While I don't know much about poincare conjecture, I do know a little bit about another problem that is one of the millennium problems.
P vs NP
The above link gives a good description of the problem. A short blurb I found said:
"The encryption algorithms that make virtually all electronic commerce possible work only because certain mathematical problems are very, very hard to solve. But some mathematicians are trying to prove that there's really no difference between 'hard' and 'not hard' problems--known in the math biz as P and NP."
While the poincare conjecture and P vs Np problems are entirely different, I suspect that they are fairly close to together in the hardness level. To me it is like going into space and creating a nuclear bomb. They are two different problems, which may intersect in some areas, but the main thing they have in common is that both are really hard to do. In other words, it takes a certain level of base technical advancement to be able to solve both problems. Solving one of the problems, while an achievement in itself, increases the pool of mathematical knowledge. That knowledge compounds and builds on it self and in some cases it can even implode, creating something new.
NP problems occur in many cases. Encryption is one, and if I remember my school work correctly, deciding on the shortest path is also an NP problem (think mapquest). This article describes the NP problem very well. If I understand quantum computing correctly, a quantum computer could be built which would render some if not all present encryption schemes useless.
I do not know what the solution to the poincare conjecture would affect, through it deals with mathematical shapes. Heavy duty mathematical shapes, from what i can tell, are used most in the gaming industry and by quantum physicists.
cube
P vs NP
The above link gives a good description of the problem. A short blurb I found said:
"The encryption algorithms that make virtually all electronic commerce possible work only because certain mathematical problems are very, very hard to solve. But some mathematicians are trying to prove that there's really no difference between 'hard' and 'not hard' problems--known in the math biz as P and NP."
While the poincare conjecture and P vs Np problems are entirely different, I suspect that they are fairly close to together in the hardness level. To me it is like going into space and creating a nuclear bomb. They are two different problems, which may intersect in some areas, but the main thing they have in common is that both are really hard to do. In other words, it takes a certain level of base technical advancement to be able to solve both problems. Solving one of the problems, while an achievement in itself, increases the pool of mathematical knowledge. That knowledge compounds and builds on it self and in some cases it can even implode, creating something new.
NP problems occur in many cases. Encryption is one, and if I remember my school work correctly, deciding on the shortest path is also an NP problem (think mapquest). This article describes the NP problem very well. If I understand quantum computing correctly, a quantum computer could be built which would render some if not all present encryption schemes useless.
I do not know what the solution to the poincare conjecture would affect, through it deals with mathematical shapes. Heavy duty mathematical shapes, from what i can tell, are used most in the gaming industry and by quantum physicists.
cube
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Fox is in a mud war with they UN
Trip update
Nothing interesting happened: no wrecks, no hitchhikers, and no nekid women. The apartment did not smell when I came back, which I suspect is due to my efforts in cleaning it. It was a really nice weekend for traveling and driving through the west, central, and south central parts of Arkansas, but I bet it would have been an even better weekend to be in the northwestern part. Oh well, I will take what I can get.
cube
update: Should have read: ...It was a really nice weekend for traveling and driving through the east, central, and south central parts of Arkansas ...
The north western part of Arkansas contains the Ozarks, and the trees in Colorado are turning colors, which made me wonder what the trees in Arkansas are doing.
cube
update: Should have read: ...It was a really nice weekend for traveling and driving through the east, central, and south central parts of Arkansas ...
The north western part of Arkansas contains the Ozarks, and the trees in Colorado are turning colors, which made me wonder what the trees in Arkansas are doing.
Reader Quick poll
Which candidate, George W. Bush or John F. Kerry, would you think more likely to personally put a gun to a terrorist head and pull the trigger?
Secondly, will America ask themselves this question when they vote?
cube
Secondly, will America ask themselves this question when they vote?
cube
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Trip
I am almost all ready for my trip home this weekend. I have done no packing, because I was busy last night watching survivor and watching the debates. I did not wash clothes before I left, so I will have just whitie tighties to wear when I get back. I did wash dishes before I left. Well I started to wash them Monday. I got distracted and left them in the dish water for a few days. Then this morning I had to clean up the mess that was left because of my incompetence, but all I did was drain the water, take the dishes out, and wash them off with clean water. That still did not help the smell, as much as I thought it would, so I sprayed them down with a heavy coat of lysol. Overall I think the dishes were better off before I started washing them Monday, though I that the coat of lysol pushed them toward being more clean or at least smelling less.
I am going to have a good fall weekend and listen to some James Taylor while driving home. You should listen to some James Taylor. I would suggest any songs form his October road album.
cube
I am going to have a good fall weekend and listen to some James Taylor while driving home. You should listen to some James Taylor. I would suggest any songs form his October road album.
cube
Debates
NOTE: I have not read any other reports on the debates yet, and I am writing this the morning after I have slept on it. The only news I have heard about the debates has been from Paul Harvey and the local AM station.
I talked of the debates earlier, and here is what I predicted would happen.
When asked a question Kerry can do several things: Attack Bush's record, promote himself, attack Bush's ideas for the future. Attacking Bush's record is one of the worst things he can do. First off, everyone knows his record, so nothing new is going to come out of that. Secondly, Kerry will meet a wall of conviction. Bush will strip away the long, boring political process talk and concentrate on the reason why he acted in the way he did. In other words from Bush you will get, "I did what I did because I believed it made America safer" . You can argue if Bush's actions accomplished what he wanted to do, but you cannot argue with Bush's goal. Kerry can attempt to cast Bush's judgment into question. That is just trying to jump over the wall of conviction, not avoiding it entirely.
This debate help America a lot because it showed where the candidates are the same and they are different in several areas. Well I don't think it turned out for Kerry as bad at I thought it could have. Kerry seemed on the offensive and bush seemed repetitive. While listening to the debates, I had more moments of "what is he talking about with Kerry" than I did with bush, but I don't know if the rest of America felt the same way.
Major gaffes stories
The major gaff story of this debate is that there were no major gaffes. There were some minor ones that if repeated heavily in the second debates could lead to some trouble for either candidate. When Kerry was asked to what was wrong with Bush's president ideas on one subject, he laughed and said he as a long list of them. I think he meant it as a joke, but it seemed like a joke of contempt to me, I don't think that will play well with people. Bush's response to one question about what would happen if Kerry wins was that it is not going to happen. Everyone likes a winner, but no one likes a bragger. Though we have seen that from bush before, it still does not lessen the effect of it to me.
Instantaneous polls
I heard that Kerry polled well in the focus groups immediately after the debate. This will fade as people sleep on what he said. It appears Bush did not poll well because he seemed irritable. My response is that it is really tough to be called a liar to your face and to not be able to do anything about it. [Crazy liberal in my head says, "But would not you get used to it after awhile." I say, "No, you would only become more agitated as time went on."]
Policy Highlights
Iraq
Kerry did not our right contradict himself within the idea of Iraq, but He did suggest different views of Iraq. He at one time said that we should not have taken off our focus on Iraq and that Iraq is not the center of the war on terror. Then at another turn he criticized Bush for allowing terrorist to come across the boarder in Iraq, but yet Iraq is not important on the war on terror. I am confused.
North Korea
The way Kerry wants to handle Iraq is completely different than the way he wants to handle North Korea. He repeatably said that he wanted Bi-lateral talks with North Korea instead of multi-party talks like the president wanted. That was until at the end of talking about North Korea, Kerry said we needed to not alienate China. He strayed from his idea, though I don't know if will hurt him.
Iran
I have no idea what Kerry wanted to do with Iran, that was different than what was already being done.
Recap
Kerry said he could do Iraq better than Bush because he can bring our allies in to share the cost. Kerry wanted to try something that did not work with North Korea, again.
Finally, Kerry did not have anything new to bring to the table where Iran was concerned. I wonder if everyone else realizes this.
cube
update: CNN quick vote
Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?
President George W. Bush 21% 85500 votes
Sen. John Kerry 72% 291577 votes
Evenly matched 7% 26371 votes
Total: 403448 votes
update2: I for got to mention the warmest moment of the debate, it was not when bush gave his mushy I pray with the family line, I was when both of the candidates were talking about their daughters. That helped both candidates, and both should replay the part they find most favorable, as much as possible.
Update 3: I left a fun game at say uncle.
"Fun game to play. See you can restate what Kerry's foreign policy will be.
Once you do that, ask yourself how is it different from what Bush is doing? "
update 4: Well most of the web agrees that Kerry won on presentation. My friends and I agree on that also, but we think Kerry lost the content part. One of my friends made a good point about the differences between the candidates. Kerry is the conservative when it comes to the war on terror (he wants to fight it the way it has always been done. one-more-resolution- Kerry, is my new nickname), and bush is the progressive in this debate.
I talked of the debates earlier, and here is what I predicted would happen.
When asked a question Kerry can do several things: Attack Bush's record, promote himself, attack Bush's ideas for the future. Attacking Bush's record is one of the worst things he can do. First off, everyone knows his record, so nothing new is going to come out of that. Secondly, Kerry will meet a wall of conviction. Bush will strip away the long, boring political process talk and concentrate on the reason why he acted in the way he did. In other words from Bush you will get, "I did what I did because I believed it made America safer" . You can argue if Bush's actions accomplished what he wanted to do, but you cannot argue with Bush's goal. Kerry can attempt to cast Bush's judgment into question. That is just trying to jump over the wall of conviction, not avoiding it entirely.
This debate help America a lot because it showed where the candidates are the same and they are different in several areas. Well I don't think it turned out for Kerry as bad at I thought it could have. Kerry seemed on the offensive and bush seemed repetitive. While listening to the debates, I had more moments of "what is he talking about with Kerry" than I did with bush, but I don't know if the rest of America felt the same way.
Major gaffes stories
The major gaff story of this debate is that there were no major gaffes. There were some minor ones that if repeated heavily in the second debates could lead to some trouble for either candidate. When Kerry was asked to what was wrong with Bush's president ideas on one subject, he laughed and said he as a long list of them. I think he meant it as a joke, but it seemed like a joke of contempt to me, I don't think that will play well with people. Bush's response to one question about what would happen if Kerry wins was that it is not going to happen. Everyone likes a winner, but no one likes a bragger. Though we have seen that from bush before, it still does not lessen the effect of it to me.
Instantaneous polls
I heard that Kerry polled well in the focus groups immediately after the debate. This will fade as people sleep on what he said. It appears Bush did not poll well because he seemed irritable. My response is that it is really tough to be called a liar to your face and to not be able to do anything about it. [Crazy liberal in my head says, "But would not you get used to it after awhile." I say, "No, you would only become more agitated as time went on."]
Policy Highlights
Iraq
Kerry did not our right contradict himself within the idea of Iraq, but He did suggest different views of Iraq. He at one time said that we should not have taken off our focus on Iraq and that Iraq is not the center of the war on terror. Then at another turn he criticized Bush for allowing terrorist to come across the boarder in Iraq, but yet Iraq is not important on the war on terror. I am confused.
North Korea
The way Kerry wants to handle Iraq is completely different than the way he wants to handle North Korea. He repeatably said that he wanted Bi-lateral talks with North Korea instead of multi-party talks like the president wanted. That was until at the end of talking about North Korea, Kerry said we needed to not alienate China. He strayed from his idea, though I don't know if will hurt him.
Iran
I have no idea what Kerry wanted to do with Iran, that was different than what was already being done.
Recap
Kerry said he could do Iraq better than Bush because he can bring our allies in to share the cost. Kerry wanted to try something that did not work with North Korea, again.
Finally, Kerry did not have anything new to bring to the table where Iran was concerned. I wonder if everyone else realizes this.
cube
update: CNN quick vote
Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?
President George W. Bush 21% 85500 votes
Sen. John Kerry 72% 291577 votes
Evenly matched 7% 26371 votes
Total: 403448 votes
update2: I for got to mention the warmest moment of the debate, it was not when bush gave his mushy I pray with the family line, I was when both of the candidates were talking about their daughters. That helped both candidates, and both should replay the part they find most favorable, as much as possible.
Update 3: I left a fun game at say uncle.
"Fun game to play. See you can restate what Kerry's foreign policy will be.
Once you do that, ask yourself how is it different from what Bush is doing? "
update 4: Well most of the web agrees that Kerry won on presentation. My friends and I agree on that also, but we think Kerry lost the content part. One of my friends made a good point about the differences between the candidates. Kerry is the conservative when it comes to the war on terror (he wants to fight it the way it has always been done. one-more-resolution- Kerry, is my new nickname), and bush is the progressive in this debate.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Don't cut out the middle man
Yglesias said, "Brad Delong says he has five reasons to support Social Security privatization. I say all of his reasons are compatible with my preferred solution -- federal investment in a broad index of stocks -- except for a sub-section of argument."
So I went and took a gander at brad's reasons. He has some fairly high brow ones, but some simple ones. He left out cutting out the middle man and simplifying the system. A simple system (when dealing with money) means less money is lost in the process. The net savings of not passing the money to the government so that they could give it back to you, could be great. Think of all those government salaries that will not be paid because there is nothing for them to do.
Though I think I pointed out the problem with forced savings accounts. They are better than the government taking and hold you money, but not as good as you doing it yourself with out government interference. Your tax dollars are paying for the enforment of rules that force you to save, this is considered a good idea by many people.
cube
So I went and took a gander at brad's reasons. He has some fairly high brow ones, but some simple ones. He left out cutting out the middle man and simplifying the system. A simple system (when dealing with money) means less money is lost in the process. The net savings of not passing the money to the government so that they could give it back to you, could be great. Think of all those government salaries that will not be paid because there is nothing for them to do.
Though I think I pointed out the problem with forced savings accounts. They are better than the government taking and hold you money, but not as good as you doing it yourself with out government interference. Your tax dollars are paying for the enforment of rules that force you to save, this is considered a good idea by many people.
cube
It feels good to be validated
From a recent article that I was reading in preparation for the debates:
Obviously, Bush doesn't sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech: a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff's view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush's consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can't afford to let the mask slip.
I say: Maybe. Clearly Bush has been content to let his opponents, including the press, think him a numbskull. Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful: his friends don't mind, and his enemies continue to underestimate him. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States.
I had this exact conversation with Sandcastle several months ago.
His response was that Karl rove has never told anyone to act stupid in order to get elected. Well I just had my idea validated in a major publication. I like being me sometimes.
via vodkapundit
cube
Obviously, Bush doesn't sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech: a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff's view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush's consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can't afford to let the mask slip.
I say: Maybe. Clearly Bush has been content to let his opponents, including the press, think him a numbskull. Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful: his friends don't mind, and his enemies continue to underestimate him. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States.
I had this exact conversation with Sandcastle several months ago.
His response was that Karl rove has never told anyone to act stupid in order to get elected. Well I just had my idea validated in a major publication. I like being me sometimes.
via vodkapundit
cube
Russian Cabinet Approves Kyoto Climate Treaty
I would like to see a serious, distilled, non-biased discussion of the Kyoto treaty, I really don't know much about it. All I know is that I dislike the name, it sounds like something you catch on you way to Japan.
If you could point me to any discussion on this I would be happy. I am willing to read a good bit about this, so it if is long that is fine.
Do not bother telling me tech central has any articles, I will probably search there myself.
thanks
cube
If you could point me to any discussion on this I would be happy. I am willing to read a good bit about this, so it if is long that is fine.
Do not bother telling me tech central has any articles, I will probably search there myself.
thanks
cube
The AWB (assault Weapons Ban)
This is a recent poll on the Assault weapons ban. I thought it was interesting.
Created: Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 18:31:45 EDT
Is it right to let the assault weapons ban expire?
Yes 26% 49642 votes
No 74% 143908 votes
Total: 193550 votes
cube
Created: Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 18:31:45 EDT
Is it right to let the assault weapons ban expire?
Yes 26% 49642 votes
No 74% 143908 votes
Total: 193550 votes
cube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)