Knowledge of science

As my regular readers know, I despair about the lack of decent education in this country. Science is one topic that is under intense scrutiny, and here is a test, conducted by Pew Research that speaks volumes. It is a (relatively) simple 12-question quiz, and shows how you fare compared to other demographic groups. Give it a shot, and see how you do. I found the results very interesting, and the section which breaks down the percentage of correct answers by age really supports my hypothesis about the idiocy of the younger generation. Fascinating stuff, yet depressing.

The future - never certain

A good friend sent this to me recently, but its author is unknown. Enjoy - and let me have your thoughts too! (One thing does strike me right off the bat - this is a U.S.-centric view, and it doesn't really hold water when looked at in a global context. Like it or not, we do live in an ever-shrinking world, so I think it's important to bear that in mind while reading this.)

[Italicized notes in square brackets are my bafflegabbed, peanut gallery comments.]

----------------

British GPO logo

1. The Post Office. Get ready to imagine a world without the post office. They are so deeply in financial trouble that there is probably no way to sustain it long term. Email, FedEx, and UPS have just about wiped out the minimum revenue needed to keep the post office alive. Most of your mail every day is junk mail and bills. [Maybe true for the U.S., not necessarily so in other countries, particularly those where the Post Office is state-run, handles business other than delivering mail, and can run at a loss because it is subsidized. And, in the U.S., what about people who aren't online, including those who would love to be but cannot because they live in rural areas? Not even FedEx and UPS serve them - only the USPS does! Additionally, there are those who simply cannot afford to be online. Will the U.S. Gov't subsidize the rural and the poor? I think not...]

Check that purchased Alaska

2. The Check. Britain is already laying the groundwork to do away with checks by 2018. It costs the financial system billions of dollars a year to process checks. Plastic cards and online transactions will lead to the eventual demise of the check. This plays right into the death of the post office. If you never paid your bills by mail and never received them by mail, the post office would absolutely go out of business. [The payment system model is changing rapidly and radically - I think that even plastic will soon be history. But, as is often the case, this is a much larger topic that needs to be reserved for a different time. Update Nov. 2: Coincidentally, this appeared in Monday's edition of the S.F. Chronicle, discussing the problem of reluctance by banks in the U.S. to move to newer technology - again, giving me ammo for my view that this author was being very U.S.-centric in his/her essay.]

3. The Newspaper. The younger generation simply doesn't read the newspaper. They certainly don't subscribe to a daily delivered print edition. That may go the way of the milkman and the laundry man. As for reading the paper online, get ready to pay for it. The rise in mobile Internet devices and e-readers has caused all the newspaper and magazine publishers to form an alliance. They have met with Apple, Amazon, and the major cell phone companies to develop a model for paid subscription services. [I really don't think newspapers have much of a chance setting up paywalls at this stage of the game - that train left the station a long time ago. I despair for the future of decent journalism. Sure, the likes of the NYTimes will survive, but most of them, I fear, will be joining the horse-and-buggy set soon.]

Mmm ... paper!

4. The Book. You say you will never give up the physical book that you hold in your hand and turn the literal pages. I said the same thing about downloading music from iTunes. I wanted my hard copy CD. But I quickly changed my mind when I discovered that I could get albums for half the price without ever leaving home to get the latest music. The same thing will happen with books. You can browse a bookstore online and even read a preview chapter before you buy. And the price is less than half that of a real book. [Not true - in fact, there's a debate raging right now about the fact that the likes of Amazon are now charging more for e-books than their printed counterparts. This is being forced on e-booksellers by the publishers.] And think of the convenience! Once you start flicking your fingers on the screen instead of the book, you find that you are lost in the story, can't wait to see what happens next, and you forget that you're holding a gadget instead of a book. [This is a slightly naïve view - distribution and sale of content in all its forms is undergoing a sea-change. The primary issue in my mind is the lack of permanence when it comes to electronic storage; this, however, is an issue that goes way beyond the scope of this discussion.]

Who remembers how to use that
twirly thing on the front?!

5. The Land Line Telephone. Unless you have a large family and make a lot of local calls, you don't need it anymore. Most people keep it simply because they're [sic] always had it. But you are paying double charges for that extra service. All the cell phone companies will let you call customers using the same cell provider for no charge against your minutes. [In most countries, mobile phones are already way in the majority and, indeed, many developing countries have skipped landline technology and gone directly to mobile, giving them a huge advantage (no maintenance of an aging infrastructure is necessary). In some respects, there are connections here to my post a few days ago about centralized vs distributed organisms.]

6. Music. This is one of the saddest parts of the change story. The music industry is dying a slow death. Not just because of illegal downloading. It's the lack of innovative new music being given a chance to get to the people who would like to hear it. Greed and corruption is the problem. The record labels and the radio conglomerates simply self-destruction. [That's not a sentence - where's the verb?] Over 40% of the music purchased today is "catalog items," meaning traditional music that the public is familiar with. Older established artists. This is also true on the live concert circuit. To explore this fascinating and disturbing topic further, check out the book, "Appetite for Self-Destruction" by Steve Knopper, and the video documentary, "Before the Music Dies." [Here, I think I agree; I say "think" because the point is hard to discern. It goes back to the lack of permanence I mentioned in #4 above, as well as the DMCA takedown actions of late.]

7. Television. Revenues to the networks are down dramatically. Not just because of the economy. People are watching TV and movies streamed from their computers. And they're playing games and doing all lots of other things that take up the time that used to be spent watching TV. Prime time shows have degenerated down to lower than the lowest common denominator. Cable rates are skyrocketing and commercials run about every 4 minutes and 30 seconds. I say good riddance to most of it It's time for the cable companies to be put out of our misery. Let the people choose what they want to watch online and through Netflix. [This is a pipe dream - while I would dearly love to see more intelligent TV content in this country, it ain't gonna happen, because that's what pays the bills. And TV, quite simply, is not going to go away, at least not for a l-o-n-g time. Believe it or not, TV is a valuable cultural phenomenon elsewhere. See this post.]

Storm clouds!

8. The "Things" That You Own. Many of the very possessions that we used to own are still in our lives, but we may not actually own them in the future. They may simply reside in "the cloud." Today your computer has a hard drive and you store your pictures, music, movies, and documents. Your software is on a CD or DVD, and you can always re-install it if need be. But all of that is changing. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all finishing up their latest "cloud services." That means that when you turn on a computer, the Internet will be built into the operating system. So, Windows, Google, and the Mac OS will be tied straight into the Internet. If you click an icon, it will open something in the Internet cloud. If you save something, it will be saved to the cloud. And you may pay a monthly subscription fee to the cloud provider. [Again, see here.]

In this virtual world, you can access your music or your books, or your whatever from any laptop or handheld device. That's the good news. But, will you actually own any of this "stuff" or will it all be able to disappear at any moment in a big "Poof?" Will most of the things in our lives be disposable and whimsical? It makes you want to run to the closet and pull out that photo album, grab a book from the shelf, or open up a CD case and pull out the insert.

[And there you have it - we do agree, after all! Why on earth did it take this long for the author to make his/her point?!]

Little brother is watching

9. Privacy. If there ever was a concept that we can look back on nostalgically, it would be privacy. That's gone. It's been gone for a long time anyway. There are cameras on the street, in most of the buildings, and even built into your computer and cell phone. But you can be sure that 24/7 "They" know who you are and where you are, right down to the GPS coordinates, and the Google Street View. If you buy something, your habit is put into a zillion profiles, and your ads will change to reflect those habits. And "They" will try to get you to buy something else. Again and again. [ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!]

Oops

Centralized vs distributed organisms

This article from Techdirt contemplates the nature of centralized vs distributed organisms, in the context of Wikileak's recent exposures of the U.S. Government's behavior in Iraq. Regardless of one's opinion of this particular situation, it's worth reading because it provides food for thought about what our future may look like.

This is a topic that, through my life, I have thought about in different, specific, contexts - not least of which is how the pendulum has swung over the years with regard to the pros and cons of server- and client-side computing. Central came first with mainframes and dumb terminals. Then minicomputers came on the scene, reducing the cost - which led to "microcomputers" (who among us remembers that term?), aka PCs. And now the pendulum is swinging back, with all our data (and intelligence) in the "cloud."

Perhaps a good illustration of the way this works is the Microsoft/Google analogy. Microsoft built its empire on the notion of putting the smarts into PCs by having you buy their software, and then locking you into occasional "upgrades" - the distributed model. Google came along later, and realized that a centralized model made more sense. So now, Microsoft is in the sad position of having to release updates of its software (e.g. Outlook) on a periodic basis. Otoh, Google, by virtue of the fact that its software (e.g. Gmail) is in the cloud, is in the much happier position of being able to control updates centrally, as and when they want or need to. If you're a user of Google's products, you will notice how they "push" subtle changes to you on a regular basis. Microsoft wishes they had the ability to do this. But that's not really what this post is about, and I happily recognize that I've elided over many points that make the computing example much more complicated.

Back to centralized vs distributed organisms... Beyond computing, where else does this occur?

Well, there's the Cold War, where the enemies were easy to define: sovereign nations. With the Cold War behind us, we now have global terrorism to worry about. Now, the enemy is much harder to define, because instead of countries with clear boundaries, we find ourselves battling ideologies. Small cells of trouble can pop up anywhere, and vanish just as quickly. So: Cold War - centralized. Terrorism - distributed. Is it any wonder the coalition forces going up against the likes of Al Qa'ida are having so much difficulty? We still model our defense forces on the old, centralized model, yet we're fighting a distributed "war." It needs an entirely new approach, one that will not come easily or quickly.

Another example is that of governments. Why is China gaining ground on the U.S. in oh-so-many aspects, not least of which are their respective economies? China uses an autonomous, centralized model. The U.S. has a federal system, which devolves much of the power to individual states - a distributed model. When China wants to achieve something, they simply do it, declaring it as a fait accompli. In the U.S., however, it's a much more complex process - eternal wrangling over, for example, whether to spend or save. The consequence, of course, is that very little gets accomplished here with any alacrity.

So there you have three examples: computing, war, government. I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which is preferable in each case: centralized or distributed organism? And to what other situations can we apply this? Comments, as always, welcome!

Talk about ignorance!

I was doing some research for a friend concerning GLSEN, a gay advocacy group. They are selling a kit for schools that includes posters and bumper stickers which, in essence, tell schoolkids that they're in a "safe space." (No such thing, but we won't go there today.)

Here's the bit that got me. There is a page of testimonials about the kit, where one of the teachers says, "I will put up the safe zone sticker on my door to do something...most of my coworkers will not know what this means.....but those kids who need me to keep them safe will." (Boldface emphasis mine.)

The other teachers won't know what the stickers mean?!?! Well, if they don't know, then how in hell are the kids supposed to figure it out?

Perhaps there's a deeper problem here, one that is going to take a lot more than a kit of posters and stickers...

Technology we take for granted

Scenario: For me, it was the middle of the day in California. For my friend, it was 3am in a Bangkok hotel room - I never know where he is from one day to the other. I emailed him, he saw my note on his phone. He responded, and mentioned that I should tune into CNN to watch a live feed of the Iranian idiot ranting at the United Nations - quite a scene. My friend and I discussed it.

Observation: It made me realize just how much we take instant (and almost free) connectivity for granted these days. California, Bangkok, New York. All in real time. 20 years ago, this was not something most of us envisioned.

Homework: Think about it - the social ramifications, the global "village," the technology, the convenience, and on and on. Drop a comment; share your thoughts.

ALERT!!! --> --> --> --> Bill Maher returns! <-- <-- <-- <--

Yes, indeedy - it's that time of year when Real Time with Bill Maher returns to HBO. If you have HBO, make sure you're tuned in on Friday night - the 17th. And if you don't, find a friend who has HBO, check into a hotel with HBO, whatever - just make damn sure you're watching!

This has been a crazy summer - from Islamophobia to DC infighting to right-wing loonie pundits to babblin' Sarah Palin to Qur'an burning to you-name-it. I have no doubt that Bill is more than ready to preach his viewpoint: A voice of utter and extreme sanity in the midst of the bigotry, childishness and, well, thoroughly unnecessary behavior we are subjected to day after day. [Exit soapbox left.]

The Huffington Post, unfailing as always, alerts us to the good news about Bill. For a preview of the spot-on hilarity, watch this:

And, for some classic (and hysterical) Bill Maher, see this 2-minute clip.

(A quick aside: As I write this, I'm listening to an interview on CNN with the Republican Teabagger who won the New York primary for Governor yesterday, Carl Paladino. This man is uttering the most preposterous garbage I have ever heard. It's astounding. The topic is the Islamic center (not mosque) near Ground Zero. I am sure I will have more to say about this later...)

A quickie re DUI/DWI

There is currently a PSA on TV about drunk driving or "riding." It's the same commercial every time, except that ~50% use the term "drunk driving" while the rest of them use "drunk riding."

My question is - why? Are they subtly trying to make us think that merely riding in a car while drunk is a DUI/DWI no-no? And, if so, how does the "designated driver" deal now work? Is it gonna be illegal to be drunk while sitting in the passenger seat? And where in hell do they expect people to drink now - I will not drink alcohol on my own at home. For me, drinking is a social experience, not a loner one. If my assumption is correct, this sucks - big time.

It's time for REVOLUTION!

That's what you see on James Lee's page on MySpace today. (For those of you who will have forgotten about this dude when the current news cycle ends, he is the one who is trying, as I write this, to hold the Discovery Channel hostage, in an attempt to get his demands heard.)

Here's a thought: Isn't it a shame that he had to get to this point to have his voice heard, when we have to put up with blowhards like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Man (oops) Ann Coulter, and all the other right-wing idiots who have a built-in platform like Fucks (oops again) Fox News to expound their views as and when they like?

Shouldn't there be a better way for people not in the public limelight to expound their views? Whether the views in question are reasonable or not isn't the point here ... if you look at Lee's manifesto, and get beyond the absurdity of the actual "demands," you will see that he actually has a viewpoint that many people would agree with.

Update: As I write this, CNN is reporting that he has been captured, and everything is OK. Which is exactly the outcome I anticipated; what I find fascinating is the breathless-baffling-babbling-bafflegab-bullshit "BREAKING NEWS!!! ... BREAKING NEWS!!!" coverage that TV is so fond of.

More update: Well, he's dead now, so who gives a shit?

Will sanity ever return?

So now the latest brouhaha is about the "mosque" near ground zero. ("Mosque" in inverted quotes because it's not a mosque - it's an interfaith cultural center, primarily designed to promote communication between all faiths. This is a key point that most people - conveniently - are choosing to ignore.)

On Friday, Obama made a statement about preservation of equal rights, and our sacred (!) obligation to respect people's choice of religion. Now - he certainly could have been clearer about what he was saying (considering the need these days to dumb down anything aimed at the pathetic level of intelligence of the masses), but still. He was most definitely not making a comment about the wisdom of placing the center nearby ground zero - he was merely pointing out a truth that, clearly, was inconvenient to many people. On Saturday, he clarified his intent, but of course it was too late by then.

So where do we stand right now (Tuesday)? Well, the Sarah Palins of the world are, of course, gleeful, and making hay of this tempest in a teapot. Sadly, though, many Democrats are also "disagreeing" with Obama. Why? Well, there's an election coming up soon, and they are forced to kowtow to the "will" of their constituents - while they privately agree with Obama's statement, they dare not say so. This two-faced behavior is, at best, disturbing and, at worst, downright disgusting. But that's the reality of the world we live in these days.

So. You interested in my opinion? I don't care - here goes! Of course Obama is correct - freedom of religion is a key component of the commitment that this country has embraced lo these many years. Should the center be built near ground zero? In my humble opinion, it should not matter. But hey - I don't live in NYC, which means that I don't have a good "read" of the way native New Yorkers feel. Perhaps it does hurt enough of them to have the center there. Perhaps many of them simply don't care. Perhaps there's enough of a ground-swell of them to passionately feel that it needs to be there. I simply do not know, and don't pretend that I ever will. Bottom line: This is a local issue, and I am sure that Manhattanites are perfectly capable of handling this on their own. So here's a humble suggestion: Why don't the rest of us just back off, and let them make the decision?

Not a minaret in sight!

Ya know, it's interesting how people will modify their views based on how convenient it is for them. As Robert Wexler (D-FL) said in connection with the Terry Schiavo case some time ago: "In the process, they [Republicans] have decided that the rule of law is only worth respecting if they agree with the results."

And, to take an extreme, silly, funny and hypothetical example (but, I think effectively, points out the idiocy of this): Remember the recent scandal of Catholic priests and pedophilia? Well, I have yet to see anybody protesting the erection (!) of a Catholic church next to a high school... [Credit for this goes to Jon Stewart's show on the Comedy Channel.] Extreme, silly, funny and hypothetical - yes. Does it make its point? Indubitably! But let's get real: How would Muslims feel about the presence of a cathedral at ground zero? Would we even care? Bear in mind that "Muslim" very definitely does not equal the minority of those extremists called al-Qa'ida. (I note, too, another one of those convenient arguments: Many in the anti-Mosque crowd are saying - substitute your own variables for x and y - "How would x feel if a y was built in their country?" This is a specious argument because of one simple fact: We are talking about the U.S., and the U.S. only. Let's not - conveniently! - lose sight of that fact.)

Maybe a European viewpoint will help balance your take on this. Or, how about this? The NYTimes, after all, is both close to the issue - and sane! And, as always, I'd like to hear what you have to say - you know where to click to comment!

To P or NP, that is the question...

Interesting how two disparate fields like mathematics and philosophy can sometimes collide.

The dilemma? Is P≠NP - or not?

P≠NP vs P=NP poses the following question: If there is a problem that has this property - whereby you could recognize the correct answer when someone gives it to you - then is there some way to automatically find that correct answer?

Someone uses the useful analogy of a jigsaw puzzle: Solving the jigsaw takes time and effort, but determining whether you solved the problem correctly is merely a matter of glancing at the result. You know in an instant whether you got it right. Can we automate that? And can we automate the very essence of creativity? Food for thought. Read more about it here.

While we're at it, how about the Poincare Conjecture?

Or, how random is Pi? Can the value of Pi be legislated? Seems Indiana thought so... And, more fun Pi pics here (scroll down a bit). [Side thought: What does the word "random" really mean? Is there really such a thing as true randomness? Here's a place to start pondering this.]

Who said mathematics is boring?!?!

Does God exist?

Go(o)d grief!

An interesting philosophical question, and one which I am nowhere near qualified to comment on. So I'm going to leave it up to this article!

Just one more thing (who could resist this?): Bill O'Reilly claims that he is proof that God exists!!! Who'da thunk?!

More on Prop. 8

I don't want to sound like a stuck record, but the smackdown of Prop. 8 really is ground-breaking for all those of sound mind who believe that the 14th Amendment actually means something - be they gay or straight, conservative or liberal. I'm not gonna comment further; instead, I'm going to leave that up to Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post / New York Times columnist. I urge you to read his article, here. It's important, and captures, in my opinion, the essence of what this is all about.

Quoting from his article: "Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow." and "Walker [the judge] stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run."

Proposition 8: Unconscionable and untenable

Important note: While I am thrilled to see that my fellow gay friends will one day be able to marry, right now I have no personal interest in getting married. What is important to me is the fact that a group of people were being denied rights that are enshrined in California's constitution - clearly an unconscionable and untenable situation. Additionally, I fail to understand why this is such a big deal; how can allowing same-sex marriage harm society? The way some of these idiots are behaving, you'd think the end of the world is nigh! (See cartoons at end of this post.)

Background for my foreign readers: Recently, an election in California resulted in the passage of Proposition 8, by a mere 2% majority. Prop. 8 enacted a constitutional amendment which banned same-sex marriage in California, effectively removing the rights of a group - talk about a step backwards! The map on the right shows which counties voted for same-sex marriage (red ones) and those against it (green) - it's interesting to note that the coastal counties are clearly the most progressive (the two inland ones are Mono and Alpine, just south of Lake Tahoe, a large gambling mecca). The result was challenged in court primarily on the principle that this set up an inequality between two groups, which is unconstitutional. It's a bit confusing, but if you are "pro-Prop. 8" you are against same-sex marriage and, of course, if you are "anti-Prop. 8" you are for same-sex marriage! The result of the trial? The proposition was overturned, which means the constitutional amendment no longer applies. So: "pro-Prop. 8" lost and "anti-Prop. 8" won!!! (However, the decision has been stayed for a while to allow for the inevitable appeal, so no marriages quite yet.) You can read more about Prop. 8 here.

Yes, indeedy - much partying in the gay ghettoes around the country last night - and for good reason: Proposition 8 has now been overturned! The judge, Vaughn Walker (who is gay) presided over an extremely thoughtful and thorough trial. Unfortunately for the opposition (the "Yes on 8" folks - those against same-sex marriage), they were only able to provide a very weak case. That, of course, is because there really is no solid basis for this silliness. The judge tried really hard to give both sides a fair shot, and, imho, did a really good job.

Today's Huffington Post writes about it here from the viewpoint of whether it was wise to make this bold a move as quickly as they did - an interesting argument. Also, I especially like this sentence: "Piece by piece, the 138 page decision tears apart the logic of the traditional marriage movement and exposes it as the offensive and homophobic club it really is."

You can find the judge's ruling here (PDF) and here (HTML). It's 138 pages long, and, so far, I have only skimmed it. Some interesting bits I found:

On equal treatment, and the "inferiority" of gay people: "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. [...] In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate." (Underlined emphasis mine.)

And, the all-important conclusion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." (Again, underlined emphasis mine.)

So there we have it! Now, the case will go to the 9th District Court of Appeals who are sure to uphold the decision - I say this because the appeals process only allows analysis of the final judgment; it's gonna be tough to argue against that! Then, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, who will more than likely accept the case. We will probably end up with a 5-4 decision in this conservative court, but the big question is who will get the 5 and who will get the 4?!

The 5-4 question is an interesting one. Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, and is generally considered to be conservative. However, he has been known to side with liberals, particularly on social issues, and therefore is the wild card or "swing vote" here. It should be noted that he voted correctly (you know what I mean!) in the recent Lawrence v. Texas case involving legalization of sodomy, and was also a proponent of Roe v. Wade. So, I'm gonna be an optimist and say that he will vote "Aye!" for same-sex marriage. Here's hoping...

Patent stupidity!

And yes, the title of this post is a deliberate pun! The issue in question is that of the ability to patent software and its associated ideas. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hands these things out like candy, frequently forgetting that a patent is supposed to be an original idea, not just an implementation of one or more existing ideas.

This issue has been bubbling for some time now, and will continue to do so for a long time. Today, however, I discovered that a jury has struck a patent down - specifically, it's Patent #7139761, "Dynamic association of electronically stored information with iterative workflow changes." You don't even have to read the patent itself - thanks to Google Patents, you can read a summary of what is apparently "claimed." Fun stuff, especially for insomniacs. Try reading the "claim" section out loud - after a few seconds it starts to sound pretty hilarious. Pure bafflegab. Enjoy!

Oh, you want more? Not asleep yet? Let's try one unrelated to software - #6179088, "Interlinked watercourses for sushi boats." Yes, that's right - sushi boats!!!

Don't shoot until you see the persons of their eyes!

Douglas R. Hofstadter is one of my favorite mathematicians, magicians, wits (or should that be "whites"?), authors, you name it.

HUH? you say ... whites? OK, fair enough - nobody can grok this until they have read one of his better essays, "A Person Paper on Purity in Language," written under the nom de plume "William Satire." Check it out, and this post will make sense. Coincidentally (and rather oddly), this essay also connects to my earlier posts about racism...

He authored two of my favorite works: "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and "Metamagical Themas." The latter is the title of his column in Scientific American (and, interestingly, is an anagram of Martin Gardner's columns in SciAm, "Mathematical Games"). If you ever come across these books, don't be scared off by their length - instead, please make a point of attacking them. I promise your thoughts will be provoked!

A "learnable" moment?

Wave, particle, whatever!

I also came across some ambigrams - the one on the right is Hofstadter's, while the one on the left is by Scott Kim, "Mr. Ambigram," - another person I admire - but that's another post for another time. Example to the left of me, example to the right of me, here I go again, caught in the middle with you...

Sherrod fallout

Well, now that the Shirley Sherrod story has played out (see my earlier post), everyone seems to agree that this ought to be a "teachable moment" about racism. That Americans ought not to shy away from talking about race. That we need to come together as a nation. But how? Where? There is a dearth of concrete suggestions, but here's a modest one.

While focusing on better education about racism in schools is the right thing to do, I don't believe that the youth in this country is the correct demographic to go after - it's those old enough to know better, all the way to the old fogeys that have problems with this stuff. And, since we're always blaming the media for being too gullible, why not enlist them to assist? I'm not talking about documentaries or anything with racism as the primary topic - that's all too easy for the intended audience to ignore. What I'm talking about is the popular media: blockbuster movies, TV sitcoms, heavily-trafficked websites, trashy magazines that are (currently) devoid of actual content, tabloids, comic books, etc. And I'm not suggesting they take a heavy hand by making the topic "in-your-face." Or, as many have suggested, have more sitcoms starring black actors. That's just tokenism. All they need do is become unafraid to, for example, make reference to racial differences, even joke about it where appropriate. Right now, it strikes me, there is a distinct reluctance to even vaguely touch on racism.

We need to make Joe Six-Pack (and the plumber!) able to comfortably talk about this around the proverbial water-cooler. Not difficult, not expensive, not breathtaking, not revolutionary - just a simple way to remove the verboten nature of the topic.

And, while we're at it, how about handling other forms of bigotry the same way? Racism is but one "-ism." Think about it. Please.

The Shirley Sherrod story

Shirley Sherrod

I guess this is worth a mention - if only because of the overblown amount of press the story has been receiving.

For those who need to be brought up to speed - briefly: A USDA employee, Shirley Sherrod, made a 43-minute speech to the NAACP in March. In and of itself, no big deal. But a right-wing blogger, Andrew Breitbart, edited the speech down to about four minutes, wherein it made Shirley Sherrod sound like a racist (the truth: hell no - she's black, from the south, her father was killed by the KKK, and her speech was one of redemption - about how she saved a white farmer from losing his farm). The editing of the video was, of course, an unfair extrapolation - but, as we all know, it was just another of the typical dirty tricks that the right wing / Tea Party / Republicans / conservatives / idiots (you pick) love to play in this racially-charged country.

Here's the problem: Based on the edited video (and, it seems, influenced by the fact that Sherrod was scheduled to appear on Glenn Beck's hateful "show" on Fox that night), Tom Vilsack, the head of the USDA, promptly fired her - seems the last part of his name is àpropos! Anyhoo. Clearly, this was a huge boo-boo - you don't fire someone based on evidence that flimsy; it was obviously a politically driven knee-jerk reaction.

Breitbart

Now, it seems, the White House is involved in some way, shape, or form - but nobody seems to know exactly how, why, what, where or when. But of course the right is now blaming Obama and/or his administration for this mess - they're accusing them of "reverse racism." And, it seems, Vilsack is now considering offering to give Sherrod her job back. I've seen interviews with her on TV today (ABC's Good Morning America, and CNN) and she's not taking this lying down. Good for her. She is non-committal about whether she will accept her job back (assuming Vilsack offers it to her), and seems genuinely startled by all the fuss.

Where does the blame lie? In this case, on both sides - the hateful action taken by the right wing, and the knee-jerk reaction from the lefties. You decide which one was worse. I know where my thinking lies and, I suspect, so do you.

There's a lesson here: The media - including Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al - need to be more responsible about what they put out, and not just blindly parrot what they see on blogs, other networks, etc. Fortunately, there are still a few (few being the operative word here) outlets that behave responsibly; the New York Times and PBS spring to mind.

Here's the really sad part: In case no-one in the U.S. has noticed, it's 2010. That's correct. We are now almost a decade into the 21st century. Why, oh why, are we still talking about race? While racism, as an example of bigotry in general, will always be with us humans (just a fact we must face), it really and truly is not this big a deal outside the U.S. As I remember saying recently: Grow the fuck up, people!

You can read some good commentary about the story here (Paul Krugman in the NYTimes) and here (The Huffington Post).

A pot-pourri today

There's so much happening today, I don't know what to focus on. Thusly, I present a miscellany:

Comparing Obama to Hitler and Lenin. The billboard, right, speaks for itself (wonder why I put it on the right?!). Of course we can surmise who's responsible for this: our Tea Party friends. Now, the NAACP has become tired of what they are calling racist comments, and are speaking out vehemently against this. Good. The billboard went up yesterday; now there are reports that it has disappeared. Again, good. This shit is gross. And I'm tired of it. Grow up, people. Sure, there are many different opinions in this country. It's deeply divided - hasn't been like this for a long time, probably since Lincoln. We are all entitled to our respective positions, but why, oh why, is it not possible to have a respectful, seemly, intelligent, and honest discourse any more? The art of conversation, it appears, has not just vanished from our living rooms, now it has disappeared from higher institutions, for example, on Capitol Hill. Obama is never going to be able to get anything done when idiots like the Tea Party and - yes - Republicans just sit there wailing like so many crybabies, blocking his every move. It's disgusting. Grow the fuck up - PLEASE.

The oil disaster (not "spill"). BP has now put the new blowout preventer in place, but has not yet turned the valves that are meant to slowly and eventually stop the gusher. [See good info about this.] Why? Well, it turns out that there is fear that the pressure that would (obviously) be created when the valves are closed could cause ruptures deep underground where the well's casing is much thinner and weaker. Should this happen, even greater amounts of oil and gas would be released into rock fissures and - get this - there would be no way to stop it. It would somewhat randomly gush out of the earth deep undersea. Scientists are now saying that the potential for this is high. Now that would be the disaster to top all disasters. What's the solution? Well, ideally, they need the new relief wells to be in place and working. But, of course, that's going to take time. Frankly, I'd rather wait than risk it - but I guess we have to leave the decision up to the "experts" (I use that word reservedly).

Armageddon? An item related to the oil disaster... There are reports on the intertubes claiming there is a strong possibility that the release of methane, a side-effect of this mess, could end up destroying the planet. To be honest, I have not yet taken a hard look at this (I will soon), so am not prepared to opine on the topic. But it's certainly worth mentioning, not to mention exploring. They are saying that the media is deliberately being kept away from the story, so naturally thoughts of conspiracy theories pop up. I'm not a conspiracy theorist so - illogically - I both defer and demur!

IPhone 4 and Consumer Reports. Consumers' Union, who publish the venerable magazine, have given a thumbs-down to the iPhone 4, claiming that the theories about poor reception when you hold the phone a certain way with your left hand are, indeed, true. Consumer Reports, notoriously, hides most of its web content behind a paywall, so I'm not bothering to link them here, but here's another good report from Computerworld. Apple's share price took a beating today because of this, so it's clear that CR still has influence in this rapidly changing world.

Google Dictionary. Yes, I know I continually sing the praises of Google. For good reason - all their shit is pretty amazing. Ever tried Google's dictionary? (Actually, dictionaries.) If, for example, you type "define: marijuana" in Google's search box, you would be taken to definitions of marijuana from multiple dictionaries. But wait, it gets better. If you're one of the happy users of Google's browser, Chrome, there is an extension available that you can install painlessly and quickly. What does it do? If you double-click (or ctrl-double-click, your choice) on any word in any web page, a little balloon will immediately pop up, providing a quick definition of the word, along with a "more..." link. Clicking on the "more..." button will take you to a page containing:
   •   A formal definition of the word,
   •   Synonyms,
   •   A button which will audibly pronounce the word,
   •   Occurrences of the word in other languages,
   •   Usages of the word in recent items from newspapers around the world, and
   •   Definitions from a selection of other dictionaries.
Take the "marijuana" example - click here to see what you would get if you had used the feature on a web page somewhere. Isn't that cool? If you don't have Chrome, get it here - now. If you just want to use the dictionary itself, with all the features I've listed, go here.

MacArthur Park lyrics. Can someone help me understand this? The verse that goes "MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark | All the sweet green icing flowing down | Someone left the cake out in the rain | But I don't think that I can take it | It took so long to bake it | And I'll never have the recipe again, oh no." makes absolutely zero sense to me. Where is the green icing flowing to? Who left the damn cake out in the rain in the first place? Why did it take so long to bake? And why, oh why, is the wretched recipe so important? Just buy some cake mix and follow the recipe on the box, stoopid!

Gay sex in the military? Say no more, say no more ... read all about it!

Perception is everything

My haircut

Yesterday, I got a haircut. Was not happy with the result.

But then: I went to my usual watering hole, and most of my friends commented on it - they unanimously thought it was fabulous - and, better yet, two cutie-pies hit on me (which makes a pleasant change!). Guess I've changed my mind about the haircut...

Update: This was just meant to be a quick "slice-of-life" piece, but then someone asked why I didn't treat y'all to a pic. So here it is - apologies for the blink.

Why?

First, some background for my readers beyond the Bay Area. Nineteen months ago, a man was shot and killed by a cop during a brawl at a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station in Oakland. The officer (a BART employee, not an Oakland city policeman) says that he reached for his taser, but mistakenly got his gun instead.

In the heat of the moment, he killed a man who was lying face down on the floor. The action was captured by a number of people with cameras (it happened after the 2008/09 New Year's Eve festivities), and was prominently featured in the news. The victim was black, the cop is white - oops. The black community saw this as a racist action, and proceeded to riot in the streets of downtown Oakland, causing a lot of damage.

Fast forward to last week. The trial ended, and the jury returned a verdict of involuntary manslaughter, which carries a 2-4 year sentence. See news item here. Considering the circumstances, I believe this to be the correct verdict, but the victim's family claims it is too light, and proclaimed as much on TV. This led to yet more rioting in the streets of Oakland and, of course, more damage ensued. (Interesting sidenote: Only ¼ of the 78 people arrested are residents of Oakland - some of them even came from other states!)

My question: Why do people find it necessary to damage the storefronts of businesses that had absolutely nothing to do with it? There is no connection to the incident at all. This chain of events is illogical, unnecessary and, well, tragic. Help me understand - please!