Two very interesting posts from the Secular Right blog:

First, a look at the relationship between income and politics. Overview of the results is:

politics_money

Secular Right concludes that “the data shows the tilt toward the Right and Republicans is much greater among the wealthy without college educations than those with”. But the main point that this data shows to me is that the usual correlation between knowledge/education and liberalism is not real when you add income. That is, even though within groups democrats/liberals increase their number along with education, you can notice that across the income groups the percentage of Republicans usually increases along with income, while the percentage of Democrats/Liberals either declines or is pretty much flat with income.

Second post is about science and politics, and it shows this table:
science_public

Later it also shows some interesting data around ideology and ideas around nuclear power. Very interesting. I guess bias against science comes in many colors after all.

He’s definitely got our back. Big time!

He makes more money than the whole team combined. He eats more than the whole team combined. He scores more goals than the whole team combined.

Shownaldo: A huge threat to our dreams of an egalitarian society.

Unless something changes big time, there is no way I can vote for Palin anymore after this whole mess she made in Alaska. Really, this is one of the most ridiculous things she could have done at this point.

Obama Picks Camp David Church — Not a D.C. Congregation
Hmm, but I thought going to Camp David (a.k.a. “Vacation”) was such a Bushy thing to do. Well, even God needed to rest on the 7th day, let’s give his son a break.

World leaders denounce Honduras coup
Wait a second. A lefty President ousted by the military? Is Obama’s C.I.A. promoting these too? I think Obama must be desperate to surpass Reagan in every aspect! This is all so 80s…

Kneale: The Great Recession is Over!
Man, this guy is the total opposite of a chicken. Probably more than me! I do want a t-shirt that says “Capitalism is optimism monetized”!

It is super funny that MSNBC is concerned with a tentative boycott proposed by some “conservative high-profile pundits”.

Really… Among all the problems that GM has, why would anyone be worried about this? I can guarantee you that there is a much stronger and powerful ‘boycott’ going on against GM for at least the last decade. That boycott is called the market.

GM is not selling cars because they suck. They suck because GM as a company failed. The natural way of things is that companies that fail should go away. What is happening now is that the government is simply funding the existence of a new company, built from the ashes of the old GM. You could still call it GM, but that really doesn’t mean anything. Most of the Union madness is gone. Most of the old and stupid contracts with dealers are gone. Most GM brands are gone!

Whether this new company will fail or succeed is a completely different issue. I personally just went through the process of buying a new car and chose a Honda. There was no comparison at all between what GM/Ford/Jeep could offer when compared to Honda/Toyota/VW. The new GM has to be a lot better than the old GM.

Of course conservatives will cry about the government handing out free money to these automakers. Liberals should be crying about that too! It is favoritism to the extreme. Maybe we did save some jobs in the short term but the consequences on the long term will not be fully understood until much later in the future.

In any case, whether GM will succeed again as a company or not is entirely up to them. Trying to blame ideological backlash is silly. If people bought cars based on ideology or patriotism we would never have had this problem in the first place.

Well, this is almost the antithesis to my previous post about Ronaldo:
Altidore’s goal leads U.S. to stunning upset

The ESPN banner does say it all: (Bonus for – Vote: Do you care?)

That’s right my friends. Sometimes talent is no match for mettle. Watch it, I said mettle, not metal. No one can destroy the metal:

Can you imagine if this team beats Brazil? Can you spell national crisis?

I am by no means a Cowboys fan but their new stadium (current construction cost is $1.15 billion, one of the most expensive sports venues ever built) looks really good.

Actually, this new monster (seats around 100 thousand) will probably push the Cowboys to be the top revenue producer in the NFL (around $360 million a year) and possibly the most profitable franchise as well.

Besides all of that, it is always good to see the word billion associated with something other than bailouts. Texas rules.

To watch Ronaldo play nowadays reminds me a lot about inequality.

Ronaldo is obviously overweight still. For all the talk about his efforts to get in shape, we got to realize that almost 6 months of activity is more than enough to get a professional in top physical condition. Ronald must (and if you read the papers they will confirm it) still be living the lifestyle of a rich, semi-retired athlete. Little sleep, fatty foods, lots of alcohol.

Still, he is one of the best players in activity in Brazil. He touches the ball 3 or 4 times, and scores tremendously important goals. You watch him playing and it is simplicity and efficiency to the extreme. Like all his goals during his current stint at Corinthians, it’s almost like defenders all over the place are just not playing right. Scoring a goal cannot be that simple.

Which of course it is not. The point is exactly that: for all his weight and lack of fitness, Ronaldo still has talent. Plenty of it. In this specific situation, that has been making a big difference.

—x—

All being said and done, Ronaldo could not win anything by himself. Many would say it’s all about the team and I can’t disagree. But the important thing to notice is not that the team has the quality to help Ronaldo; the important thing to me here is that the team was able to use Ronaldo’s talent and get the best of what he can provide.

Again, not something simple to do. Can you imagine most of his team mates, giving their best everyday and seeing a fat-old guy getting all the breaks, glory and most of the money?

Still, would they be better off if Ronaldo was not there or if they found a way to sabotage him?

—x—

You know when people say that “it is not about avoiding problems, but how you deal with them?” To me, one of the most important indicators on how successful a person will be is the way that person deals with people more talented than himself.

Does it bother you to no end that the other person makes more money and gets more attention even though he doesn’t work as hard as you? Does it make you feel that life is unfair that talent is just given randomly? Or does it make you wonder at human potential? Maybe even makes you strive to work even harder to meet the challenge? Or maybe the way to see this is that, no matter what, you have to find ways to leverage these people to your own advantage?

Being selfish is not that easy when you stop to think about it.

10 large US banks to repay $68B in TARP funds

I wonder when GM and Chrysler will repay the first penny from the gazzilion dollars they stole borrowed.

At first I thought this was a joke, but apparently it is for real:

Amid hard times, an influx in real superheroes

By the way, they forgot to mention Obama. You know, killing flies and things like that.

Morning Show Anchors Marvel At Obama’s Fly Swat

For a bigger video of this highly news worthy event, see this one:

Tough guy! How do you like that Gibbs? Oh boy.

This time is Fareed Zakaria who is changing his doom and destruction fantasies for a new (and much more optmistic) “Capitalist Manifesto”. Interesting parts: (I added bold to a great jab at Golden Boy)

“Consider our track record over the past 20 years, starting with the stock-market crash of 1987, when on Oct. 19 the Dow Jones lost 23 percent, the largest one-day loss in its history. The legendary economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he just hoped that the coming recession wouldn’t prove as painful as the Great Depression. It turned out to be a blip on the way to an even bigger, longer boom. Then there was the 1997 East Asian crisis, during the depths of which Paul Krugman wrote in a Fortune cover essay, “Never in the course of economic events—not even in the early years of the Depression—has so large a part of the world economy experienced so devastating a fall from grace.” He went on to argue that if Asian countries did not adopt his radical strategy—currency controls—”we could be looking at the kind of slump that 60 years ago devastated societies, destabilized governments, and eventually led to war.” Only one Asian country instituted currency controls, and partial ones at that. All rebounded within two years.


A few years from now, strange as it may sound, we might all find that we are hungry for more capitalism, not less. An economic crisis slows growth, and when countries need growth, they turn to markets. After the Mexican and East Asian currency crises—which were far more painful in those countries than the current downturn has been in America—we saw the pace of market-oriented reform speed up. If, in the years ahead, the American consumer remains reluctant to spend, if federal and state governments groan under their debt loads, if government-owned companies remain expensive burdens, then private-sector activity will become the only path to create jobs. The simple truth is that with all its flaws, capitalism remains the most productive economic engine we have yet invented. Like Churchill’s line about democracy, it is the worst of all economic systems, except for the others. Its chief vindication today has come halfway across the world, in countries like China and India, which have been able to grow and pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by supporting markets and free trade. Last month India held elections during the worst of this crisis. Its powerful left-wing parties campaigned against liberalization and got their worst drubbing at the polls in 40 years.


Add to this the information and Internet revolutions, and you have a series of historical changes that have produced a single global system, far more integrated and faster-moving than ever before. The results speak for themselves. Over the past quarter century, the global economy has doubled every 10 years, going from $31 trillion in 1999 to $62 trillion in 2008. Recessions have become tamer than ever before, averaging eight months rather than two years. More than 400 million people across Asia have been lifted out of poverty. Between 2003 and 2007, average income worldwide grew at a faster rate (3.1 percent) than in any previous period in recorded human history. In 2006 and 2007—the peak years of the boom—124 countries around the world grew at 4 percent a year or more, about four times as many as 25 years earlier.

Many of these countries had more cash than they knew what to do with. China sits on a war chest of more than $2 trillion, while eight other emerging-market nations have reserves of more than $100 billion. They’ve all looked to the safest investment they could imagine—U.S. government debt. In buying so much debt, they drove down the interest rate Washington had to offer, which in turn made credit in America cheap. So the effect of all this money sloshing around the world was to subsidize Americans in their favorite activity: shopping. But it affected other Western countries as well, from Spain to Ireland, where consumers and governments loaded themselves up with debt.

Good times always make people complacent. As the cost of capital sank over the past few years, people became increasingly foolish. The world economy had become the equivalent of a race car—faster and more complex than any vehicle anyone had ever seen. But it turned out that no one had driven a car like this before, and no one really knew how. So it crashed.”

After that he goes back to the “we don’t need more regulation, we need smarter regulation” chorus line, which is fine. Most of all, it is good to see people snapping out of the “we need a new system” kind of crap.

The important thing is to always remember that the last 30 years have been without any doubt the best/fastest evolution human beings ever experienced. Whatever we do to try and control our excesses, we should never try to do what we did before Reagan.

That would be a true disaster.

It’s official: Flash Forward the TV show is on! Series Premiere is Thursday September 24th 8/7c.

Here is a preview:

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) it looks like they changed a lot of the story from the book. Why change the future to be closer? Why make the main character the cop instead of the scientist?

Ah, TV execs.

Von Brunn and Wright.

Before someone cries about this: no, I am not comparing the degrees of ignorance. To say something stupid is not the same as shooting someone for that same stupid reason.

Still, the little seed of ignorance and anti-Semitism is the same. After all, the Third Reich was created and raised on top of this notion that Jews secretly controlled finance and politics.

At least Obama had the good sense of moving away from this man. Too late one might say (and I’d have to agree) but better late than never.

Some of our old ghosts seem to hang around, no matter what. Crazy world.

Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down

This reminded me yet another aspect I loved in Calculating God: Sawyer’s critique on scientists “certainties”, and how these can make you really blind to other plausible alternatives. Scientists are supposed to be our truth tellers, the materialization of logic over mysticism, rationality over silly instinct. The problem is, things are always more complicated than they seem. And our fellow scientists seem to have a bit of a problem admitting that.

It is fun to mock all the insanities believed by the church (world is flat, earth is the center of universe) but it is not so fun to remember how wrong our own masters of knowledge were at some point in time. Newton believed in alchemy, Stephen Hawking has admitted that he was completely wrong about black holes, and even Einstein had repeatedly failed to provide a valid proof for his most famous equation: E = mc2.

All of this is of course a natural part of the search for knowledge. The problem is that these errors are only evident after the fact. Our current certainties always seem to be solid, the exceptions to the rule. Of course, this kind of “blind by science” effect is not unique to scientists. Individuals from all walks of life form their own certainties and anything that falls in between is considered crazy.

It seems to me that Global Warming is a classical example of that. Anyone who argues anything but the common accepted theory or doesn’t believe in the total opposite is a crazy. Even when scientists provide contradicting evidence like this one about winds dying down (instead of picking up as it has been widely announced) no one connect the dots. As long as the final outcome is negative, anything goes.

There will be a day when we look back into all these global warming theories and “facts” and see that much of it was insanity.

—x—

One more interesting nugget from Sawyer’s books: in Flash Forward (which he wrote in 1999), the world in 2009 would be still very concerned with the ozone hole, and by 2030 everybody would have to apply sunscreen before leaving the house even during the winter.

This shows me that even the best among us are not immune to the bias of the moment and false certainties.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

What do you mean “a sort of god”?

Barack is THE God.

p.s.: ah, the good old times when Democrats only compared Obama to Jesus

Sometimes it becomes really obvious just how early we are still in the information technology revolution. Information might be out there, but it is still really hard to find what you really want.

How else could you explain the fact that I didn’t know who Robert J. Sawyer was until a few weeks ago? I mean, this guy is just amazing, one of my new favorites. A probable contender for the favorite author spot. No kidding!

First I read “Calculating God”. Now, how many books that talk about God, the origins of our universe, religion, death and eternal life can be truly entertaining, insightful and at the same time ideologically balanced and funny? That was definitely a first to me. Add a good bit of “pop science”, light romance and a surprising ending and you have one of the best books I’ve read in recent memory.

I then moved quickly to “Flash Forward”. Really, this book totally consumed 2 weeks of my free time (which now a days is extremely little). Here Sawyer basically talks about free will, but in such a imaginative and centered way that it makes you much more open to considering opposing point of views. The end is a bit exoteric but overall this is again a incredibly entertaining and rich book.

I just started “Hominids”, the 2003 Hugo Award winner and the first volume of his Neanderthal Parallax trilogy. Here he begins with parallel universes, neutrino labs and Neanderthals who have quantum computers. It is again a totally different book from the other two, and so far it looks very promising.

Waste no time and start reading this guy.

 

July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

a

Pages