Sam Brownback on Evolution
Summary:
"When I said I didn't believe in evolution, what I really meant is that I am a man of faith. Did I mention that people are God's chosen creation? Also, microevolution exists, but the other kind is kind of sketchy because I believe in God. and straw men. Did I mention how much I love God? Blah blah blah faith, reason, I have an eloquent ghost writer. God is good. A lot of evolutionary scientists are actually atheists, and God forbid I trust anything an atheist says! Did I mention how much I love God? And reason? (as long as it doesn't conflict with God?)"
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I love the Style section
The main reason I love the Washington Post Style section is: 3 pages of comics, 2 crosswords, and a sudoku. I can be occupied all morning without ever finding out what's going on in the world. And that's before you even count doonesbury on p.2, the reliable source, ask amy, and carolyn hax.
Once you take out all the games, gossip, comics, and syndicated columns, there's not actually much left to the Style section, which is sort of sad because I like fluffy stories, but the fluff that remains does not disappoint.
Today, for example, there was a review of a recent Fortune magazine article calling Generation Y lazy, entitled, and spoiled. You know, what the Wall Street Journal said a few weeks ago. I'm glad someone finally called bullshit.
I want to be a Latvian lesbian taxidermist when I grow up.
Also, today, apparently by the same author, was this profile of the author of The Joy of Drinking.
a quote:
and another:
I want to read that book.
Once you take out all the games, gossip, comics, and syndicated columns, there's not actually much left to the Style section, which is sort of sad because I like fluffy stories, but the fluff that remains does not disappoint.
Today, for example, there was a review of a recent Fortune magazine article calling Generation Y lazy, entitled, and spoiled. You know, what the Wall Street Journal said a few weeks ago. I'm glad someone finally called bullshit.
Generation Y is the media term for people born between 1977 and 1995. Of course, it's a complete fiction: All Americans between the ages of 12 and 30 are no more alike than all Jews or all Asian Americans or, for that matter, all Latvian lesbian taxidermists. But birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, magazines gotta run generalizations about generations. God knows the baby boomers have been hyping themselves for decades.
I want to be a Latvian lesbian taxidermist when I grow up.
Also, today, apparently by the same author, was this profile of the author of The Joy of Drinking.
a quote:
Smiling, she offers her visitor a choice: "You want to go outside and get pneumonia or stay in here and get lung cancer?"
and another:
"There's a local restaurant where, when I show up, they get me a glass of merlot," she says, "and everybody keeps telling me that nobody is drinking merlot any more; everybody is drinking pinot noir. Well, frankly, darling, I'm not sure I could tell the difference."
I want to read that book.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
parthenogenesis
You should read this article.
1. it's pretty gay.
2. the shark is cute, isn't it?
3. parthenogenesis is a cool word.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
immigration
okay, a short post on the same day as a super long one. (sorry!)
Many who speak out against illegal immigration say that the increased worker supply depresses wages and puts "real americans" out of work.
In the short term, they are probably right.
Many of those same people are scared to death of factories in China or call centers in India because they depress wages and put "real americans" out of work.
I could talk about comparative advantage, but at a very low skill level, they're right again.
But here's where people have a disconnect. Companies will do anything to save money. They can cut labor costs by continuing to operate in the US and hiring (possibly illegal) immigrants, or they can cut labor costs by moving overseas. Those are the options. You can't force companies to spend more money than they want to spend. Well, I suppose you could pass some law requiring them to both stay in the US and spend more. But you know what they could do then? Go out of business.
So you only have two choices: let companies hire immigrants, or let companies outsource. Which is worse? Even if you are totally xenophobic and short sighted (maybe even because you are), isn't outsourcing worse? At least immigrants wages, even under the table, untaxed, and way below minimum wage (descriptions which are not always true), are turned around and spent in the US economy. Immigrants still need to buy food and shelter and transportation. Do you prefer it if those low cost foriegners are contributing to your own GDP or to India's?
I am oversimplifying a lot of things. I'm still right, though.
Many who speak out against illegal immigration say that the increased worker supply depresses wages and puts "real americans" out of work.
In the short term, they are probably right.
Many of those same people are scared to death of factories in China or call centers in India because they depress wages and put "real americans" out of work.
I could talk about comparative advantage, but at a very low skill level, they're right again.
But here's where people have a disconnect. Companies will do anything to save money. They can cut labor costs by continuing to operate in the US and hiring (possibly illegal) immigrants, or they can cut labor costs by moving overseas. Those are the options. You can't force companies to spend more money than they want to spend. Well, I suppose you could pass some law requiring them to both stay in the US and spend more. But you know what they could do then? Go out of business.
So you only have two choices: let companies hire immigrants, or let companies outsource. Which is worse? Even if you are totally xenophobic and short sighted (maybe even because you are), isn't outsourcing worse? At least immigrants wages, even under the table, untaxed, and way below minimum wage (descriptions which are not always true), are turned around and spent in the US economy. Immigrants still need to buy food and shelter and transportation. Do you prefer it if those low cost foriegners are contributing to your own GDP or to India's?
I am oversimplifying a lot of things. I'm still right, though.
challenge index
Every year, Washington Post reporter Jay Matthews publishes a list of top high schools in Newsweek called the Challenge Index. He calculates the number of AP/IB/Cambridge tests taken divided by the number of seniors in a school and ranks everyone by that number. Every year people claim that his rating system is too narrow, or too damaging, or even misleading, and every year he writes a column to defend himself.
here is this year's.
His main point is that a school is good if it challenges *all* of its students, not just its highest achievers, and that even if students take an AP class and do poorly on the exam, they have still benefitted from being exposed to college level work. It makes a lot of sense. However, I think he's being too dismissive of his critics. Here's a quote from this year's column:
Offhand, it looks like they hit on the two big ways that a school could game the ratings system. I'm sure Matthews would argue that his index isn't influential enough for people to bother gaming it. He's probably mostly right, but the issues they raise are still worth considering.
First, there's the issue of low average test scores. He's absolutely correct in pointing out that standardized test scores overwhelmingly correlate with parental income levels (and have a small additional correlation with race, I'd add), so that if you don't believe that richer (or whiter) kids are simply smarter, you're seeing the lifetime effects of a second class education reflected in those scores. In other words, schools are doing the best they can to play catch up, and we should reward them for trying.
I agree.
However, the reason Matthews counts AP, IB, and Cambridge tests, but not community college or honors classes, is that the first 3 have universal, independently evaluated standards while the last 2 do not. A big program in high schools is "course title inflation," where "senior calculus" is really nothing more than first year algebra, or honors english never has you writing a paper longer than two pages. AP, IB, and Cambridge are less prone to title inflation because there's an exam at the end, so if the whole class fails the exam, you know something fishy is going on.
Except when you don't. because the kids are poor.
See the problem? I don't think you'd find a school deliberately enrolling kids in a faux AP European History class so that they sit through a 3 hour long exam, score their 1's, and improve the school's challenge index rating. I do think you can find schools willing to offer comprehensive, challenging AP Euro classes, until the teachers realizes how underprepared their students are and start assigning 2 page essays and diorama projects instead.
Second, there's the issue of dropout rates. This is really simple: If your formula is (# of tests)/(# of seniors) you can make yourself look good by raising the numerator OR by lowering the denominator. I don't know if this actually happens outside of Pump Up The Volume, but concievably a school could push its problem students out, if not by expelling them, then by making school a place where they really don't want to be. Even if nothing sinister is going on, a school with a high dropout rate is certainly not helping all its students succeed. It's giving up on a lot of them. I think the formula should be reworked to take this into account. Assuming incoming class size stayed static from year to year, you could calculate (# of tests)/(# of freshmen) so that you're measuring the AP participation rates based on a class's original size. or maybe continue to calculate (# of tests)/(# of seniors), but then multiply the result by (1 - dropout rate).
Matthews responds to criticism with a great movie analogy:
Great, but not sufficient. You've just shown me that it's possible to have different, equally valid rating systems for the same product, but you've yet to prove that your system is one of the valid ones. I'll take that movie analogy and respond with a (somewhat tortured) television one:
What are the "best" TV shows? Are they the ones that win the most Emmys or the ones that have the most viewers? Maybe you think the latter is true, so you rank your shows by Neilsen ratings. But take a closer look at Nielsen ratings. People self-report what they watch and do not always mention when they change a channel or leave the room or mute the commercials. You don't know the real quality of a viewer's watching experience. Furthermore, Neilsen doesn't count shows recorded on DVRs unless they're watched within 24 hours, so you're not getting the true number viewers. What Neilsen tries to measure is worth measuring, but that doesn't mean its doing a good job of capturing it. The same could be said of the challenge index.
here is this year's.
His main point is that a school is good if it challenges *all* of its students, not just its highest achievers, and that even if students take an AP class and do poorly on the exam, they have still benefitted from being exposed to college level work. It makes a lot of sense. However, I think he's being too dismissive of his critics. Here's a quote from this year's column:
Recently two education experts, Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead of the Education Sector think tank in Washington, D.C., said it was wrong for Newsweek to label "best" schools with high dropout rates and low average test scores like many of the low-income schools on the list.
Offhand, it looks like they hit on the two big ways that a school could game the ratings system. I'm sure Matthews would argue that his index isn't influential enough for people to bother gaming it. He's probably mostly right, but the issues they raise are still worth considering.
First, there's the issue of low average test scores. He's absolutely correct in pointing out that standardized test scores overwhelmingly correlate with parental income levels (and have a small additional correlation with race, I'd add), so that if you don't believe that richer (or whiter) kids are simply smarter, you're seeing the lifetime effects of a second class education reflected in those scores. In other words, schools are doing the best they can to play catch up, and we should reward them for trying.
I agree.
However, the reason Matthews counts AP, IB, and Cambridge tests, but not community college or honors classes, is that the first 3 have universal, independently evaluated standards while the last 2 do not. A big program in high schools is "course title inflation," where "senior calculus" is really nothing more than first year algebra, or honors english never has you writing a paper longer than two pages. AP, IB, and Cambridge are less prone to title inflation because there's an exam at the end, so if the whole class fails the exam, you know something fishy is going on.
Except when you don't. because the kids are poor.
See the problem? I don't think you'd find a school deliberately enrolling kids in a faux AP European History class so that they sit through a 3 hour long exam, score their 1's, and improve the school's challenge index rating. I do think you can find schools willing to offer comprehensive, challenging AP Euro classes, until the teachers realizes how underprepared their students are and start assigning 2 page essays and diorama projects instead.
Second, there's the issue of dropout rates. This is really simple: If your formula is (# of tests)/(# of seniors) you can make yourself look good by raising the numerator OR by lowering the denominator. I don't know if this actually happens outside of Pump Up The Volume, but concievably a school could push its problem students out, if not by expelling them, then by making school a place where they really don't want to be. Even if nothing sinister is going on, a school with a high dropout rate is certainly not helping all its students succeed. It's giving up on a lot of them. I think the formula should be reworked to take this into account. Assuming incoming class size stayed static from year to year, you could calculate (# of tests)/(# of freshmen) so that you're measuring the AP participation rates based on a class's original size. or maybe continue to calculate (# of tests)/(# of seniors), but then multiply the result by (1 - dropout rate).
Matthews responds to criticism with a great movie analogy:
The adjective "best" always reflects different values. Your best movie may have won the most awards; mine may have sold the most tickets. In this case, I want to recognize those schools with the teachers who add the most value, even in inner-city schools where no one has yet found a way to reduce dropouts or raise test scores significantly.
Great, but not sufficient. You've just shown me that it's possible to have different, equally valid rating systems for the same product, but you've yet to prove that your system is one of the valid ones. I'll take that movie analogy and respond with a (somewhat tortured) television one:
What are the "best" TV shows? Are they the ones that win the most Emmys or the ones that have the most viewers? Maybe you think the latter is true, so you rank your shows by Neilsen ratings. But take a closer look at Nielsen ratings. People self-report what they watch and do not always mention when they change a channel or leave the room or mute the commercials. You don't know the real quality of a viewer's watching experience. Furthermore, Neilsen doesn't count shows recorded on DVRs unless they're watched within 24 hours, so you're not getting the true number viewers. What Neilsen tries to measure is worth measuring, but that doesn't mean its doing a good job of capturing it. The same could be said of the challenge index.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
gonzales
James Comey Testifies before House Judiciary Committee
My favorite part of this story is how Alberto Gonzales is such a dirt bag that he actually manages to make John Ashcroft look like a good guy. Okay, I'm using a very broad definition of the word favorite.
I also love how Arlen Specter tries to praise Bush for not letting Gonzales utterly disregard the Justice Department. Because Bush has too much respect for the Justice Department. Which is why he promoted Gonzales to head the department after Ashcroft resigned.
Other absolutely awesome things:
As soon as paul McNulty resigns, Gonzales tries to pin all the US Attorney firings on him. Just like he did with Sampson when Sampson resigned. Also, is it just me, or was McNulty not the first bush official to cite the rising costs of college tuition in his resignation letter? I wonder if saying that is secret code for "I'm the sacrificial lamb" or something?
My favorite part of this story is how Alberto Gonzales is such a dirt bag that he actually manages to make John Ashcroft look like a good guy. Okay, I'm using a very broad definition of the word favorite.
I also love how Arlen Specter tries to praise Bush for not letting Gonzales utterly disregard the Justice Department. Because Bush has too much respect for the Justice Department. Which is why he promoted Gonzales to head the department after Ashcroft resigned.
Other absolutely awesome things:
As soon as paul McNulty resigns, Gonzales tries to pin all the US Attorney firings on him. Just like he did with Sampson when Sampson resigned. Also, is it just me, or was McNulty not the first bush official to cite the rising costs of college tuition in his resignation letter? I wonder if saying that is secret code for "I'm the sacrificial lamb" or something?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
grammar lesson
caché != cachet != cache
A lot of people write cache because they don't know how to make an é, but usually caché is wrong too!
for reference:
cache is an English noun that means hiding place or storage place.
caché is the past participle of a french verb. It means concealed.
cachet is an English noun meaning mark of distinction.
they are all derived from the same root, but you are still wrong.
thank you.
A lot of people write cache because they don't know how to make an é, but usually caché is wrong too!
for reference:
cache is an English noun that means hiding place or storage place.
caché is the past participle of a french verb. It means concealed.
cachet is an English noun meaning mark of distinction.
they are all derived from the same root, but you are still wrong.
thank you.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
quality freaks
This essay is about books, not TV, but my fellow elimidate fans should still relate. In particular, this paragraph needs to be on a t-shirt or something:
I love people who rant about "The da Vinci Code." They take themselves so seriously it makes me smile. It's this awesome attitude which essentially amounts to "how could you like that?! Stupid people like that!" as if the stupidness is in imminent danger of rubbing off.
Most of us are familiar with people who make a fetish out of quality: They read only good books, they see only good movies, they listen only to good music, they discuss politics only with good people, and they’re not shy about letting you know it. They think this makes them smarter and better than everybody else, but it doesn’t. It makes them mean and overly judgmental and miserly, as if taking 15 minutes to flip through “The Da Vinci Code” is a crime so monstrous, an offense in such flagrant violation of the sacred laws of intellectual time-management, that they will be cast out into the darkness by the Keepers of the Cultural Flame.
I love people who rant about "The da Vinci Code." They take themselves so seriously it makes me smile. It's this awesome attitude which essentially amounts to "how could you like that?! Stupid people like that!" as if the stupidness is in imminent danger of rubbing off.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Marilee Jones
She's my favorite news story of the week. In case you haven't been paying attention, here's the relevant background info:
Marilee Jones was the dean of admissions at MIT. She's become quite the big name among circles of striving suburban parents because she speaks out against the high stakes/high pressure college admissions process. MIT still rejects 9 out of every 10 applicants, but because of her influence, they've made tweaks like not weighing the SAT quite as heavily. Anyway, it turns out that this spokesperson for easing the pressure on high school seniors to have increasingly impressive resumes lied on her resume. big time. She claimed to have 3 college degrees that she just didn't have.
Anyway, that story was great enough, because it looked like she didn't have a college degree at all (she wasn't providing evidence of one). So here's this high powered Administrator at one of the most selective schools of the country, making or breaking the dreams of thousands of college applicants, and she doesn't even have a diploma.
But this article says she does have a degree. It's from some small Catholic school in Upstate NY. This raises the question of why she even lied in the first place. After all, the first job she applied to at MIT only required a Bachelor's, and it turns out, she had one. The even better question, though, is why didn't she mention this degree when people asked her if she had any degrees at all? Because you see, MIT found out about this one through an anonymous tip.
My only conclusion is that there must be some glamorous story behind it all, possibly involving the witness protection program, mob connections, and a savant-like ability to pick up and master new professions at will à la The Pretender.
Marilee Jones was the dean of admissions at MIT. She's become quite the big name among circles of striving suburban parents because she speaks out against the high stakes/high pressure college admissions process. MIT still rejects 9 out of every 10 applicants, but because of her influence, they've made tweaks like not weighing the SAT quite as heavily. Anyway, it turns out that this spokesperson for easing the pressure on high school seniors to have increasingly impressive resumes lied on her resume. big time. She claimed to have 3 college degrees that she just didn't have.
Anyway, that story was great enough, because it looked like she didn't have a college degree at all (she wasn't providing evidence of one). So here's this high powered Administrator at one of the most selective schools of the country, making or breaking the dreams of thousands of college applicants, and she doesn't even have a diploma.
But this article says she does have a degree. It's from some small Catholic school in Upstate NY. This raises the question of why she even lied in the first place. After all, the first job she applied to at MIT only required a Bachelor's, and it turns out, she had one. The even better question, though, is why didn't she mention this degree when people asked her if she had any degrees at all? Because you see, MIT found out about this one through an anonymous tip.
My only conclusion is that there must be some glamorous story behind it all, possibly involving the witness protection program, mob connections, and a savant-like ability to pick up and master new professions at will à la The Pretender.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
duck phallus
most random article of the day.
just read this paragraph:
plus, the picture is sort of adorable.
caption: Patricia Brennan, a behavioral ecologist, examining the phallus of a Pekin duck.
and for the record, the image is named 01duck.xlarge1
just read this paragraph:
When she first visited in January, the phalluses were the size of rice grains. Now many of them are growing rapidly. The champion phallus from this Meller’s duck is a long, spiraling tentacle. Some ducks grow phalluses as long as their entire body. In the fall, the genitalia will disappear, only to reappear next spring.
plus, the picture is sort of adorable.
caption: Patricia Brennan, a behavioral ecologist, examining the phallus of a Pekin duck.
and for the record, the image is named 01duck.xlarge1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)