All posts by Mike

Culture War, Politics, Science and Edumacation

Thursday Night Linkorama

  • You’re kidding me.

    Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of mil lions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

    …

    The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having “positive outcomes” including teenagers “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.”

    “Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect,” said the report.

    Abstinence and condoms. Abstinence and condoms! Abstinence AND condoms, you microcephalic Religious Right twerps!

  • Reports are coming in that kids are taking a lot more diabets medication. I have to wonder, however, if this actually means there has been an increase in diabetes or an increase in medication. Kids are taking more of every drug these days, despite being healthier than ever.
  • On that note, the ideal weight? Slightly over. Let’s see the Health Nazi wriggle out of this one. They do note that despite the better outcomes, there are some health disadvantages to being overweight. I’m inclined to agree. The whole point of the debate is that an enjoyable life is better than a miserable on that last a year or two longer. And as an overweight person, I find I have less energy and verve. But, of course the biggest problem with being overweight is that it cuts into your chances of getting laid. Now let’s try and see the Health Nazis sell that.
    • Politics

    Driver’s Ed

    The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again:

    TMQ urged drivers’ ed teachers to teach young people not to drive in caravans, which cause distractions and crashes. Daniel Barbour of Richmond, Va., notes in a comment that could apply to the laws of many states, “Virginia’s new laws regarding the number of passengers new drivers are allowed to have in their cars actually promote caravan driving by young drivers. Virginia’s laws state that: ‘If you are under 18 and hold a learner’s permit or a driver’s license, Virginia law says you may only carry one passenger who is under age 18 while you hold a permit and during the first year that you drive. After that, you may only carry three passengers who are under age 18, until you reach age 18.’ While the obvious intent of this law is to help prevent the new driver from becoming distracted by passengers, my personal experience with this a few years ago while I was that age is that this law indirectly promotes caravan driving, which as you pointed out is a very big distraction, especially for the lead driver. For example, if a group of six friends under the age of roughly 18 — it depends on how old they were when they obtained their licenses, otherwise the three-passenger rule might be in effect — want to drive somewhere, they are essentially legally required to take three separate cars, all of which will inevitably follow each other around town, caravan-style. By trying to remove one distraction from teen drivers, state legislatures have practically mandated another.”

    Politics, Science and Edumacation

    No to Good Schools

    It’s really depressing that school vouchers keep losing. But it’s hardly surprising. They are opposed by one of the wealthiest, most powerful, most shameless, most vicious special interests in the country. God forbid we should quit doing what hasn’t worked for the last thirty fucking years.

    Vouchers don’t stand much of a chance in referenda, which is why the teacher’s goonions love to put them up for vote. The reason is that the majority of parents either (a) have access to the good public schools; (b) have the money for private schools and don’t want those nasty poor kids getting in; (c) have the money for private schools but support “the system” out of guilt or misguided ideology; or (d) have neither the time nor the money to get educated about the idea and so listen to whatever lies are being poured into their ears.

    The only people who lose here are poor people, poor kids, teachers in inner city schools, principals, the United States, the human race and the planet Earth. But at least the teachers unions get their membership and influence, the Democrats get their campaign donations and rich people keep poor kids out of their schools. So who cares if everyone else gets it in the ear?

    Me? Next time I give to charity, I’m going to find one that provides scholarships for poor kids.

    'Culture'

    Radiohead

    So how’s the Radiohead experiment going? Pretty damned well:

    The first concrete analysis of Radiohead’s innovative pay-what-you-like plan for latest album In Rainbows shows thirty-eight percent of those who downloaded the title indeed chose to pay something, while 62 percent kept their change in their pocket. ComScore (NSDQ: SCOR) data (via release) shows 1.2 million people visited the site in the first 29 days of October (it was launched at the start of the month).

    The average price paid was $6 on a globalized basis but Americans were more generous, coughing up $8.05 – factor in the freeloaders, however, and it’s more like an average $2.26 on a worldwide basis and $3.23 from Americans. The most common amount offered was below $4, but 12 percent were willing to pay between $8 and $12, around the typical cost of an album from iTunes.

    Keep in mind, this is mainly a promotional tool. Read the comments. Radiohead is actually not making much less than they would through a record company while generating tons of buzz and goodwill (which will mean ticket sales).

    This is great news.

    Politics

    One Year From Now

    1 Comment

    Well, I guess I’ll play pundit today – not that I’m ever a model of restraint with my self-important opinions. But let’s look ahead to the 2008 election. I’ll only stick to the candidates who have a chance in hell. It’s a pity, since I like Bill Richardson and Ron Paul. But this is punditry cum prediction.

  • Hillary: If she can use one name, I can. She seems inevitable. But so did Musky. I can’t stand her and I’m relieved that the real Hillary – brutal, manipulative, cynical and arrogant – is coming out. I just don’t think enough people are paying attention and will vote for her just for the thrill of having the first woman president.
  • Barack Obama: I like him, which is not necessarily a good thing. The best thing about Barack, as said by Sullivan, is that his election would finish the Baby Boomers once and for all as a political force. A lot of people are writing him off. But think about it. At this point in 2003, who knew who John Kerry was? (Actually, at this point in 2004, who knew who John Kerry was?). People like Barack; they don’t like Hillary.
  • John Edwards: The only other viable Democrat. I’m well know for loathing the Fetus Whisperer. He hasn’t got a chance. Thankfully. I suppose it’s remotely possible he could pull of a Kerry – he’s got all that lawyer money. But don’t bet on it.
  • John McCain: I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he would repair our image aboard, end torture and continue the fight in the War on Terror. He’s also a true conservative and a good man – which is why he has no chance.
  • Mitt Romney: Peaked early and his flip-flopping is hurting him. Good. He’s too oily for me.
  • Rudy Giuliani: As time goes on, he is being revealed for the power-hungry asshole that he is. Right now, he’s the front-runner. But I can’t think that anyone so nasty can get the nomination.
  • Mike Huckabee: I can’t stand him. He’s a radical religious right, nanny-state, big government “conservative” who will basically offer us four more years of Bush. I’m going out on a limb here — I think he gets the nomination. Yeah, I said it. The religious right loves him. The Fair Tax Movementarians like him. He’s a dreadful candidate and will get slaughtered by just about any Democrat. But he will get the nomination.
  • Fred Thompson: I’m liking him more and more. He’s one of the few mainstream candidates who seems to give a shit about the Constitution. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination – he lacks the oomph and the religious right is likely to bail since he won’t support the marriage ammendment, won’t outlaw abortion and has a young pretty wife.

    • If I had to pick now, I’d say that Hillary beats Huckabee a year from now. But Obama has a chance – if he plays his cards right. My preference? In order, I’d say Thompson, McCain, Romney, Obama, third party candidate, Huckabee, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani. Yes, I would probably support Hillary over Giuliani. I never, in a million years, thought I’d type those words. Both are nasty individuals who would happily destroy the Constitution to empower themselves. But at least with Hillary, the Republicans might oppose it.

    If this were 2000 or even 2004, I would support Giuliani over Hillary. But Rudy is the last thing we need after the damage Bush has done to our political system.

    Law and Order, Politics, Science and Edumacation, War on Terror

    Monday Linkorama

  • I’m a big supporter of free speech in academia and I oppose the flag-burning ammendment. Still. What an asshole.
  • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the biggest impediment to global warming being taken seriously is the tendency for supporters to link everything to it, including Darfur, for some reason.
  • Simulated drowning isn’t torture? Well, maybe half-drowning is.
  • John Ashcroft makes the case that the phone companies should not be sued for complying with government surveillance demands.

    Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.

    To deny immunity under these circumstances would be extraordinarily unfair to any cooperating carriers. By what principle of justice should anyone face potentially ruinous liability for cooperating with intelligence activities that are authorized by the president and whose legality has been reviewed and approved by our most senior legal officials?

    He makes a good case. (Hat Tip: Overlawyered.com, which is rapidly becoming one of my favorite all-purpose blogs.)

  • Balko on California’s attempt at criminal justice reform. I’ve moved quite a bit on this issue. I used to be more in the “hang ’em all, let God sort ’em out” camp. I’m still very much a law-and-order type who thinks some criminals should be tossed in prison for the rest of their lives. But I’m getting more and more leary of the “tough-guy” attitudes.
    • Sports

    Well, Crap

    Dammit. I was really hoping the Colts would win today. I’m getting a little sick of Tom Brady’s pouting, Belichek’s cheating and score-running-upping and the media’s dick-sucking.

    I have no doubt if Marvin Harrison had been healthy, the Colts would have won.

    'Culture', Law and Order, Politics, Sports, War on Terror

    Friday Nights Linksorama

  • Nice work, if you can get it. Wish I could get paid half a billion dollars for shuffling papers.
  • An Islamic cleric explains how to beat your wife. I was actually expecting something much worse. He regards women as children, which is an improvement, I guess, over regarding them as animals. The scary thing is, he’s a liberal by Middle Eastern standards.
  • Ah, cat butter. The salad days are over for Mac users.
  • At last they find a way to honor John Jordan O’Neill. Fantastic.
  • Megan McCardle on the importance of failure. As a scientist, I can tell you that an experiment that works precisely as planned tells you nothing.

    Failure, to put it bluntly, works. Failure is nature’s way of telling you “Hey, that doesn’t work!” The American economy is vastly strengthened by the fact that companies are allowed to fail–and also by the fact that our crazy culture encourages us to try things that don’t work.

    In the first few iterations, this often looks inferior to a centralized system. Look, the critics say, they sat down and planned it all! Compare that to our messy, fragmented market where half the stuff doesn’t work!

    It can take a decade or more before the cracks in the planning appear. The planners, it turns out, didn’t foresee that the world would change, and now the giant, planned system can’t cope.

    Speak it, sister.

    • Science and Edumacation

    Zapping Virii

    2 Comments

    Cool:

    A physicist and his biologist son destroyed a common virus using a superfast pulsing laser, without harming healthy cells. The discovery could lead to new treatments for viruses like HIV that have no cure.

    “We have demonstrated a technique of using a laser to excite vibrations on the shield of a virus and damage it, so that it’s no longer functional,” said Kong-Thon Tsen, a professor of physics at Arizona State University. “We’re testing it on HIV and hepatitis right now.”

    This is such a good idea, I’ll have to steal it for a short story.

    Politics

    Bias

    An interesting study from Journalism.org on media bias. It tracks postive and negative coverage of Presidential candidates. There is nothing surprising here and nothing that will make the libs shut up about Fox news. But for the record:

  • They find newspapers are heavily biased toward Democrats. No surprises here. I’ve made a recurrring feature on how the NYT editorial page is basically a faxed-in Democrat party platform.
  • A fairly large bias on ABC/CBS/NBC toward Democrats. PBS tends to be negative on everyone.
  • Cable news is far more balanced. CNN and MSNBC have an anti-Republican title, FOX has a pro-Republican tilt.
  • Interestingly, conservative talk radio is more balanced than liberal, although both are very partisan. I have no problem with this — talk radio is opinion not news. Conservative talk radio is generally far more positive on Republicans and more negative on Democrats. But liberal talk radio, with the exception of Hillary, is incredibly partisan. Again, to be fair, this reflects more of conservative disaffection for the current GOP crop. And before Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh say, “See! It’s fair! Equal bias!” conservative talk radio has three times as much airtime as liberal radio.
  • It comes as no surprise to me that NPR is fairly partisan Democrat.

    • So, the liberal can scream about Fox News and talk radio and have the facts on their side. But they need to at least acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and every newspaper is biased left. Why can’t they just admit this? Why does “bias” only exist when it’s conservative bias?

    Oh, I keep forgetting. Because Democrats are always right. The reason there is much more positive coverage of Dems than the GOP is because the Dems are so superior. Why, it shows incredible conservative bias that the tilt is 100% toward Democrats!