« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 31, 2006

A Land of Contrasts (and Italians)

The ancestral homeland is once again the richest state in the union, according to statistics put out by the U.S. Census Bureau. Half of New Jersey's households make more than $61,672 per year, placing it just ahead of Connecticut. New Jersey's poverty rate is 8.7 percent, fourth lowest in the nation.

The Garden State is a land of contrasts. The commuter suburbs of my youth--Hunterdon, Somerset, and Morris counties--are among the richest in the nation. Only the elite Washington, D.C. suburbs of Loudon and Fairfax counties in Virginia, for example, are richer than Hunterdon county. But on the other hand, Camden is the poorest city of more than 65,000 persons and Newark is the 7th poorest city of more than 250,000. Camden's median income of $18,007 is lowest in the nation, and a stark contrast to Hunterdon's $93,342.

New Jersey's stunning wealth is negated somewhat by its cost-of-living index, which is also among the highest in the nation. Therefore, for the moment anyway, my plan is the same as Less than Jake's.

For the interested Hoosiers, Indiana ranked in the middle of the pack. The median income in Indiana was $43,993.

Posted by David Darlington at 10:56 PM | Comments (1)

White man rapping (again)

The creator of the wonderful "Lazy Muncie" music video has come up with a musical poke at President Bush. It's called "Curious GWB." If you haven't already seen it, I recommend you click here.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:24 PM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2006

An In-Depth Discussion of Dilatants with the TSA

As I ponder the mysteries of airline security, I find that the recent, implausible scheme to mix fluids on-board a flight to make an explosive has produced some spotty enforcement and weird rules.

It's nigh-impossible for screeners to catch every single vessel of fluid that resides the in the crevices of carry-on items. Maybe this is a good thing, as a bomb from 0.5 fl. oz. of eyedrops is probably even more unlikely than from a sports drink. But to introduce new guidelines on the size of containers would probably just make the rules even sillier.

If passengers had any guff, they would content themselves with secreting small containers in overlooked nooks. But I'm afraid passengers are rather guffless these days, so cowed as they are by the atmosphere of haphazard security measures. Last week, I observed one businessman revealing to his coworkers with some bravado that his laptop bag, somehow, still had a spray bottle of lens cleaner. He made light of it, but his shifty looks around for an imminent reprimand belied the fact that he was truly abashed by this oversight. Pathetic.

(Then again, one woman at the security checkpoint was astonished that they would not let her take a lighter on-board. While I do agree with her that a lighter is relatively harmless, it was amusing to find someone so removed from current events that such a security measure was a surprise.)

What's more, I'm glad that the chemists employed by the TSA quickly determined that there is no way potential explosives can be masked in baby formula, breast milk, or vials of insulin. This was surely a close call, for early on Stupid Thursday, it was initially thought that juice in baby bottles was also immune; further research must have cleared up this misconception.

Viscosity is also an unusual predictor of explosive potential. Gels are sufficiently fluid to be banned, but much that is resistant to shear stress is acceptable, stick deodorants, for instance. (I think this is really the clue to understanding the true threat we face: The Joker! Remember his dastardly scheme from the 1989 Batman film?)

I've also been thinking about where the line gets drawn between gels and solids. If I were more peevish and had oodles of free time before a flight, I'd probably bring some oobleck in my carry-on. You remember oobleck, don't you? That peculiar mixture of water and cornstarch from Middle School? Is it a solid, or is it a liquid? Hours of fun in the private screening area, I'm sure.

Would I be put out by this lengthy interrogation by the TSA? Absolutely not! I would be proud to spend time with these fine civil servants -- why, they are much more than that! They possess, as Brian Doherty puts it, "almost foolhardy bravery," citing John Lopez's observation that they, "willingly risk their lives by handling potentially explosive liquids as roughly as if they were nothing more than harmless toiletries."

I'm so glad that back in 2001, Tom Daschle and his fellow Democrats insisted that we nationalize airport security to ensure quality and safety. I know one fellow who recently applied for a position as an airport screener. He reported that the computerized testing for identifying weapons in luggage x-rays was beyond confusing; three-quarters of the way through the test, he had resigned himself to haphazard guessing on the multiple choice. With each click, he felt his chances of employment receding. Mercifully, the Blue Screen of Death interrupted the ordeal. Unable to solve the computer problem or restart the test (applicants must wait six months to retry), they sent him home. His disappointment vanished when he received a call shortly thereafter; based upon the questions he was able to answer, he scored in the 95th percentile and was eligible for employment. I'm sure this guy would confiscate my oobleck -- if he hadn't taken another job, much to the dismay of the TSA.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:42 PM | Comments (7)

I'm Sorry, Too

Sometimes spell check leaves you all wet.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

'Out of Africa'

Greetings to our faithful and loyal readers. I've returned from my holiday in Africa and have posted pictures and commentary here. The pictures on each page are icons, of course, and you'll need to click them to see the full picture.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:09 AM | Comments (4)

August 29, 2006

The Canterbury (Flip) Flop

It seems that Rowan Williams has made an about-face concerning homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. As The Telegraph article states, Williams has distanced himself from his "one-time liberal support of gay relationships," and has stated that the ECUSA's ordination of practicing homosexual has in no way altered the teaching and tradition of the Communion.

Williams went on to state that there is a difference between welcoming all and including all: "I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say, 'Come and and we ask no questions.' I do believe conversion means a conversion of habits, ideas, behaviours, and emotions."

Yet even Williams' rather simple explication of the difference between welcoming those afflicted with homosexual desires and including such people, without exhortion to the Gospel, appears to fall on deaf ears. Giles Goddard, chairman of the Inclusion Church (no explanation necessary), said that Williams appears to have moved to the "conservative camp," and that the Archbishop's latest statement gives "the implication...that there is no justification in Scripture for the welcome of gay and lesbian people."

Cynical as I am, this might signal a shift in the Anglican Communion, at least towards throwing greater distance between the ECUSA and, well, the rest of the Communion. But even within those parts of the Communion where homosexuality is not an issue, other aspects of church practice, such as the female presbyterate, will continue to break the Communion apart, piecemeal.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:39 PM | Comments (15)

...While Another Remains Open

John Mark Karr has been exonerated in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and charges have been dropped, according to news reports. While he is still guilty of being exceedingly creepy, Karr's DNA does not match DNA found at the crime scene, leading prosecutors to no longer consider him a suspect. The strangest part of the case is that Karr himself remains convinced he did the crime, in some sort of bizarre criminal celebrity fixation. If jail time is his wish, that may just be granted as Karr still faces charges in California for possession of child p0rnography.

Posted by David Darlington at 10:29 PM | Comments (0)

Plame case resolved

From the very beginning of the Valerie Plame affair, I have always felt that the most likely explanation was that a Bush administration official mentioned Plame's position at the CIA to Robert Novak to point out that Joseph Wilson was chosen to go to Africa through nepotism--not to punish Wilson by outing his wife's classified status.

As it turns out, John Podhoretz had made the same guess. And as the soon-to-be-released book Hubris details, that guess was correct. Co-author Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek that deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was the Plame leaker, and he disclosed the information to Novak out of a love for Washington gossip:

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

And so, the Valerie Plame affair ends not with a bang, but a whimper. It's unlikely, however, that extreme Bush-haters will stop using the incident any time soon to back up their view of the administration's utter depravity. As Jane's law states: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane."

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:22 PM | Comments (12)

August 28, 2006

"Little Miss Sunshine" a great ride, but misses opportunity

Rated: R
Directed By: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris
Starring: Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Abigail Breslin, Paul Dano, Alan Arkin

The Hoover family fits the Hollywood mold of a dysfunctional family. Father Richard (Kinnear) is a would-be entrepreneur trying to start a career as a motivational speaker. Son Dwayne (Dano) is a sullen teenager who reads Nietzsche and has taken a vow of silence until he reaches his goal of entering the Air Force Academy to fly fighter planes. Daughter Olive (Breslin) is an awkward bespectacled 7-year-old who dreams of being a beauty queen. Grandpa (Arkin) lives on the couch, having been kicked out of his retirement home for drug use. Mother Sheryl (Collette) is a frazzled woman trying to hold the whole menagerie together when they are joined by her brother Frank (Carell) following his attempted suicide.

When news comes that Olive has qualified for a junior beauty pageant in California, everyone piles into a yellow VW minibus to make the trip together. What follows is a quintessential American "road trip" movie that evokes comparisons to "National Lampoon's Vacation." This film, however, is not merely a zany romp with a token amount of tension to keep viewers interested. "Little Miss Sunshine" comes off much more like a family drama where the comedic scenes come as welcome relief to the dark sense of despair that has built up in the preceding sequences. The end of the film is all the more uplifting due to the struggles we've seen the Hoovers endure.

Lest anyone mistake this as a "family film," however, beware that its R rating is well-earned. Although there is no sex or violence, there is drug use, pornography, and abundant profanity (including more uses of "f---" than I would care to count). In one scene, Grandpa urges Dwayne to embrace a promiscuous lifestyle. This movie could have been just as humorous and emotionally powerful without these and other adult elements. In fact, it could have been one of the most successful family-oriented films in recent memory. Co-director Valerie Faris acknowledged this, saying "Without all the things we loved about it--the raunchy language, the outrageous behavior--it would have been the perfect family comedy." Therefore, while I commend "Little Miss Sunshine" as a well-done film artistically, I see it as yet another missed opportunity for Hollywood to produce a high-quality (non-animated) film that is both enjoyable and appropriate for all ages.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:29 PM | Comments (12)

August 26, 2006

Pour One for Robin Yount

Forbes Magazine has named the drunkest cities in America, and perhaps unsuprisingly, Milwaukee, Wisconsin took the top spot. The city that calls itself "The Nation's Watering Hole" ranked number #1 in a survey of the nation's 35 largest cities, as determined by state regulations on alcohol, number of drinkers, number of heavy drinkers, number of binge drinkers, and alcoholism (complete methodology here). Milwaukee had the highest number of adults who reported drinking an alcoholic beverage in the past 30 days (70 percent) and highest numbers of binge drinkers (22 percent).

Milwaukee is home to the breweries for Schlitz, Pabst, Miller, and Blatz.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Columbus (Ohio), Boston, Austin, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Providence (tie) constituted the top 10.

Posted by David Darlington at 10:31 AM | Comments (5)

August 25, 2006

Nerd nostalgia, Lileks-style

I'm not sure how long it's been online, but James Lileks' Institute of Official Cheer has an amusing section on old 60's and 70's era computer promotional material. Says Lileks about one collection of hardware: "Remember: your iPod has more storage capacity than everything in this room."

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:48 PM | Comments (1)

August 24, 2006

Astronomers to Pluto: You're Fired!

Updating a story I posted last week, astronomers meeting in the Czech Republic have decided that Pluto no longer meets the qualifications of a full-fledged planet. The astronomers gathered voted to demote Pluto to the status of dwarf planet, a new category which also includes the asteroid Ceres and UB313 (aka "Xena"). Pluto got the boot because it doesn't have enough mass to maintain a spherical orbit around the sun -- its orbit interferes with that of Neptune.

Now only the eight classical planets will be considered true planets. Third-grade science teachers everywhere are reported desperately thinking up new mnemonic devices before the school year starts.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:59 PM | Comments (9)

Conspiracy Theory, John Knox Style

Earlier this month, Westminster John Knox Press released David Ray Griffin's Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action. Westminster is an official publisher of the Presbyterian Church-USA (PCUSA), and Griffin is a process theologian.

Hype over this book has been in works for some time. "Disparate treatment" is an understatement for a book like this, but the most wide-spread reaction has been shock that Westminster would publish the book. Griffin's latest work claims that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that the current government is working against God's Will. Westminster states that it "share[s]" the author's primary allegiance to God, and that it wants to "encourage sustained, informed, and respectful dialogue" concerning "pressing issues." The problem is, there doesn't seem to be much coming from the other side, political or theological, in this dialogue within the PCUSA. Perhaps it came with the divestment decision in 2004, or this year's Advisory Opinion on ordination and defrockment.

Maybe our friends in the Presbyterian Church in America are right; there has not been much dialogue going on since Auburn so many years ago.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 05:26 PM | Comments (1)

August 23, 2006

George Allen: Not Ready for Prime Time?

The conservative side of the blogosphere hasn't followed the story much, but Virginia Senator George Allen may have sunk his presidential aspirations earlier this month by using an alleged racial slur while on the campaign trail for re-election. For those not following the story, Allen was campaigning in rural Virginia on August 11th when he spotted a 20-year old volunteer for opponent James Webb's campaign videotaping the proceedings. Allen pointed out the young man, S.R. Sidarth, to the audience and asked them to welcome "this fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is" to "America and the real world of Virginia." Sidarth is of Indian ancestry, but was born and raised in Virginia. The offending clip can be found on YouTube.

Now I'd never heard the term before, but depending on whom you ask, the word Allen used is also a racial slur the French use against dark-skinned persons of North African heritage. Allen's campaign has offered conflicting explanations for what Allen said, saying first that Allen wanted to say "mohawk" because of Sidarth's hairstyle, and later amending that remark to say he was combining mohawk and the Spanish caca, so he was calling Sidarth a, um, craphead. Nevertheless, they have been apologizing profusely since.

Regardless of what he was trying to say, I have to wonder why Allen bothered to point out the young man at all. Following your opponent with a camera hoping for embarrassing footage is rather low on the campaign theatrics scale. In fact, it's standard operating procedure. Allen said he was trying to point out that Jim Webb had never been to that part of the state. But is making an example of a 20-year old volunteer the best way to do that? He shouldn't even have acknowledged Sidarth, or at most, given him a wink and a nod on the way out just to say "Yeah, I know you're here." Did the guy really bother Allen that much? You need a thicker skin than that to run for the White House.

Allen's people have to know that his opponents are trying to peg him as a racist, both here in Virginia and for the 2008 presidential race. The New Republic, for example, had articles in two issues this past May about Allen's fascination with the confederate flag (ptui!). They also obviously knew Sidarth was following them around with a camera, hoping for an embarrassing video. But they still allowed Allen to hand their opponent a racial incident on a silver platter.

Allen is not going to lose the Senate race in Virginia. He's too popular and has too much history with the residents of this state. As they say, however, the internet doesn't forget. And with less than two years to go before the 2008 presidential primary season, the conservative movement might be better served by looking elsewhere.

Posted by David Darlington at 07:48 PM | Comments (8)

Survivor to stir the race relations pot?

Survivor host Jeff Probst announced this morning that the 20 contestants on the 13th edition of the competition will be divided into four tribes along racial lines. This is certainly a bold move in a society where race relations is still a very sensitive topic. And it's the sort of thing that's guaranteed to give people who live and breath political correctness a serious case of the willies:

"If I had been a producer of this show, it is not an idea I would have come up with or given approval to," Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, told E! Online. "It's like a return back to segregated leagues in sports. The unseemly interest this will invite certainly is not worth the dramatic elements it's going to bring."

I doubt the racial lines will play any role in the inter-tribe competition, but it may be interesting to see how intra-tribe relations differ among the groups. In any case, Dr. Thompson need not fear. Last time, the four tribes (divided along age and gender lines) were merged into two in the second episode!

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:25 PM | Comments (1)

August 22, 2006

Doing My Part

Zach is already doing a yeoman's work in trying to get our hits up. I thought I'd hit another demographic with this little contribution:

Star Trek motivational posters! Despair.com has nothing on Star Trek: TOS.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:08 AM | Comments (2)

August 21, 2006

Women Need Not Apply

Fifty-four years was a quite a stetch of Sunday School teaching. That is, of course, until Mary Lambert was asked to step down from her teaching post at First Baptist Church, in Watertown, NY. The church's pastor stated, in a letter, that the church has decided to follow a strict reading of NT passages that forbid women teaching men. Fox News has a little story on this, quoting the mayor of the town expressing concern: This same pastor also serves on the city council.

In visiting the church's website, it appears that the church is a member of the American Baptist Church, which, although not as homogeneous as the Southern Baptist Convention, is one of the more liberal branches of Anabaptist theology in the US. It will interesting to see how the wider denomination will react to this move. Some will recall that the issue of women teaching in the church also emerged at the SBC convention this past summer, with the SBC allowing women to still teach Sunday School.

To say the least, Rev. LaBouf has raised the ante on this whole sola scriptura thing.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 04:42 PM | Comments (16)

Coats of Many Colours

Many years ago when I was a youth, I remember going to church one Sunday to find that the pastor had doffed his robes in favor of a very nice suit. Things went downhill after that (this minister was later figuratively defrocked as well).

Having grown up seeing robed clergy, the change struck me as wrong, or at least it ran counter to my conservative temperament. Then again, as I was barely aware of the church growth movement, it seemed like the hip thing to do. Maybe those old robes were unnecessary relics. America's current period of religiosity contains more than a bit of that old Puritanism that disdains the superfluous in worship, and even our pioneer forebears never could count on having the finest in liturgical dress. What was the point of it anyway?

For even despite some speculation that more formal versions of clerical costumes like albs, surplices, and so forth have roots in Jewish ceremony, it is much more likely that they developed out of Greco-Roman formal wear. In other words, they are just the vestiges of what, at the time, had been a very nice suit.

So does this justify my former pastor's wardrobe? On a basic level, I think that as a matter of Christian freedom, pastors need not be required to wear any particular style, unless it detracted from their office. Some modern evangelicals are probably comfortable with pastors who are indistinguishable in their jeans and t-shirts (I think particularly of youth-oriented ministries). Others are comfortable with some degree of formality; a suit or robe is enough to send the message that what the minister is doing is important and respectworthy. The trappings of high liturgy, though, are probably more readily-accepted by those who grew up with it.

The older churches are particularly intricate. For instance, what is the office of a Roman Priest who wears a red-trimmed cassock with a purple sash? What if he also wears a black biretta with a red tuft? In the Eastern Church, when can priests wear a mitre? This level of sophistication no doubt strikes many readers as risible if not repulsively foreign.

As for me, I've grown fond of formal worship attire. Some of it is, I'll admit, just some stuffy attraction to rules and formality. But much more than that, it is a rich reflection of the purpose of worship. It is a visible symbol that the pastoral office is set aside as holy, and that the work ministers do is sacred.

But that's not to say it can't also be a great source of humour.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:22 PM | Comments (2)

Indiana State Fair 2006

My photo collection this year is much briefer than last year, which was pretty comprehensive.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:27 AM | Comments (0)

August 18, 2006

How cheap are you?

Via Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information, I've learned that Northwest Airlines has been handing out a list of money-saving tips to employees they've laid off. Although I'm sure it was some HR department employee's attempt at being helpful, the idea just doesn't sit well from a downsized employee's perspective. ("Sorry we have to let you go, but here's some tips on how to survive on your newly-reduced income.") And when item #46 is "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash," that's just downright insulting.

On the other hand, I think this list could serve as something like a frugality purity test. I'll admit to being rather frugal myself; I've probably done at least 40 of the 101 things on the list at least once.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:53 PM | Comments (3)

The Next War of the World

Today's must read comes from Foreign Affairs magazine where Niall Ferguson argues the same ingredients that made the 20th century the bloodiest in history (between 167 and 188 million killed in military conflict) are poised to make the 21st century just as deadly. The "three Es" as he calls them -- ethnic disintegration, economic volatility, and empires in decline -- when combined create a toxic soup that poisons cities, nations, and regions, and lead to violence, war, and genocide.

And what region today displays all the characteristics of the worst conflict zones of the 20th century? Take a wild guess.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:48 PM | Comments (3)

August 17, 2006

School Days, School Days

As school resumes very soon here at Indiana, I bring our readers a succulent treat from the mind of Justice Brennan, a la Con Law class:

"Abortion and child-birth, when stripped of the sensitive moral arguments surrounding the abortion controversy, are simply two alternative medical menthods of dealing with pregnancy." Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 333 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Ah, those sensitive moral arguments...

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 03:21 PM | Comments (1)

Stupid Thursday

Well, it's been a week since I spent most of my day in airports, and I've concluded that it was one of the dumbest days in my life, in so many ways.

First, as I was waiting to check in at BWI, the lady in front of me remarked that this [the long delays, deprivation of liquids and gels, general harassment by security] was just what the terrorists wanted. Another passenger nodded in agreement (more about him next). To some extent, yes, terrorists want to terrorize us, but that comes through, you know, actually inflicting violence. If the true end of their scheming really is to merely annoy us by making us throw away our drinks and cosmetics, then we're dealing with some truly irrational actors.

(via A Commonplace Book, which has been an excellent source of information)

The fellow who found truth in that statement went on to say something to the effect that it was better to give up our liberties than suffer an attack. This seems about the equivalent of "Better red than dead." I hope he gets the rubber glove treatment frequently.

Third, as I arrived at IND early that morning, there was scant information about the attacks circulating, but we knew it somehow involved mixing together liquids to form an explosive compound. It was a little surprising, then, to find that security's answer to the problem was to have passengers chuck all of their bottles and cups into big trash cans, as if containers don't leak. (BTW, NPR's Morning Edition yesterday cited IND as a model in security efficiency). How would you like to be the janitor who has to collect those sacks?

Fourth, it gets worse: one blogger noted photos of people pouring liquids into receptacles together! How does this make sense? Especially since this is in a crowded airport. (Boing Boing also notes that this is a good way to make a variant of Zyklon B.)

Fifth, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is planning "to give 11 boxes of surrendered items to the city's human services department, which will give the unopened bottles of shampoo, toothpaste and other items to homeless shelters . . ." So these things were dangerous enough to take away from passengers, but not dangerous enough to give to the homeless? Stupid.

Sixth, but just how 'sophisticated' was this plot? One chemist (admittedly, just some guy) says it was a ridiculously implausible plan.

Seventh, and perhaps most stupid, it seems a terror attack wasn't even imminent. In fact the British strenuously objected when the Bush Administration called for the arrests. Granted, it's good to act before an attack rather than after, but I'm guessing the British had some fine reasons for wanting to continue surveillance. What valuable intelligence did we lose by acting too quickly? Some of the president's detractors were quick to link the timing of the roundup to his political woes (or more specifically to the primary defeat of Joe Lieberman). Initially, I dismissed these as the paranoid ramblings of the suspicious Left, but after 5 and a half years of this administration's incompetence, I really can't put that past them.

Maybe I'm still a little angry about getting home at 4:15 am, but that was definitely a stupid Thursday. The one smart thing I saw was that when my Southwest flight was diverted from our holding pattern over Midway to Detroit for refueling, they let off the passengers whose destination was Motor City (rather than make them try to reach their connecting flights from Midway once we finally landed there). Now if only we'd only been diverted to Indy.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:34 PM | Comments (5)

Creation vs. Evolution

Well, this settles it.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:05 PM | Comments (2)

Intelligent Design (by Committee)

Leading astronomers are meeting in Prague this week to debate the nature of our solar system. A radical proposal drawn up by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is suggesting classifying planetary bodies called "plutons" (having characteristics similar to Pluto) and the asteroid Ceres as planets, bringing the total number of planets to 12. The draft proposal identifies the eight "classical" planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), three plutons (Pluto, Charon, and UB313, also known as "Xena"), and Ceres as planets. Supporters of the plan say the new pluton category allows for the discovery of new planets in the Kuiper Belt on the outer edge of our solar system. Critics say the proposal is unnecessarily confusing for the public, as Pluto is demoted to pluton and Ceres (an asteroid between Mars and Jupiter) is promoted to planet under the proposal.

Some 2,500 astronomers will vote on the proposal next Thursday.

UPDATE: The editors of Scientific American blog about the proposal. There are some good criticisms in the comments section.

(hat tip to Mark Byron)

Posted by David Darlington at 08:54 AM | Comments (2)

August 16, 2006

Our Lady's Law School

The formation of Ave Maria Law School (AMLS) at Ann Arbor, MI, was one of trial and tribulation. Boasting the highest bar passage rates in the nation, AMLS quickly gained national notierity. Not to mention that the institution has no qualms with professing orthodox Catholicism.

Charles Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame School of Law, was a member of the board at AMLS from the beginning. Until, of course, he bucked the administration's decision to relocate the school in a swamp in Florida. This past May, Rice sent a nice letter to the dean and chairman of the board (Monaghan, founder of Domino's), criticizing the decision to move. For his efforts, the dean decided not to extend Rice's visiting professor contract this fall; classes start next Monday.

I think, along with a number of current students at Ave, that this move will only heighten negative publicity surrounding the administration at an otherwise much-beloved school. Rice's academic standing is top-notch, not to mention that his personal life is impeccable - something often-times missing from the ivory tower. So much for academic freedom.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 01:59 PM | Comments (1)

School of Parties and Easy A's

I would suppose that many public universities face budgetary constraints that force departments (and schools) to compete with each other for the tuition dollars attached to the students that enroll in their classes. See, for example, the dis-satisfactory policy of Responsibility Center Management, which my alma mater uses (among others) and is arguably the worst legacy of the Ehrlich presidency. The Angry Professor rants about LSU's new policy that has similar incentives, the results of which he summarizes thusly:

The marginal departments, the ones with the lowest possible academic standards, are pulling in vast numbers of warm bodies and the tuition dollars associated with them. The departments that formerly only provided degrees to the football players are now thriving.

The whole thing is rather interesting.

This started Arnold Kling thinking:

I recall seeing a quote somewhere else to the effect that higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

This conflict between what the consumers want--easy A's--and what the suppliers would like to offer--meaningful learning--ought to be examined further. What is the reason for the disconnect? Some possibilities:

1. The consumers are basically right. Most courses are not really worth taking for most students, so the easy A is the best choice.
2. The course that offers the easy A still gives the student the option to learn something, but the course that requires learning does not give the student the option to earn an easy A. So the option value is always with the courses that offers the easy A.
3. Consumers are myopic, and their preference for an easy A is irrational. (This is the view that many professors hold implicitly.)
4. Grades are measurable, and real learning is not. Consumers think grades are more important than they really are, because what is measured and reported is more salient than what is unmeasured.

No doubt, all of these may be at work during any undergraduate career. One commenter adds a fifth:

Consumers are in school for other reasons (find a mate, have fun for a couple of years, participate in sports or other activities) easy classes allow more time for this. To me this is a little different from #1 which I take to mean, that knowledge gained from the course is not helpful in performing a future job.

Evidence from research by Thomas Stanley suggests that this is entirely plausible. I would further hypothesize that this type of behaviour is most common in core, required, or remedial courses.

Prof. Kling goes on to suggests:

I should note that one potential solution to a competitive race-to-the-bottom in terms of rigor would be to have external examinations. When I was a student at Swarthmore in the Honors program, our exams were written and graded by professors from outside the college.

If students are motivated by grades, then separating the examining function from the teaching function changes the consumers' incentive. With the exam exogenous, my grade-motivated students would want my course to be rigorous rather than easy.

But exogenous testing does exist, at least in some fields, in the form of graduate qualifying exams like the GRE, MCAT, and LSAT. And in these fields, students will demand rigorous courses. I remember a chemistry professor announcing that we would be skipping the section on organomercuric reactions but advising that students would do well to study the chapters on their own, as the MCAT was fond of asking about them; the pre-meds were visibly annoyed. Students learn which professors best prepare them for these tests.

These exogenous tests, though, miss the point of the race-to-the-bottom. Most students aren't just looking for easy classes; they're looking for easy majors. What are we to make of the swelling ranks of (tele)communications, criminal justice, sports management, and the like? To ask that really asks 'What's the point of higher education?,' a topic I've covered before here and here.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:20 PM | Comments (2)

Perverse Victory

The most frustrating thing about the ceasefire is not so much that little progress was made in killing terrorists but that Hezbollah is declaring victory. Victory? Leave it to a cartoonist and his anonymous correspondent to explain:

From what I gather, Hezbollah's claim of victory isn't just spin, the way it would be if you heard it from some American politician. As I understand it, the fight itself is the important part -- because it instills pride -- regardless of what physical reality you end up with. And for many, pride is worth more than houses and even lives.

One of the things I learned in business school is that you can always negotiate a deal unless both sides want exactly the same thing. For example, two people can't both individually own 100% of the same building. But if one side wants a building, and the other wants money, you usually have enough to work with.

The American view of the Middle East is that both sides are fighting for the same pieces of land, generally for reasons that sound irrational. If that's true, there's no point in even trying to achieve peace. It's a logical impossibility. And it would explain why, for example, the Palestinians appeared to be giving up on peace plans that looked entirely reasonable to Western eyes.

What if the Muslims in the Middle East, and the Arabs in particular, want dignity and pride while the Israelis and Americans want physical safety? Then we've got something to deal with.

Unfortunately we (in America at least) are poorly equipped to understand that sort of model.

Even more twisted is the fact that Hezbollah is gaining approval for rebuilding the devastation their terrorism wrought.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:12 PM | Comments (15)

August 15, 2006

Dude, You're Getting Second Degree Burns

Dell Computers is recalling over 4 million laptop batteries because of a fire hazard, it announced today. The batteries in question are at risk of an electrical short that would cause them to overheat and smoke or catch fire. They were made by Sony and included in Dell notebooks shipped between April 1, 2004, and July 18th of this year. Dell's Latitude, Inspiron, XPS, and precision notebook lines are affected. The company has put up a web site where users can determine if they need their battery replaced for free.

Posted by David Darlington at 05:04 PM | Comments (6)

August 13, 2006

More Boobs

Following up on my post last week about breastfeeding in public, I'll share with you something I'd never noticed at the Indiana State Fair until yesterday.

And yes, I got some funny looks for taking a picture of this.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:12 PM | Comments (12)

August 11, 2006

The PC Police--literally--in Europe

The English woman who was contacted by a police officer following her expression of opposition to homosexual adoption on a radio program (see Seth's link below) is not the only European whose right to free speech seems to be in danger. Stanley Kurtz wrote in NRO's "The Corner" yesterday that a conservative Belgian blog--The Brussels Journal--has been reporting incidents of government harassment. Blogger Paul Belien has had police knocking on his door and telephoning to question him about allegedly racist articles on his blog which, according to Kurtz, "is one of the only European websites that points up the problems with radical Islam within Europe."

It is unimaginable here in the US that a person would be questioned by the police for doing nothing more than posting controversial opinions on a web site. Even making overtly racist statements would not get you investigated--unless you included threats of violence. Yet in Belgium, someone can make an anonymous tip and the police will be at your door. Belien is to be commended for refusing to defend his writings to the police. How much of this will Europeans take before they stand up for the rights which have been paid for in so much blood over the years?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:21 PM | Comments (14)

Costly Free Speech?

As I sit in the Phoenix Airport, the recent convergence of Islam and the West perculates. The thought of an Islamic Europe continues to spark conversation. As the recent movie V for Vendetta illustrates, the issue even entreats popular culture. Joseph Pearce comments that Europe's, or in this particular case, England's, willingness endure Islam's banter is more capacious than that of other communities, namely, social and religious conservatives.

I tend to agree with Pearce's opinion that this whole affair would be more palatable if folks would be more honest in their appraisal of Islam as a religion of peace.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 04:32 PM | Comments (1)

August 10, 2006

On Small Groups and the Evangelical Search for Authentic Community

If you were to put the phrase "authentic community" into Google, you would notice very quickly that the overwhelming majority of hits on the first few pages comes from church web sites. The phrase is usually, but not always, used within the context of small group ministries, where the congregation is broken down into groups of 4 to 8 for more intense peer-led study, usually at times other than the typical Sunday morning. While I find it incredibly gratifying that churches are thinking about social isolation, I have to wonder how well "authentic community" serves as the answer. I must ask the good Lutheran question, "What does this mean?"

We must start by defining "authentic community," or at least identifying how evangelicals have come to define it. Where it exists as more than just a marketing catchphrase, authentic community usually means something like, "an environment where believers can honestly and openly discuss their successes, concerns, fears, and sins, without fear of judgment or ridicule, but rather with the expectation of prayerful support, sympathy, and accountability towards improvement," within the context of small group designed to educate about the Bible and Christianity. The supporting scripture for such a group would be something like Galatians 6, especially 6:2 ("Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ"). This is a rather lofty vision for a small group, but I think we can all agree that where even part of it can be made manifest, that would be a good thing.

Does this vision work? It must to some extent otherwise churches wouldn't be using it so often. It's certainly not perfect. One can certainly think of instances where it does not work -- such as where a small group becomes a social gathering rather than a study or where the lack of theological training transforms the study into an exercise of the blind leading the blind -- but it works for enough churches for it to become standard practice. But is a small group as defined above really the best way to achieve the "authentic community" many Christians are looking for? Perhaps it's the best we've got, but I'm not convinced it's ideal. First, I wonder why Christians can't have the sort of transparent honesty they're expected to have with their small group with non-Christians as well. In fact, maybe we should, just to prove that we're not all holier-than-thou or have everything figured out. Second, I wonder why this kind of honesty and accountability is generally spoken of in just the small group environment, when it seems an entire church would benefit strongly from good relationship transparency in its members. But more on topic, it seems to me "authentic community" should be made of stronger stuff than what is described above.

One of the guys in my small group regularly says something like, "wouldn't it be cool if we all could get houses in the same neighborhood?" I must admit the idea, while pretty unfeasible, has some appeal. I think part of it is nostalgia for the open-door-days of the freshman year of college, where one could stop by a friend's room at at time of day to chat or hang out and be welcomed, and another part is a very grown up desire to live in a place that is safe, desirable, where you know your neighbors, and where one's (in my case hypothetical) children would be looked out for no matter where they were in the neighborhood. Respected Christian blogger Dan Edelen of Cerculean Sanctum proposed an even more radical arrangement some two years ago on his blog.

I guess what I'm getting at is that when I think of "authentic community," my mind drifts more to the concept of intentional community, which is essentially "authentic community" plus the appreciation of place. Most of our small groups have no concept of place; in my case, we have guys that drive 30 minutes or more to attend our weekly gatherings. We do the best we can with this situation, but it does limit the time we can spend interacting with each other (at worst, we see each other only once a week), as well as make it easier for members to fall off the grid completely, either intentionally or unintentionally. If we all lived in the same apartment complex, on the other hand, we could visit each other more often, hold each other accountable, and council each other better when work or women throw us the proverbial curve ball.

I'm sure to the non-Christian reading this it all sounds like bizarre inside baseball, but I'm convinced of two things: first, social isolation is a very real phenomenon in the United States, and second, based on my readings of the Bible and theologians like Bonhoeffer, Christians are not supposed to be isolated from each other, but rather support one another however they can (see Galatians 6, cited above, and Acts 2, for example). Does this quest for "authentic community" ring true for anyone else? And is there a better way to be going about it?

Posted by David Darlington at 07:19 PM | Comments (7)

August 09, 2006

InstaArchives

Yesterday was InstaPundit's 5-year bloggiversary, and Prof. Reynolds digs up his first week of blogging from the archives. It's an interesting look at the pre-9/11 blogosphere, and it's pretty ho-hum.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:22 PM | Comments (0)

News Flash--Democrats don't like Iraq war or President Bush

I may be nitpicking, but I think this Reuters article about the Connecticut primary election reaches too far in drawing implications from yesterday's vote:

Lamont's outsider bid to unseat the three-term senator in Democratic-leaning Connecticut offered a gauge of anti-war sentiment among voters before the election in November, when control of Congress will be up for grabs.

Connecticut is Democratic-leaning? The state may not be as solidly Democrat as Massachussetts, but it has given its electoral votes to Democrats in each of the last four Presidential elections. I don't believe it is possible to obtain any information about the sentiment of the nationwide electorate based on a Democratic primary in a fairly liberal state.

"Connecticut voters do not call for change lightly but today we called for change decisively. No more stay the course," Lamont told supporters at a victory celebration in Meriden, where he was flanked by black leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Lamont can be forgiven for interpreting his narrow primary victory as representing the will of his entire state. That's just the sort of thing that candidates do. But it's far too early to be sure about what will happen in the 3-way general election. One thing's sure, though, it's going to be interesting.

Throughout this primary campaign, I was reminded of the 2004 primary battle between Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and Congressman Pat Toomey. President Bush's support of Specter was enough to lift him to a narrow victory over Toomey (who never gained the sort of momentum that Lamont did), but Bill and Hillary Clinton's support wasn't enough for Lieberman. Perhaps that is an indication that Pennsylvania's Republicans are more moderate-minded than Connecticut's Democrats?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:29 PM | Comments (7)

August 08, 2006

Connecticut: The Kossack Battleground

The leftist online activists have chosen the Connecticut Democratic primary today as their most high-profile venue for displaying their prowess. I wrote a few weeks ago that this will be the definitive test of whether they are meaningful power brokers. (The race also seems to have been much closer than many had anticipated.) Publius, on the other hand, disagrees:

My thoughts -- if Joe goes down this week, I don't think that blogs will have had all that much to do with it. It's hard to keep this in mind sometimes, but most people simply don't know anything about blogs. To be clear, blogs are certainly helping. But Joe is beating himself just fine, thank you.

But, because people like Wittman, TNR, and even the Lieberman campaign have harped on about those crazy bloggers throughout the campaign, they are inflating the power of blogs in people's minds. And as a result, a Lamont victory will create a perception that blogs are far more important than they are (particularly among party insider types who do keep up with blogs).

And as Kevin Drum notes, perception is more important than reality.

Post Mortem: One of three things

1. The netroots really did prove that they are a major player in electoral politics, and they will get a well-deserved seat at the table in future campaigns. This will lead to more data to evaluate what kind of effects they have on elections.
2. The netroots happened to be involved in a successful election where their participation was marginal or insignificant, but, as explained above, their importance has been over-estimated. It will take a few more elections for the charade to be uncovered, but only after many resources have been squandered on them.
3. The netroots were indeed bit players this time, but the coming onslaught of attention and resources will provide the impetus for online activism to mature into a meaningful electoral force in future campaigns.

The essential element here is time. Plus, there's still November.

Moreover, I don't think these results could be generalized to rightwing online activism. They'll still have to prove themselves.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:14 PM | Comments (6)

Will Power?

This fascinating article (via A&LD) explores how will-power is a more important factor in achievement than natural talent. Unfortunately, will-power is also a depletable resource, much like physical strength: used vigorously, it soon becomes fatigued. The author of the piece illustrates the point by citing her father, a professional philosopher who neglects the discipline to stay fit so that he has the reserves to, "take on the search for wisdom with the strength of 10 men." That notion has a certain appeal. Perhaps I should have skipped going to the gym tonight in order to get more blogging in.

It also adds an interesting new level to the specialization of labour. Innovations in agriculture and technology produced surplus time and resources, and now might we believe that they also produced surplus will-power? That is to ask, would we have so many deep-thinkers today if there were more pressing demands on our mental discipline? (And does professional philosophy have as much or greater social benefit as a cobbler or a blacksmith?)

The ruin of the author's father's fitness and hygiene also has implications about the current state of ill-health in first world countries, such as the lack of preventative successes in smoking cessation and battling weight gain. It seems that a lot of research has gone into finding physical explanations for what once may have been considered defects of character. Physical addiction or genetics are no doubt significant explanatory variables, but maybe we do have the will-power to overcome some of our hurdles -- it's just that we have so many other tasks that demand our attention in a modern, complex world.

Tyler Cowen notes a more cerebral text on the subject that concludes:

At the same time, willpower depletion provides an alternative explanation for a taste for commitment, intertemporal preference reversals, and procrastination. Accounting for willpower depletion thus provides a more unified theory of time preference. It also provides an explanation for anomalous intratemporal behaviors such as low correlations between health-related activities.

Prof. Cowen advises:

My approach to willpower deletion, of course, is to always leave oneself wanting to do a little more of the virtuous task, rather than to overdiscipline. If you have promised yourself 200 push-ups, stop at 198.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:21 PM | Comments (4)

Les Darwin Awards?

According to this Reuters article today:

Spanish police have arrested four Frenchmen for jumping in front of cars on a busy road so that they could film them and post the footage on the Internet, the newspaper El Pais said on Tuesday.

I'd make a French-bashing joke here, but American kids have been known for filming themselves trying similarly ridiculous stunts. (Disclaimer: link shows the occurrence of what is probably a serious injury, but is not graphic.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 02:29 PM | Comments (1)

August 07, 2006

Blessed Union

I don't want to intrude too much into Eric's personal life, but I assume he's doing much better than the fellow who created the website, "Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:59 PM | Comments (1)

Wingman no longer needed here

I am happy to announce that my girlfriend and I got engaged on Saturday. Feel free to leave advice and good-natured ribbing in the comments section. ;-)

By the way, if any of you gentlemen out there are thinking of making a marriage proposal, I recommend reading this online primer for buying diamond engagement rings. Buy this book (at just under $12 from Amazon.com, it's one of the best investments I ever made), visit Blue Nile, Mondera, and Diamond Ideals to do some no-pressure online shopping, and then (with this information visibly in hand) visit a local brick-and-mortar jewelry store (but stay away from mall stores).

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:55 PM | Comments (10)

The science behind the news

Reports concerning Floyd Landis' failed drug tests following his would-be inspiring victory in the Tour de France have been of particular interest in my neck of the woods, since Landis' hometown is an hour's drive from where I live. (Landis is a prominent family name in this area, found on roads, parks, and dozens of businesses.) The day the story broke, my local newspaper ran a headline pleading "Say it ain't so, Floyd!"

Floyd insists that it ain't so. But the evidence against him is strong. Chemist blogger Derek Lowe explains how the test works which showed the testosterone in Landis' urine was synthetic, and how reliable it is. Sadly, unless there was tampering with the sample, it appears that he is guilty of chemically enhancing his performance.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:45 PM | Comments (2)

August 06, 2006

Will You Be My Maverick?

Ah-ha! Now I know what the problem is. It seems my supporting cast hasn't been up to snuff. If only I knew a guy like this.

Posted by David Darlington at 10:47 PM | Comments (2)

August 04, 2006

Just Another Muslim Fun Day

Alton Towers, Britain's largest theme park, has called off its "Muslim Fun Day." Apparently, Islamic Leisure could not sell enough tickets for the holiday, which was to occur on 17 September. In addition, there was quite a ruckus about a couple who had spent thousands to have their wedding at the park's hotel.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 09:04 AM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2006

Boobs

As the managing editor of a blog written entirely by single, childless men, I feel it's entirely appropriate to mention that this is World Breastfeeding Week. Apparently, there are all sorts of issues related to suckling that require a global awareness campaign. Most of these issues are beyond me, so I'll talk about sex.

Specifically, these so-called 'lactivists' feel that it is necessary to secure the rights of women to breastfeed in public. All that's holding them back is our Puritanical horror at seeing a naked breast -- or even part of a naked breast. See, for example, the furor over the cover of a recent issue of Babytalk Magazine that featured a baby feeding in profile (photo below the fold).

To some extent, I do think American culture has a strange way of regarding almost any nudity as necessarily sexual. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, is as wholesome as, well, mother's milk. The lactivists would have you believe that such a healthy, natural bodily function shouldn't bear the burden of prudish squeamishness.

But there all sorts of bodily functions that are natural and asexual we don't do in public out of a sense of propriety. I'm even embarrassed when I have to blow my nose in front of other people. I really don't see the point behind pushing this particular envelope when all it does is marginally reduce the enormous burden of caring for an infant.

I'm reminded of a minor fuss in the British House of Commons, where lactivists were agitating for the right to breastfeed in the chamber. Former Speaker Betty Boothroyd neatly sidestepped the controversy by declaring that refreshments in the chamber are prohibited, even for infants.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:15 PM | Comments (32)

Churches and politics: finding balance

I agree with much of the sentiment behind the statements of Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, quoted Tuesday by Zach. A church should not be endorsing political candidates and causes. We should pray for those serving in our armed forces, but not glorify the military. And while we should be thankful that America was founded on religious freedom and has been guided by Christian values over the years, it is wrong to promote an idea of a "Christian nation" in which the Bible's teachings should directly form the law of the land.

There are a few points where I disagree with Boyd, though. First of all, I cringed when I read that he said "our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state." Boyd (perhaps unknowingly) is perpetuating a widely-held misconception. The Constitution only mentions religion twice. Article VI delcares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Nowhere does our Constitution say that government must be completely insulated from religion. I agree with former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who said in Wallace v. Jaffree that "The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

The phrase "separation of church and state" is rarely (if ever) used to rebuff those who would establish, for instance, Methodism as our national religion or require all state governors to be Christians. Instead, it is often used to insist (among other things) that citizens must keep their religiously-formed moral views out of the political sphere. But why should religious people be the only ones whose moral views are off-limits in politics? Most political debate involves someone's view of morality.

This brings me to the next point where I disagree with Rev. Boyd. Apparently, he does not believe the church should be active and visible in opposing abortion. I could not disagree more with this assertion. If a church believes that abortion is not merely a regrettable practice but is the extinguishing of human life on the altar of convenience, then it is that church's duty to oppose abortion--just as churches were at the forefront of the fight against slavery and later against Jim Crow. (I imagine that if "separation of church and state" were a concept in the mid-19th century, slaveowners may have adopted a slogan such as "keep your religion off my property!")

Furthermore, while there is a definite air of Phariseeism today in many Christians' "moralizing on sexual issues," as Seth pointed out in the comments to Zach's post there will inevitably be tension between what Scripture teaches about sex and a society that embraces a view of "if it feels good, do it." The church should not set itself up as the moral policeman of popular culture, but it cannot soft-pedal or sugarcoat the Bible's teaching about sin. At the same time, sins such as greed and pride should not receive less emphasis than sexual sins.

Clearly, a balance must be found where the church is engaged with the world around it, but not caught up in seeking power through politics. In my opinion, it is appropriate for churches to visibly oppose abortion on the one hand, but the "Justice Sunday" series of de facto political rallies held in churches crossed the line. In between, there is a large gray area where the church must balance its mission to be "salt and light" in society with its focus on the eternal.

(I would also point out that all of the above concerns the activities of a church as an organization. Individual members of a church clearly have more leeway for political activism. They may even join with like-minded believers to form political action groups. It is important, however, for churches to maintain a prudent distance from such groups, clearly distinguishing between the church's mission and the personal activities pursued by its members.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:44 AM | Comments (31)

Something New in Deja Vu

Researches in the UK report that they've been able to recreate deja vu in the laboratory using hypnosis:

Two key processes are thought to occur when someone recognises a familiar object or scene.

First, the brain searches through memory traces to see if the contents of that scene have been observed before.

If they have, a separate part of the brain then identifies the scene or object as being familiar.

In deja vu, this second process may occur by mistake, so that a feeling of familiarity is triggered by a novel object or scene.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:50 AM | Comments (1)

August 02, 2006

Porn, Penitentiary Style

It would seem that A/C, a full gym, and cable television are not enough. As most of North America now knows, Indiana's Department of Corrections has come under attack for its prohibition of pornography. In a very surprising move, the ACLU has taken the issue to heart, claiming that the State's ban could affect such things as letters between prisoners and "best selling author Jackie Collins." I would suggest that we need not even consider the issue of whether Inmate Jim can "read" his latest issue of Juggs. The fact that this ban has even the potential to keep him from turning another page in a "best selling" Jackie Collins novella is reason enough to implement the rule.

Perhaps we should recall that the Quakers instituted "penitent"iaries as a means to reform the body and soul of the criminal. It is not simply a place of internment. Keeping the prisoners' nefarious little hands off porn and horrible writing would appear to be a step in the right direction. Just stock the library with National Review and Brideshead Revisited.

And there does seem to be something else odd about this entire imbroglio for the ACLU: At the same time the organization fights to remove a ministry from the jailhouse, it fights to allow High Society entry.

CORRECTION: The VA ACLU has not, and will not, fight to remove a ministry from the Virginia penitentiaries, but rather one sectarian evangelical organization at Southeastern Penitentiary. The VA ACLU has no problem with Christian evangelization, so long as other religious bodies are given equal access. My original statement, above, was little more than knee-jerk anti-ACLU-ism, which has no place on this blog, and I sincerely apologize.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 11:48 AM | Comments (26)

August 01, 2006

The Most Worthless Month

Time again to revist a classic article from Slate, "August, Let's Get Rid of It."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:42 PM | Comments (7)

The Rewards of TiVo

One interesting new study found that households with digital video recorders watch less TV than those without. While some say the study is flawed, and the TV industry disputes the results, I'd have to say from personal experience that this is true. But why would this be so, especially when network execs are trying to tell advertisers the exact opposite?

Tyler Cowen doubts it is a selection effect, but offers no explanation of why not. On the one hand, as one of his commenter's points out, early adopters are likely wealthier and so have a higher opportunity cost of watching television. On the other hand, per another commenter, early adopters may also be the people who really like TV and are willing to enhance their viewing opportunities.

Prof. Cowen also mentions, "I, for one, usually read a library book sooner than a book I buy . . ." Which leads me to wonder whether people eat more perishable foods than pantry items. A side-effect of this sense of urgency is broad planning: if the show I want to watch comes on at 8:30, why not drop what I'm doing at 8:00 so I don't miss the beginning? And then go ahead and stick around after 9:00? This seems like a common trick that networks use to schedule primetime, like sandwiching a mediocre show between two hits.

Another explanation might relate to BF Skinner's reward schedules. As unwelcome as a trip into behavioral psychology might be to economists, the idea seems to explain DVR watching.

Skinner classified a number of schedules by which behavior patterns could be reinforced, say a mouse stepping on a lever to get a pellet of food:

• Continuous -- every time the pellet is pushed, food is dispensed
• Fixed Ratio -- food is dispensed every X pushes
• Variable Ratio -- food is dispensed after a random and changing number of pushes (though over time the number of pushes will average to X)
• Fixed Interval -- food is dispensed after Y minutes of pushing
• Variable Interval -- food is dispensed after a random and variable number of minutes (again averaging to Y)

Further, these schedules can be compared on three metrics: how quickly the mouse learns what is going on (the learning curve), how frequently the lever is pushed, and how quickly the pushing stops when the food stops (decay). Of course, the point of Skinner's experiments was that the example could be generalized to humans.

So how does television viewing relate to the reward schedules? I would say that DVR viewing is analogous to a continuous reward schedule: every time one sits down to watch, there will be something interesting on TV. Normal TV viewing falls into a number of categories. First-run shows are akin to fixed interval, as the show comes on every week at the same time, but even then one has to deal with the occasional repeat, preemptions, or summer reruns, which is more like variable interval. Channel surfing is like playing a slot machine, the classic variable ratio schedule.

So how do these compare? We're all well-habituated to normal TV viewing, so the learning curve here isn't important; continuous reward schedules have a steep learning curve, so the DVR-watchers are probably as familiar as normal viewers with what is going on. Frequency makes the real difference. Interval and ratio rewards condition moderately or highly frequent responses, while continuous rewards condition relatively low responses. So normal TV viewers watch more hours than DVR-viewers. What's more, continuous reward schedules also have the highest decay, so when the number of new episodes drops off precipitously in the summer, TiVo is recording fewer shows and viewers are watching fewer hours.

The ability to skip advertisements, rewind, and pause may make DVR's more rewarding than normal television. And by now you must have realized that season DVD's are a close substitute for DVR's, whether rented through NetFlix or purchased outright. Do people who subscribe to NetFlix watch less television than normal viewers, too?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:14 PM | Comments (4)

"We all Knew this Mumbo Jumbo Wouldn't Fly"

Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has temporarily turned power over to his younger (75) brother Raul while he undergoes treatment for intestinal bleeding. Castro is expected to be out of commission for several weeks while recuperating. It is the first time since 1959 that Castro has not held the reigns of power in Cuba.

The Cuban community in Miami has taken to the streets in anticipation of the end of Castro's rule over the tropical island Communist paradise. Meanwhile, the mood at CBS News was somber as Dan Rather showed up to work today in sackcloth and ashes.

Posted by David Darlington at 10:17 AM | Comments (8)

Something New in Deja Vu

Researches in the UK report that they've been able to recreate deja vu in the laboratory using hypnosis:

Two key processes are thought to occur when someone recognises a familiar object or scene.

First, the brain searches through memory traces to see if the contents of that scene have been observed before.

If they have, a separate part of the brain then identifies the scene or object as being familiar.

In deja vu, this second process may occur by mistake, so that a feeling of familiarity is triggered by a novel object or scene.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:50 AM | Comments (0)

Keeping the pulpit out of politics

In light of Eric's correct post below, I thought the following story was an appropriate corollary:

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. -- Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing -- and the church's -- to conservative political candidates and causes . . .

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

"When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses," Mr. Boyd preached. "When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross."

[. . .]

"America wasn't founded as a theocracy," he said. "America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn't bloody and barbaric. That's why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state."

"I am sorry to tell you," he continued, "that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ."

. . . He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

"Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act," he said. "And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed."

Rev. Boyd is also exceptional because he refuses to compromise the Gospel even as his message (initially) lost him 20% of his congregation.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:39 AM | Comments (23)