Paragraph o' the Day

So far my favorite response to Scalia's "weighty" descent from this Wonkette article:

And poor Antonin Scalia was so angry about the majority decision that he proclaimed in his dissent, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” We would comment on this, but banana dust intriguingly parses our kleptomaniac vertebrae. Moist colander prevails! Justice Scalia needs to ask himself: Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like? Truly, we say, armadillo.

There's Always Been Anger

I agree with Atrios that the kids are alright, but I don't think the anger he mentions here is new.  I think that it is just more easily dispersed via the internet.  The vitriol you read in most comments sections today was always there, but pre-internet it was someone reading the paper and yelling at the wind (and maybe his wife and kids...and yes, it was probably a "he" then just as now).

The internet is a remarkable force in our lives, and primarily (overwhelmingly?) for good, but it is a tool, and one that can be and is used for ill at times.

Conservative Catholics in the US

Interesting history lesson on conservatism and Catholicism in the US in the 60's and 70's and its parallels to today.

Catholic--indeed most Christian--conservatives have always struck me as odd.  Excepting sexual liberalism, it is very clear that liberal policies fit in far better with New Testament teachings than do conservative policies.  In fact most conservative Christians point to the Old Testament to find justifications for their political beliefs, ignoring the many times that the New Testament directly or implicitly contradicts those points.

Rich, athiest conservative (e.g. Ayn Rand) makes logical sense.  General asshole/jerk (e.g. racists, Sheldon Adelson) conservative makes emotional sense.  There is a narrow weaving of non-asshole, non-rich that may make some sort of sense, though a strong sense of individualist (aka selfishness) or kook (e.g. Ron Paul) is still required to fit in that gap.  Christian conservative just doesn't.  At all.

Unlike asshole Bill Maher I think that religion can be a positive force in society.  Most religions preach tolerance, love of neighbor, helpfulness, caring for others, disdain for violence, selflessness... That doesn't mean that there are not [always] going to be people who twist some aspect of some religion to violence and selfishness.  There is also a lot of us and them isolationism in religious communities (Mormons donate a lot...to the LDS church, they give to other charities at much lower rates than the general public).

I've got lots more thoughts on the subject but this is it for now...

"If You Don't Want to Pay for Other People's Health Insurance...

...You Can't Live in a First World Nation."

Title says it all, but the text explains it to assholes (i.e. Republicans who think Obamacare Medicaid and Medicare should all die).  Unfortunately, the evidence shows that said assholes won't have their mind changed by the facts presented which run counter to their beliefs.

Scientific Repetition

Reading through this Vox article I nodded quite a bit.  A few quick notes...

In graduate school I did some research that...didn't discredit so much as countered previously published work by another group (note: I seriously doubt it was fraud).  Nothing came of it.  In a perfect science world, it would have been written up.  Not a major publication, but a short note, with the relevant data and the [correct] explanation.  Except: most researcher's wouldn't really care, lots that would may have figured it out anyway (actually, probably not, but I like to think the best of other scientists) and publication of a short note like that, which really only exists to say "those guys were wrong" seems...petty and spiteful.  That I didn't know the other researchers at all is irrelevant, petty and spiteful are not good reasons to publish.

Still, it would have been best for that particular field of science had that work been published.  Better information which may have helped other researchers doing similar work and referencing the older, [partly] incorrect work.  But had we tried, I've no idea where it would have been accepted.  It's another side of the coin from a "failed experiments" journal.  Science that should have worked but didn't, things that did work, but for which the explanation was wrong or incomplete.

There's a lot of science out there and so there are a lot of these "failures".

One point that I would like to make has to do with the statement in the article that

Most studies aren't replicated — and researchers are discouraged from doing so

which may be true for some longer/larger experiments.  Those that require a full grad student career (or more) to complete, or that are so expensive, that repeating them practically requires a grant application that details "why we should do this again".  In many of those cases, lots of researchers are involved early on and do a lot of checking of each other's work.  Also, in many cases, the raw data is available for subsequent researchers to look into.  But for a lot of smaller experiments--which actually make up the bulk of science research--the studies often are replicated, in the same lab by subsequent students, or by other labs with similar interests/directions.

In those cases, problems do get found out and understood and passed around, but very rarely does that occur via publication that directly counters previous work.  More likely a post-doc comes into a lab knowing about the old paper, and a senior level grad student informs her "actually, that wasn't right and this is what really is happening" and the post-doc is now informed and does research with her new understanding...that has not been published.  Sometimes you can comb through a trail of publications and note that a change took place without any acknowledgement to it taking place, and sometimes you have to either go through the lab or know people connected to it to find out.  So researchers connected to a research network may know a particular thing doesn't work, or didn't mean what it was initially thought, but researchers outside that network may not.

I Voted

Local elections and midterms are often a bit odd.  Effectively today's primary here was the "real" election for most (all?) of the positions.  My area is very heavily Democratic, to the point that Republicans here often put their names on the Democratic primary ballots.  I'm not sure if this is an attempt to confuse or a serious way for them to have their ideas/positions heard and vetted.  I also don't know if it makes much difference since Democrats are always outside the polling location handing out lists of actual Democrats in the primary.

Is There Really a Call For This?

I know that some people party all night long, but even in college, even when we had no restrictions (i.e. house party) things were mostly done by 3 am.  Yes, there were occasional later nights, and yes, some people have schedules that make the wee hours of the morning a perfectly sensible time to have a beer, but is there really enough of a pool of patrons to have bars stay open until 4 am?  Well, in a working/residential city anyway (not Vegas, not New Orleans)?

I know I'm old and all, but things just go downhill fast after 2 am.  Also, nearby residents probably will hate it and stay off my lawn (don't really have to worry much in my inner burb hood).

IRS.gov

Being the liberal I am I generally think the IRS gets too much shit, especially since they don't actually write the tax code.  Back in the mid aughts I had a very specific beef with the IRS: I wanted to file taxes online (quicker, computer assist makes things easier) but the only options for such were 3rd party programs...which cost money (if your income is below a certain level and you are filing the 1040EZ then they are free).  There was no good reason for this.  Several states (including Illinois, where I was living at the time) had free online filing, and it seemed the only reason the fed did not was that tax prep groups (firms and software) were preventing it from being implemented.

Well, it's been available for several years now (can't remember when exactly).  It's not as good as it should be: forms should have more assistance like hover-over description or direct links to the relevant part of the instructions, and some things that should be automated are not (Why do I have to look up my tax from the tax table and input that?  Why doesn't it pull info from the W2's over to the relevant places automatically...and speaking of, why isn't entering W2's the first thing it asks you to do?).  Still, it is navigable, and I neither have to pay a preparer nor a software company to file electronically.  Overall I like it.

Taxes are still too complex, but that is not the IRS's fault, it's the fault of politicians and special interests.  And no politician, no matter what they say, is actually interested in simplifying it, because you can't simplify it without increasing taxes on some group (either special interest or fairly broad).

Tired Puppy...part the whatev

Very Tired Puppy

Tired Puppy

Bored Puppy...part the infinite

Bored Puppy...Actually this is pretty fun.

Bored Puppy...why yes I am spamming Ripley's picture

Bored Puppy...part the whatever

Bored Puppy...part the third

Bored Puppy

Puppy Blogging

Anti-GMO Nuts Similar to Anti-Vax Nuts

Anti-GMO (and to a lesser extent a lot of the super organic everything types) Nuts are pretty high on my personal pet peeve list.  As a public health/welfare issue it is less important as the anti-vax crowd as the anti-gmo group mostly just way overspends on groceries, but the clear disdain both groups hold for the actual science on the issues is infuriating to me.

I'm really not happy to see Consumer Reports on the nutjob side of this fence.

Wearable Fitness

Krugman points out one benefit of the wearable fitness trackers that are getting popular but misses another.  The immediacy thing has been doable for some time now in the form of pedometers.  What the newer electronic devices that couple to apps on on your phone gives you is not just the inability to fool yourself but also introduces a game element, including competition with yourself and others.

People [generally] have more fun running 5 km in a race than they do on their own.  If I walk 15k steps a day: so what?  If I'm involved in a work-week challenge with friends and family: I can win!  Also, this adds the guilt element: other people will know if you're a slug.  The more automated the tracking and notifications are the more likely people are to do them.

I am reminded of the fitness program in "Ready Player One".  He was a slug who did little exercise and ate pizza, but the program, which could not be uninstalled for a month (iirc) wouldn't let him online until he had exercised.

We generally recognize that fitness is more fun when it is a game, but not all people are going to be good/capable of all games.  Personal trackers that monitor steps, fitness level, heartrate, allow anyone to play the fitness game.