Saturday, August 28, 2010

Bauer is a dolt

The comparison of SC's poor to "stray animals" by SC Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is old news.  It may be what earned him only 12% of the vote in the gubenatorial primary here despite his huge name recognition advantage.  But in looking back at something else he said at the same meeting as the now-infamous remarks, I genuinely wonder how people this dumb gain so much power and influence:
Bauer went on, and he claimed, "I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina," adding, "You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period."
Let's leave aside for the moment the politics of this statement.  Bauer is right:  the painfully obvious fact is that poverty is correlated to poorer educational outcomes.  But he's an idiot in the way he links them:  the correlation between poverty and low test scores is not caused by allowing poor children to receive free lunch.  It's one thing to not have an IQ of 140, and quite another to be so completely clueless about the logical fallacy being committed here (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).

How anyone could graduate from college -- just a USC business bachelor's degree, but still -- and display this stunning a lack of critical thinking skills is amazing.  How that same person could go on to be the second most powerful person in state government is criminal.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Religious Landscape in America

So this is a picture of what America's religious landscape looks like:


You'll notice the conspicuous absence of a person to represent "no religion" -- even though the percentage of these Americans far outweighs the combined total of Jews and Muslims -- while the other faith groups get their chair at the bar. Perhaps simply more evidence of the open bias against atheists...? Maybe not.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Open-source textbooks

The NYT has a good article on the push for more open-source textbooks. Here are some chemistry-related resources I put together a while back:

Open-source textbooks
  • CK12.org - physics, biology, calculus, engineering and more
Other open-source chemistry textbooks
Useful wikis
Resources for open-source textbooks

Monday, August 2, 2010

Losing our humanity, one status update at a time

I have a blog. And a twitter feed. Just in case you didn't know.

I've had experiences with posting things online and then later regretting it. I've had things end up documented online that I now worry -- a little -- could end up costing me a job one day, or the respect of peers and colleagues. In a very real sense I've grown up in the digital age and learned its pros and cons the hard way.

An article in last week's NYT Magazine explores this in depth. Entitled "The Web Means the End of Forgetting", it explores how people have lost jobs and been haunted by things posted online. If you think the article is too pessimistic, it still certainly reinforces the idea of blogging anonymously and being very careful in who you friend on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., and what you put there. If you think the article gets it just about right, you'll pull your real name off of these platforms (or close them entirely) and begin to try to clean up your digital history.

Here's a snippet from that article that sums it up:
We’ve known for years that the Web allows for unprecedented voyeurism, exhibitionism and inadvertent indiscretion, but we are only beginning to understand the costs of an age in which so much of what we say, and of what others say about us, goes into our permanent — and public — digital files. The fact that the Internet never seems to forget is threatening, at an almost existential level, our ability to control our identities; to preserve the option of reinventing ourselves and starting anew; to overcome our checkered pasts.
Humans deserve the ability to have "supid moments" forgotten and forgiven. We don't deserve to be labeled and solely categorized on the basis of one or two things that make their way online. People used to get to choose the words on their tombstones. Now it seems that tools on the Web -- and the way we use it -- will ensure we're remembered for something we'd rather not be. And maybe even assigned value on that basis. Everybody knows that people are nicer in person, both in the way they treat each other and in the fullness of their character, than they are online. But we all forget that when we find sites like LOLFacebook Moments and laugh at others' misfortunes there.

In this week's version of the magazine, another article, "I Tweet, Therefore I Am" -- looks at the way these social media change our concept of the self and blur the line between who we are versus who we present to others. Here's a snippet from that article that really makes me pause:
“On Twitter or Facebook you’re trying to express something real about who you are,” she explained. “But because you’re also creating something for others’ consumption, you find yourself imagining and playing to your audience more and more. So those moments in which you’re supposed to be showing your true self become a performance. Your psychology becomes a performance.” Referring to “The Lonely Crowd,” the landmark description of the transformation of the American character from inner- to outer-directed, Turkle added, “Twitter is outer-directedness cubed.”

The fun of Twitter and, I suspect, its draw for millions of people, is its infinite potential for connection, as well as its opportunity for self-expression. I enjoy those things myself. But when every thought is externalized, what becomes of insight? When we reflexively post each feeling, what becomes of reflection? When friends become fans, what happens to intimacy? The risk of the performance culture, of the packaged self, is that it erodes the very relationships it purports to create, and alienates us from our own humanity.
We all enjoy feedback, and so are much more likely to put things on Facebook that people will click the "Like" button on. We want to be witty. We want to post photos that we look good in and "un-tag" the ones we don't. We want to have this online self that is the "real" us but at the same time it is exposed to so many people who don't know us that well we can't help but want to put (only) our best face forward. And that's nothing to be ashamed of. But it makes us forget that the most enjoyable part of connecting with others is in sharing the intimacy of bearing your true self. Warty, witless me.

We craft and contrive images and words for the consumption of others using social media that we would not use with a friend face-to-face. I have to wonder how much our actual self begins to adjust to this social bias, this sense of others' expectations. And so I think some of us who jumped on Facebook back in 2005 not only lost a sense of what real "friends" are by having 400 on Facebook, but also a sense of our humanity.

I'm really thinking about changing my online self now. I've done it before. Maybe in so doing I'll help save my actual self.

The difference in the parties distilled down

Lots of people have looked at how the two parties govern and concluded, even admitting all the faults with the Democratic Party, that Republicans do not govern well. They tend to spend about the same (sometimes more) as Democrats but tend to cut taxes and so run up large deficits. Ed Brayton has a great item on this today:
For all the Republican rhetoric about smaller government and "tax and spend liberals," the fact is that over the past 50 years the size of government has grown more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones -- and so has the size of the debt because of their reluctance to raise taxes.

From 1962-2001, the average growth in total federal spending under Republican presidents has been 7.57%; under Democrats, 6.96%. Bush certainly did not help those averages any after 2001. During that same period, the average yearly deficit under Democrats was $36 billion; the average under Republicans was $190 billion. So under Republicans, spending grows more but revenues grow less because they always insist on tax cuts.

And that means taxes must go up at some point to pay the cost of the deficit spending plus the interest on that borrowing. I think part of the GOP strategy for the past 50 years (40 at least) has been to drive up the deficit intentionally by raising spending and cutting taxes, knowing that when the Democrats are in control they will have to raise taxes. Then they can say, "See, the Democrats are always raising your taxes!" -- but without acknowledging that it was made necessary by their own tax and borrow policies.

The fact is that neither party has any interest in actually reducing spending. The difference is that the Democrats are generally more willing to pay for it with taxes while the Republicans refuse to do so. And I think that is a deliberate strategy on their part.

True. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy of conservatism: if you suck at governing, you run on the platform that "government sucks"...and so it starts to.  Then people stop believing they can hope to elect politicians on the basis of getting things done using policy and instead elect people who promise to do very little in general -- besides cutting your taxes, of course. Not only do Republicans admit there is a "starve the beast" mentality out there which never actually works, they don't even pretend to have an answer to basic questions about how to finance the huge deficits they create with their tax cuts for the rich.

There was an op-ed in the NYT on Sunday that gives a lot more details and background to this topic (spending and taxing by the GOP).