tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66133112024-03-07T07:05:29.992-07:00Hot BlavaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger307125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-71446061972284760262016-10-15T17:28:00.000-07:002016-10-15T17:29:57.368-07:00I’m Voting for McMullin[Originally posted to <a href="https://ricochet.com/378160/im-voting-for-mcmullin/" target="_blank">Ricochet Member Feed</a> Oct. 5, 2016]<br />
<br />
I’ve just come home from an Evan McMullin for President rally in Provo, Utah. (<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/4437236-155/evan-mcmullin-pitches-conservative-agenda-to">News report from local newspaper.</a>) I’m convinced that Evan is the real deal. Remember when people accused Mitt Romney of speaking conservatism as a second language? That’s not McMullin. He speaks like a native. He cares about poverty. He cares about national security without hating the nations that surround us. He cares about religious freedom.<br />
<br />
I feared the rally would be all about why we shouldn’t support other candidates, but it wasn’t. Evan presented a positive message of long term hope. His sights extend beyond the election next month. He wants to reinvigorate the conversations about principles rather than piling on the hate-wagon.<br />
<br />
There is nothing slick or bombastic about Evan. He isn’t a showman or a cheerleader. He comes across as likeable, humble, and competent. I feel like got a glimpse into his heart and that he would strive to make the best decisions he can rather than making mostly decisions that benefit his self-interest and his electoral prospects.<br />
<br />
I’ve seen enough of his media appearances to understand that he isn’t delusional about his chances for winning. Yet he understands that people who don’t run have lost already and I’m proud of him for being in the arena.<br />
<br />
I’m voting for Evan McMullin for President of the United States.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-54402980999250004452016-07-07T08:38:00.000-07:002016-07-07T08:38:03.441-07:00Incentives: Hydroelectric in HaitiGeneral David Petraeus tells a story of doing some reconstruction in Haiti. They were trying to get a hydroelectric power plant back online and they kept hitting delays. Everyone he spoke to said there were technical glitches, so the generators at the dam were still running on diesel fuel at great expense.<br />
<br />
Petraeus went to the dam himself and spoke to the man who'd been maintaining the generators for 20 years. "Why haven't we flipped the switch to start water running through the generators?"<br />
<br />
"If I do that, they will stop sending diesel fuel."<br />
<br />
"Right, that's what we want. We want to stop spending so much money on diesel fuel and save it for the winter when there is less water to generate electricity."<br />
<br />
"But if they stop sending diesel, I won't have any fuel for my truck."<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
Conversations with Bill Kristol: David Petraeus II<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<a href="https://overcast.fm/+DpQ5Stz1k/53:42">https://overcast.fm/+DpQ5Stz1k/53:42</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-91084192265106322012012-12-21T17:22:00.001-07:002012-12-21T17:22:40.465-07:00ObamaCare Job LossThe guy who just fixed my computer can't keep his job because of the Affordable Care Act. He loves the work and has been paid by the piece by his company. He can make full-time wages working only 25 hours a week. He doesn't get health coverage right now, but he said he's okay with that and loving what he's doing.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He says that two days after the election, they sent out a notice to their 1200 technicians across the country telling them that they would be switching to hourly wages instead of piece-work and that they would be capped at 29 hours per week. Only 200 technicians would move to full-time work with benefits. At the new hourly rate he can't afford to keep working for them, so he's on the hunt for a new position. I wish him luck. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just another unintended consequence of trying to help people by limiting freedom.</div>
Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-14919938279897803892012-11-12T10:12:00.002-07:002012-11-12T10:12:41.890-07:00Solving Voter FraudThere are lots of ways to steal an election, of which voter fraud is only one. But it is an issue that we should tackle. Following this election when the result isn't in much doubt would be a good time to address it so that the issue doesn't have to be one of partisan advantage.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/06/voter_fraud_could_be_prevented_without_disenfranchising_anyone_using_this.html">Slate has a great post up about using existing government databases to ID voters.</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
States maintain all kinds of data on citizens. Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 in response to the train wreck that was the 2000 election, they also maintain electronic voter registration databases....<br /><br />Integrating those databases with existing databases, such as those maintained by state motor vehicle departments and public assistance programs, would make transcription errors in a voter's name or address obvious. Fewer voters would see their ballots challenged because of clerical mistakes.</blockquote>
They argue that you can snap of a photo of a person at the polling place if they don't have a photo on record already and it can become part of that voter's record for the future. Seems like a great way to find a middle ground between ignoring the problem of voter impersonation on the one hand and preventing legitimate votes from being cast on the other. Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-54625920611242380172012-09-01T11:37:00.003-07:002012-09-01T11:37:57.690-07:00Is Local Better?Ordinarily, I think that government or management is best at the lowest level possible. A story from <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577623090898883170.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion">Steven Malanga</a> shakes my faith in that principle a little bit. The article is a summary of the large-scale corruption in New York, with "2,522 of its officials having been convicted of misdeeds since 1976."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The architects of those efforts sent billions of federal dollars into neighborhood programs to alleviate poverty, funneling the money to local groups that Washington bureaucrats assumed had the local knowledge necessary to uplift communities.</blockquote>
<div>
I have hope in the same premise: local groups have local knowledge to solve problems better than one-size-fits-all solutions. I wonder what could have been done to prevent this sort of corruption at a local level. Is it possible without people everywhere expecting integrity from everyone they deal with?</div>
Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-50520613342867002772012-08-30T06:26:00.000-07:002012-08-31T06:19:57.111-07:00NPR's Ryan RebuttalI heard a<a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160293856/ryan-tells-gop-delegates-u-s-needs-a-turnaround"> news story done differently</a> than I'm used to. Mara Liasson was reporting on Paul Ryan's speech at the GOP convention. As she played the highlights of his speech, she then offered a rebuttal of each point or reminded the audience of another view of the subject. I didn't think that her responses were unfair or inaccurate, it was just something I don't remember a reporter doing in that way before. I was partly appreciative and partly irritated. I didn't like it that she felt a need to rebut each point, even was she wasn't disagreeing with a fact but only adding to the framing.<br />
<br />
I suppose time will tell if she covers the speech from Romney, Biden, and Obama in the same way or if this was treatment reserved only for a few.<br />
<br />
Update: Apparently I wasn't the only one that noticed, and apparently <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-convention-speech-media-backlash.php?ref=fpnewsfeed">NPR wasn't the only one to do it</a>.<br />
<br />
Update: When I read this Fox News opinion writer's summary of the four main errors in the Ryan speech, I thought that 3 of the 4 were really differences in opinion or spin rather than factual errors. The fourth one seemed to be a more tricky one. Ryan claimed that an auto plant closed and you were sort of left with the impression that it had happened under Obama's watch, even if his language technically left it open either way. But now it appears that the <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2506462#.UEAyeNZlQ3j">fact checkers were factually inaccurate</a> and that Ryan was more informed about the events in his home town than they were. Ryan is vindicated.<br />
<br />
Update: I just listened yo Liasson's report on Romney's speech and she played it pretty straight.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-79051869349395685142012-07-24T21:01:00.002-07:002012-07-24T21:01:47.628-07:00Fair ShareWill someone please tell me what it means for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes? The federal government is spending $3.7 trillion each year. Spread over the population of 309 million, that is $11,974 for every man, woman, and child in the country. I'm sure as heck not paying that much in. Are you? Are you paying your "fair share"? I'm not, and I'm grateful the more wealthy are shouldering a greater part of the burden.<br />
<br />
In a related vein, there are people insisting that we should be have a balanced approach of cutting spending alongside increases in taxation to balance the budget. The problem is with that number above. Who can argue with a straight face that we need a federal government that spends $11,974 for ever man, woman, and child and that we can't afford to cut that back substantially apart from any increases in revenue? If we cut a trillion off our spending to match our current revenue, that would still be $8,737 for every man, woman, and child. That is some expensive government. Shouldn't we be able to make do with that?Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-17784488064212188902012-07-08T20:58:00.001-07:002012-07-08T20:58:48.266-07:00Moral Differences in PoliticsWe all like to believe we are acting rationally and that our opinions are based on sound reasoning and a thorough understanding of the historical record. But that doesn't turn out to be true. Instead, we make snap judgments about issues based on our values and then construct a set of evidence that supports our pre-drawn conclusion. I learned this from a liberal psychology professor, <a href="http://www.kera.org/2012/04/25/why-good-people-are-divided-by-politics-and-religion/">Jonathan Haidt, in this interview on Think</a>.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[Originally posted as a comment on a Facebook post as preserved here to help me find the link again when I want it.]</div>Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-26920648028831128222012-06-25T12:04:00.001-07:002012-06-25T12:04:18.973-07:00Why I Won't Be Voting For HatchI wish I had made the time to create a more well-researched, well-referenced post on this subject. Since the primary is tomorrow, I'm going to just share a few gut level reasons why I'm resistant to Hatch.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>He ran against Frank Moss in 1976 saying that 18 years was enough. He was right back then. After 36 years, it is well past time for Hatch to move on to other pursuits. </li>
<li>He challenged Frank Moss to 8 debates back in 1976. He was right back then. Now, we only get Hatch to consent to a single radio debate for the primary voting public. It is shameful for a politician to hide from opportunities to answer questions. </li>
<li>Last time he ran, he made light of the suggestion that he would run for a 7th term (as he is now doing) by saying it would be more important to spend his final years with his grandchildren. He was right back then. </li>
<li>He was a co-sponsor of the SOPA legislation that so offended the technology community that even Wikipedia blacked out for a day in protest.</li>
<li>Hatch, citing his own role as a creator of music, is in favor of longer copyright terms. I favor radically shortened terms. </li>
<li>Hatch famously made a passing comment about how he wished he could send a signal through the internet to blow up the computers of copyright offenders. Shortly thereafter it was discovered that his website was using an unlicensed JavaScript library. </li>
<li>When the Tea Party was first rising as a serious force, David Kirkham emerged as a leader of the movement in Utah County. Hatch latched on to him and would phone him to get his pulse on the movement. It was even reported in the Deseret News that Hatch called Kirkham from the floor of the Senate as a controversial spending bill was up to hear what the Tea Party opinion was and ask how he should vote. Instead of seeing this as a laudable effort to stay connected with his constituents, I saw it as a cynical/pandering attempt to keep a clean record and avoid ticking off potential opponents. I understand others may view it differently. </li>
<li>It feels like Hatch has become a creature of Washington rather than a creature of Utah.</li>
<li>Hatch touts his ability to bring home the bacon to Utah as a selling point. I view that as evidence that he's part of the problem. </li>
<li>Hatch insists that without him, Hill Air Force Base would be closed. If it is the political power of one individual rather than the general merits of the base that keep it open, then perhaps it would be better for the country (as opposed to Davis County) if we let it close. I don't know if that is the right decision, but I can't believe that one senator is single-handedly holding back the tide of logic that would otherwise close the base.</li>
<li>In his radio debate with Dan L., Hatch all but admitted that he would have supported a government loan to a company like Solyndra as long as they were in Utah.</li>
<li>Hatch comes across as a cranky old man. I think the face of Utah in Washington should be more reflective of our cheer and optimism. Yeah, you'll think this is corny, but it is a gut level thing that is hard to distill in words. </li>
<li>It is easy to discount the endorsements that sitting politicians receive. If Mitt Romney expects Hatch to be victorious (as seems most likely), then he is wise to forge the alliance that will help him get his agenda through congress after the election. That might be a good policy for Mitt Romney, but it isn't a good reason for me to vote for Hatch. </li>
</ul>
<div>
If Hatch ever loses, I hope the person who replaces him will be able to learn from his great skill in constituent services. I've heard his office has been particularly helpful with Utahans in international travel situations. </div>Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-62051296900585177922012-05-06T20:12:00.000-07:002012-05-06T20:14:57.060-07:00Big Game, Big Gap<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6BZBUpNwYOZP-A1p5vQrtbvefPfiDFsDnT6AZP9U83JZdzG2_fSLTHYV-EtMzmR1pdq8oqrhihcDcQ3eFxP2jWgZCjkvBGNrj3sdMMpFW_WitLAP5ERqEO598TPRXZpJ_PgyX/s1600/New60minutes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6BZBUpNwYOZP-A1p5vQrtbvefPfiDFsDnT6AZP9U83JZdzG2_fSLTHYV-EtMzmR1pdq8oqrhihcDcQ3eFxP2jWgZCjkvBGNrj3sdMMpFW_WitLAP5ERqEO598TPRXZpJ_PgyX/s1600/New60minutes.jpg" /></a></div>
Most of you will be surprised at the stance this animal rights activist takes. She's mad about ranches in Texas that raise big game animals that are endangered or extinct in the wild. The ranches allow 10% of their animals to be hunted for sport. The money from the hunt supports the large ranches and growing populations. Even so, she think this is wrong. Here is some of the<span id="goog_181605344"></span> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo">transcript from 60 Minutes starting at about the 6:40 mark<span id="goog_181605345"></span>.</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Priscilla Feral is president of Friends of Animals, an international animal rights organization. For the past seven years, she's been fighting in court to stop these rare African antelope from being hunted in Texas. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: They're breeding these antelopes, they're selling the antelopes, and they're killing the antelopes. And they're calling it conserving them. They are saying it's an act of conservation and that's lunacy. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Logan: You would rather they did not exist in Texas at all? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: I don't want to see them on hunting ranches. I don't want to see them dismembered. I don't want to see their value in body parts. I think it's obscene. I don't think you create a life to shoot it. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Logan: So, if the animals exist only to be hunted... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: Right... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Logan: ...you would rather they not exist at all? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: Not in Texas, no.</blockquote>
Wow. Later in the piece we hear a little more from her.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But for Priscilla Feral, the bottom line is that these animals should not be hunted. She's helped create a reserve in Senegal for 175 orxy and in court, she's winning the legal battle she's been fighting for years to stop them from being hunted in the U.S. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: The future for oryxes is Africa. It's not Texas. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Logan: Can the future not be both? Don't they have a greater chance of survival the more of them there are?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: In their native lands. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Logan: Regardless of where they are? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Feral: I don't think you can say regardless of where they are. A Texas hunting ranch is not the same as being in a reserve in Senegal. </blockquote>
Here we have her saying to the incredulous reporter, that if these animals can't exist in Senegal, then they shouldn't exist at all.<br />
<br />
Switching gears, this argument reminds me a lot about the line of reasoning used when we talk about income inequality. Some people would rather that we all be equally poor rather than have some people who are rich, even if having rich people means that the poor will be better off than they would be otherwise. Since some people find the disparity in wealth inherently evil--just like Feral think that hunting these animals is inherently evil--they can't make a compromise with people who believe the gap is an acceptable cost for the increased benefits to all.<br />
<br />
Do you think income gaps are sufficiently evil that we should abolish them, even if that means less prosperity for everyone?Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-8852851716994032432011-02-11T12:27:00.002-07:002011-02-11T12:31:57.205-07:00SB 124, or Stupid Bill 124I called my state senator Friday to complain about <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705366449/Leaving-children-unattended-in-car-could-become-misdemeanor.html">SB124</a>, a bill that makes it a separate, misdemeanor crime to leave your (under 9 years old) child(ren) alone in a car. I am SO annoyed by this bill, and with the Utah State Legislature in general this session. (I'll let you know if I hear back from him.)<br /><br />First, the specifics: This bill is STUPID. Already the police have permission to intervene when children are left in a dangerous situation--alone in a car while Mom shops for 20 minutes, alone in a car in the cold cold winter or hot hot summer--it's called child endangerment. If the police officer thinks it is a dangerous situation, he or she has the ability to take care of it.<br /><br />But--if this law passes--it will now be illegal to leave Hebs in the car while I go back in the house to get Gee and Mimi. Illegal to leave the littles in the car while I step 30 feet away to fetch Zee or Em from school. Illegal to get everyone in their carseats, fastened safely, and realize I left my purse--with the car keys--in the house.<br /><br />I am frustrated enough with the restrictions society places on parents already, especially parents with big families. I'm already annoyed with the Legislature for another bill they are trying to pass, about making league sports have doctors on call or on the sidelines for concussions. For the record, I'm all for doctor support for sports concussions, I just think the State shouldn't be regulating it.<br /><br />"But it's for the children!" they shout. To quote Colonel Potter, "Horsepucky!" It's about a nanny state, legislating for the sake of legislating, and, in the process, making us criminals by simply going about our lives.<br /><br />And I'm sick of it.<br /><a href="http://mommavolcano.blogspot.com/2011/02/sb-124-or-stupid-bill-124.html"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-68501937206316021862011-01-23T17:39:00.000-07:002011-01-23T17:39:48.073-07:00Prohibition on DrugsI have very conflicted emotions about the prohibition on certain drugs. Part of me wants to insist that we should prohibit destructive behaviors. I don't believe that illegal drug use is a "victimless crime" and I don't think we should embark on self-medicating journeys without someone experienced to guide us.<br />
<br />
Drugs have been a blessing in my life. I can't imagine getting dental work done without the help of the pain relievers and numbing agents the dentist can use. But there is a class of drugs that have proven mostly dangerous. As a society, we've decided to make them illegal. We don't want to deal with the fallout of people taking these drugs.<br />
<br />
My church is supportive of the ban on these drugs. That holds a lot of weight for me.<br />
<br />
Yet I wonder if the prohibition is causing more problems than it is preventing. <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/80669/getting-darnell-the-corners-why-america-should-ride-the-anti-drug-war-wave">John McWhorter writes over at The New Republic</a> that the easy "occupation" of selling drugs has enticed many young black men to forgo productive employment and opt for life on the street. He argues that this is one of the core problems plaguing the black urban community. Have a sample.<br />
<blockquote><span>The end of the War on Drugs is, in fact, what all people genuinely concerned with black uplift should be focused on.... The black malaise in the U.S. is currently like a card house; the Drug War is a single card which, if pulled out, would collapse the whole thing.</span> </blockquote><blockquote> <br />
<span>That is neither an exaggeration nor an oversimplification. It comes down to this: If there were no way to sell drugs on the street at a markup, then young black men who drift into this route would instead have to get legal work. They would. Those insisting that they would not have about as much faith in human persistence and ingenuity as those who thought women past their five-year welfare cap would wind up freezing on sidewalk grates.</span> </blockquote><blockquote><span>There would be a new black community in which all able-bodied men had legal work even in less well-off communities<span style="font-size: medium;">—</span>i.e. what even poor black America was like before the '70s; this is no fantasy. Those who say that this could only happen with low-skill factory jobs available a bus ride away from all black neighborhoods would be, again, wrong. That explanation for black poverty is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Race-Beyond-Crisis-America/dp/B001G8WPP8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293805855&sr=1-1">full of holes</a>. Too many people of all colors of modest education manage to get by without taking a time machine to the 1940s, and after the War on Drugs black men would be no exception.</span></blockquote>Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-38212521359093481102010-11-02T17:29:00.001-07:002010-11-02T21:39:13.740-07:00Election Day<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Now with updates in red!)</span><br /><br />It's Election Day, and you know what that means...<br /><br />...another long political post from Keryn that you can ignore. Yay!<br /><br />So...the Senate races are some of the biggest to watch. In particular, I'll be looking at:<br /><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nevada (duh): Angle (R) vs Reid (D).</span> This one is going to be a squeaker. I'd like to think Angle wins, but I don't know. We'll just have to see. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Reid wins. Bummer.)</span><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">California: Fiorina (R) vs Boxer (D).</span> I think this one stays with Boxer, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't. Boxer comes across as a somewhat obnoxious, and occasionally entitled incumbent; it would be a pleasure if she didn't get sent back to Washington. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Boxer wins.)</span><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Colorado: Buck (R) vs Bennet (D).</span> I don't know too much about this one, but it is a toss-up, apparently.<br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Alaska: Miller (R) vs McAdams (D) vs Murkowski (Entitled).</span> This one is interesting. Murkowski is the incumbent, but she lost the primary nomination to Miller. She then decided to run a write-in campaign, essentially becoming a pretty sore loser about the primary. (I have Opinions about this.) The Alaska Board of Elections, on Thursday, decided to change its rules to allow lists of write-in candidates' names in the polling places, giving Murkowski a distinct advantage. There have been some very sleazy events surrounding this election. However, polling looks good, and it's hopeful that Miller will win. We'll see!</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Washington, Pennsylvania </span><span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(goes to Republican, thankyouverymuch Arlen Specter R-2, D-2)</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">, West Virginia </span><span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(stays Democratic)</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">, and Illinois</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(President Obama's old seat has gone Republican!) </span>are good ones to watch, as well.</li></ul>The House is likely to switch parties today (the Senate less likely, but there is a wee little chance), and the number to watch for is 39--the Republican party needs a net gain of 39 to reach the 218 votes needed to have control of the House. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Major news networks are calling the House for the Republicans. No big surprise there.) </span>I haven't been too interested in too many of these races, but an interesting one to follow will be<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Nevada: Congressional District 3 </span>(suburban Las Vegas, but I don't know if that includes my family's home) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Heck (R) vs Titus (D)</span>. This one wasn't supposed to be a close race, but Heck has been polling closer and closer to Titus in the last weeks. (And that would be just cool, because then two of Nevada's representatives would be named "Heller" and "Heck".)<br /><br />Also, keep an eye on <span style="font-weight: bold;">Massachusetts' Barney Frank</span>, who might not win reelection. Heh heh. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Bummer. He wins.)</span><br /><br />Also, there are some governor's races to watch.<br /><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Colorado: Hickenlooper (D) vs Tancredo (Annoying) vs Maes (R)</span>. I have Opinions about this race as well. Specifically, I think that if the primary voters choose a particular nominee (Maes), then the state GOP should darn well better get behind him and support him. If they can't support the people's choice for nominee, then they should RESIGN their positions in the state party. In this case, that didn't happen. And now Maes has single digit support, and the race is between Hickenlooper and Tancredo. Basically, I'm hoping for Hickenlooper, but since I don't live there, I don't know what that would mean for day-to-day stuff. Still, I'm highly annoyed at Tancredo and the CO state GOP. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Hickenlooper wins.)</span><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">California: Whitman (R) vs Brown (D)</span>. Brown was governor of California from 1975 to 1983, so he knows what's what. Whitman is a multi-killjionaire CEO. This will be interesting. I don't know why <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> would want to be in charge of the mess that is California right now, but different people have different tastes. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Brown wins the...honor?)</span><br /></li></ul>Okay, that's my two bits. There are precious few things to care about in my state today, so I'm ranging far abroad for interesting stuff. Even though I voted for Anderson for county commission, I don't care if Henderson wins instead. Ditto for everything else that might be a tight race here. Oh, and I guess I don't want the Constitutional Amendment A to pass. Whoop-de-do.<br /><br />What do you all think?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-77738545628024981382010-08-05T08:21:00.002-07:002010-08-05T08:32:28.320-07:00Stupid, Racially Charged Headline<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnFlcwscg9A2TX0BupZaM5MifiNAdmmDXXMDMMiRy_LhC9aYK84bQG2pDO9qqj-v-iJ2P8cs6oauKKNgu6oMNB78wR4Xfn0kmibaYYi-iHmhntDSm7NHGCDNM5RGecqX1FuORj/s1600/Fullscreen+capture+852010+92210+AM.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnFlcwscg9A2TX0BupZaM5MifiNAdmmDXXMDMMiRy_LhC9aYK84bQG2pDO9qqj-v-iJ2P8cs6oauKKNgu6oMNB78wR4Xfn0kmibaYYi-iHmhntDSm7NHGCDNM5RGecqX1FuORj/s320/Fullscreen+capture+852010+92210+AM.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501949035755331282" border="0" /></a><br />My head is going to explode over this headline: "<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_us/us_beer_distributor_shootings;_ylt=AjUX6lI.HRni3njbMZJ1nA2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQxOHQ3Y3JsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODA1L3VzX2JlZXJfZGlzdHJpYnV0b3Jfc2hvb3RpbmdzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDMQRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrAzkxMWNhbGxvbmNvbg--">911 call on Conn. shooting shows racial disparity</a>". I don't know who wrote the headline (Yahoo! or the AP), but it is completely misleading and racially charged.<br /><br />The first two paragraphs are the only one that deals with the 911 call:<blockquote>A woman hiding under her desk tells an emergency dispatcher that a co-worker is in the midst of a shooting spree.<a id="KonaLink0" target="undefined" class="kLink" style="" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_us/us_beer_distributor_shootings;_ylt=AjUX6lI.HRni3njbMZJ1nA2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQxOHQ3Y3JsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODA1L3VzX2JlZXJfZGlzdHJpYnV0b3Jfc2hvb3RpbmdzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDMQRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrAzkxMWNhbGxvbmNvbg--#"><span style="color: rgb(54, 99, 136) ! important; font-weight: 400; position: static;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#366388;" ><span class="kLink" style="color: rgb(54, 99, 136) ! important; font-weight: 400; position: static;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:13px;" ></span><span class="kLink" style="color: rgb(54, 99, 136) ! important; font-weight: 400; position: static;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:13px;" ></span></span></a> The dispatcher presses for any information about the man. <p>"I don't know anything," the woman says, according to a 911 tape released Wednesday. "He's a tall black guy. He's like the only black guy that works here."</p></blockquote><p></p><p>How in the WORLD is describing the crazy mad shooter "racially disparity"? That has to be the dumbest, most inflammatory way to describe the caller's actions I can think of. Really, really bad form, AP and/or Yahoo! Super lame.<br /></p><p>(The story then goes on to describe the difficulties the man had being the only black man in his office. I have no information about whether or not he was discriminated against in his job. That, however, is not relevant to the headline. The woman under the desk was describing the physical attributes of the attacker for the dispatcher, presumably so the police could identify him.)<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-14114314651345269012010-07-23T07:55:00.000-07:002010-07-23T07:55:42.540-07:00Think Progress vs. BreitbartI've watched from a distance as the flap over Shirley Sherrod has come and gone over the past week. First, Andrew Breitbart posted a video clip that showed her confessing racist feelings. The audience in the video seemed to chuckle at the sentiment rather than act repulsed or disappointed.<br />
<br />
The USDA immediately believed the worst about Sherrod and forced her to resign before they even had a conversation with her to understand her side of the story.<br />
<br />
Shortly, the larger picture came out. Sherrod was confessing that she had <i>been</i> a racist but was trying to tell a story of how she moved past those feelings. The clip had been unfair to her. As the news was breaking, my wife was scanning the blogs as we were driving. She started rattling off the list of people who retracted their denouncements of Sherrod. Glenn Beck, Rich Lowry, Shannon Coffin, Jonah Goldberg... basically all the big conservative bloggers immediately set the record straight.<br />
<br />
It was really encouraging. Someone made the point, in defense of Breitbart, that it is possible to act rashly without acting maliciously. Breitbart claimed to have received only the small clip that he played and that he hadn't checked the larger context before he posted.<br />
<br />
This morning, I was reading through some older posts and I came across a link to a video created by Think Progress. My jaw dropped to the floor. They were splicing together clips from Tea Party activists making racist comments. This may be one of the most dishonest political clips I've ever seen.<br />
<br />
The editors at Think Progress chose to use a video clip statement from a man being actively expelled from a Tea Party event as representative of the content of the event. Breathtakingly dishonest. It is like <a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://www.ericdsnider.com/misc/dishonest-advertising-for-the-singles-ward/">using ellipses to turn a negative movie review into a positive one</a>.<br />
<br />
Here is the <a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://biggovernment.com/bowens/2010/07/18/think-progress-ripped-content-from-tea-party-video-to-create-fraudulent-racism-claim/">Big Government post that criticizes the Think Progress clip</a>. <br />
<br />
Will Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman now denounce Think Progress as they did Andrew Breitbart? Will those on the left who were fooled by the video come out and apologize as so many on the right have done? This is a test of character. Let's see how it goes.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-17671377152615180172010-06-21T19:29:00.000-07:002010-06-21T19:29:59.414-07:00Pox: Lee AND BridgewaterI'm so fed up with Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater, I've decided that I won't cast a vote for either of them tomorrow. There are two reasons for this.<br />
<br />
First and most important, they are both running negative campaigns and it is disgusting me. On a small flyer I got from Mike Lee, 25% percent of the space was consumed by stuff he didn't like about his opponent. The rest was filled with photos and fluff.<br />
<br />
Bridgewater had the gall to send me a campaign flyer in the mail that denounced Mike Lee for running a negative campaign--and then attempted to smear him for being a lawyer. A short time later, the next flyer in the mail comes from Bridgewater attacking Lee for carrying water for EnergySolutions. <br />
<br />
Way to lead by example about how you'll improve the tone in Washington.<br />
<br />
The second reason I won't vote for either of them is the blatant disregard they've shown to having my telephone number. The other night, we returned home after a day of being gone. In the two and a half hours, we received SEVEN robocalls from the two candidates. It was infuriating that they would disrespect my time like that. Today, one day before the primary, we've counted 16 calls so far today. Two of them were real people, the rest were robocalls.<br />
<br />
Here is a tip to future candidates. (I'm sure they'll all be reading this blog post intently.) As a voter I love to be informed. I appreciate getting a call or two with information about candidates or an endorsement. Especially calls from real people. But if you are wasting your money calling the same people with the same message over and over, I don't trust you to spend money wisely while you're in office.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-14223118332602567542010-06-04T20:14:00.000-07:002010-06-04T20:14:03.216-07:00Glenn's Favorite Graphic<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg" /></a></div>Glenn Reynolds (<a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/79840/">Instapundit</a>) used to put up this graphic pretty frequently. It is the one I think of when people complain about the Tea Party protests being overly partisan.<br />
<br />
I'd be curious to see the current numbers for '09 now that that is in the books. Perhaps we'll start seeing an updated view of the spending that will either confirm or refute this rather stunning chart.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-73010790032592949672010-06-03T16:53:00.001-07:002010-06-03T16:53:38.338-07:00Why My Sister Couldn't Be a Union BossMy sister is a leader of her local Tea Party movement. The folks in her area have decided they want to get together every two weeks. They invite candidates in to address them. <br /><br />A lot of these people are really angry. They are taking the time to not only "vent" but to get informed. That is cool. Even so, some of the participants will ask my sister who she is endorsing or recommending in the various elections. <br /><br />In the face of these requests, it would be easy to counsel these people how to vote. However, my sister doesn't feel comfortable making these calls. She wants people to choose for themselves. She sees her role as being a facillitator of information dissemination. <br /><br />Think how cool it would be if politically active unions and other organizations would showthe same respect to their diverse members.<br /><br /><br /><br />Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-57284720955283766072010-03-17T21:49:00.000-07:002010-03-17T21:49:14.008-07:00A Great Moment of Political DramaBasking in the coolness of the new <a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/index.php">C-SPAN Video Library</a>, I watched some of the <a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/116798-1">Clinton impeachment hearings</a> and came across a striking moment of political drama that I had totally forgotten about.<br />
<br />
The two sides in the debate were having their turns giving members one minute speeches either in favor of, or opposed to impeaching the president. The first speech was pro-impeachment and laid out a pretty rational case. The second speech was anti-impeachment and was a massive non sequitor where the congresswoman rambled on about abortion and Medicare and everything except the charges against the president.<br />
<br />
The back and forth continued for a couple more speakers. Then, the Republicans bring up their next speaker, Bob Livingstone. However, instead of getting recognized for one minute, he is recognized for <i>two</i> minutes. When he walks up to the podium, he turns to the chair and says something I couldn't hear. (Usually, it is the asking for unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks in the official record.)<br />
<br />
As he started speaking, I didn't remember who he was. Then I realized that he was the Speaker of the House-Elect, set to assume those responsibilities in a few weeks time. He spoke at length, way more than two minutes, laying out the case for impeachment. He builds up to a climax where he tells the president that he can end all this agony right now. A hiss emits from the Democrats in the chamber. Livingston presses forward. He calls on the president to resign.<br />
<br />
Immediately, the Democrats start shouting, "No! No! No!" and then the dominant voices in the chorus of dissent are shouting, "You resign! You resign!" You see, Livingston had recent admitted to his own extra-marital affair and the Democrats thought it was high hypocrisy (if not a high crime and misdemeanor) for one philanderer to call for the resignation of another philanderer.<br />
<br />
After a moment, the chamber quieted enough for Livingston to continue. He seemed to steel himself for the moments to come. And then he announced that he had been unfaithful to his wife and that he would lead by example. He would not take a role as the Speaker of the House, and he would resign his seat in 6 months time when there could be a special election to replace him. He then called on the president to follow his example and resign.<br />
<br />
The whole chamber erupted in applause. It looks like even the Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Probably different motives for the applause on the two sides of the aisle, but still an impressive display. It must have been somewhat unexpected for him to make the move and the chamber was all abuzz and the next speaker had a hard time getting started again.<br />
<br />
What an interesting moment of political drama, and a moment of political courage as well. I wish more politicians had the courage to admit failure and step aside when appropriate. Instead, many of them cling to power and frequently, though inexplicably, retain enough votes to stay in place.<br />
<br />
If you want to watch the video, you can find it <a bitly="BITLY_PROCESSED" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/116798-1">here</a> at about 18 minutes in.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-81316139202063754152010-02-09T19:54:00.006-07:002010-02-09T20:49:31.319-07:00HB 113: Child Restraint Device AmendmentsI sent this letter to both my state senator and my state congressman. I'll be sure to update the blog with any information they send me.<br /><br />____________________________<br /><br />Dear Representative Morley and Senator Madsen,<br /><br />I have noticed with interest HB113, “Child Restraint Device Amendments”. I believe that the current child restraint device laws are too restrictive, and I am pleased the legislature is considering amending them.<br /><br />In the book “SuperFreakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors discuss a study indicating that perfectly installed and fitted car seats for 3- and 6-year-olds are no more effective in a crash in protecting children than the poorly fitting built-in seat belt. (A brief summary of their findings can be found <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?_r=1&ex=1189915200&en=641c83d4b0668293&ei=5070">here</a> and <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/freakonomics-in-the-times-magazine-the-seat-belt-solution/">here</a> at the Freakonomics Blog at the New York Times website.) While I am not claiming that this is a definitive study on the subject, I am interested in learning what studies and reports the Utah State Legislature is using while considering amending the law. I am especially interested in any recent studies about older children (ages 5-8) and booster seats being considered during the deliberative process.<br /><br />As much as I applaud the direction of the amending (loosening the requirements on older children), I have serious concerns about the language of the amendment. As written, I do not see how this law could be enforced. How would a police officer know if I was driving directly to or from my home? That I was driving to the school or an authorized activity? That I don’t have a booster seat in the trunk in case I have to drive 5 miles away from the house? <br /><br />As a parent of four children under the age of seven (with a fifth child on the way), I am directly affected by these laws, and will be for a good many years to come. I would very much appreciate hearing from you on your opinion as to these amendments, on how the law would be enforced, and what scientific studies are being used to inform the Legislature on this subject. <br /><br />Thank you for your service and your help in this request.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-5333929887467200562009-12-28T08:11:00.001-07:002009-12-28T08:11:00.318-07:00Toddler Car Seats DebunkedShocking result reported in the book SuperFreakonomics. Perfectly installed and fitted car seats for 3 and 6 year olds are no more effective in a crash in protecting children than the poorly fitting built-in lap belt. Hear the authors <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/11/04/SuperFreakonomics_with_Steven_Levitt_and_Stephen_Dubner#chapter_07">talk about it</a> in segment 7 of this talk.<br /><br />Other interesting comments from that segment, though I don't know if all of these are actually backed up by the research or if they are merely conclusions based on the new intuition informed by the study:<br /><ul><li>The passenger seat is the least safe seat in the car.</li><li>A child would fare better than an adult in the front seat because they are smaller and less likely to get squashed by something.</li><li>The safest place for an infant would be on the floor of the backseat.</li><li>Crash testing companies had never done comparative testing of regular seat belts and child seats. The authors were turned down several times. The engineer who finally did the test was certain they were going to destroy his crash test dummy and made them promise to replace it if it got destroyed in the tests using only a plain seat belt.</li><li>Using a seat belt of any sort makes an enormous difference in the survivability of a crash.</li><li>Babe-in-arms in the front seat is the worst possible place for an infant.</li><li>The authors note that other people disagree with their conclusions.</li></ul>Legislators, will you take action to further investigate this and remedy the situation if further study bears this out?<br /><br />I feel more oppressed by child safety seat regulation than any other government regulation I can think of because it affects me nearly every day as a father of four children under the age of 7. We switched to a minivan from a sedan when our third child was born because fitting three car seats in the back seat was problematic. (It was hard to close the back doors.)<br /><br />Now that we have a minivan, I'm still concerned about adding the fifth child to this car because I'm not sure how easy it will be to access the built in seat belt when three booster seats or child seats are squeezed onto that back bench. Perversely, the cumbersome nature of child safety seats makes me less inclined to buckle my kids for trips of three blocks or less. I'm sure that isn't the safety result the legislators were hoping for.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-43244318614415874712009-12-26T14:37:00.003-07:002009-12-26T15:22:42.054-07:00Thoughts on Humanitarian AidRick Steves, the famous travel guide author, gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club. At the <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/10/28/Rick_Steves_Travel_As_a_Political_Act#chapter_15">very end of his recorded speech</a>, he riffed for a minute about the differences in European and American approaches to helping the poor and about the obligation that we have to reach out.<br /><br /><blockquote>You see beautiful kids in your travels that are every bit as precious as our kids. And when I look at these girls on a garbage dump in El Salvador, I see every bit as much deserving beauty there as my own daughter.<br /><br />I know my daughter's got $5000 for straight teeth and money left over for whitener. And I looked around her class and apparently every girl has $5000 for straight teeth and money left over for whitener. That's not a bad thing. I don't apologize for that. We have a winning society. I work hard; my daughter gets straight teeth.<br /><br />But that doesn't negate the fact that in this village, the moms are not home because they're out walking for water. And for the cost of two sets of braces, we could drill a well in that thirsty community to parents could stay home and take care of their kids. That's not a guilt trip. That's an opportunity.</blockquote><br />I share Rick's desire to improve the world. I also recently heard a bit of wisdom from <a href="http://kennedy.byu.edu/archive/index.php?id=1638">Sharon Eubank</a> on this topic in a recent lecture at the BYU Kennedy Center. Sharon shared some of her experiences in dealing with international humanitarian aid. Her talk was explicitly about the vital importance of keeping LDS humanitarian aid and LDS proselyting strictly separate to ensure our continued ability to do humanitarian work. I want to highlight a different point from her talk, however.<br /><br />Sharon is involved in the wheelchair distribution effort for the LDS Humanitarian Services division. For a while, they would find the cheapest wheelchairs to distribute to poor people around the world. This gave them the largest number of wheelchairs for their limited humanitarian dollars. However, they discovered that when the wheelchairs inevitably broke down, there were no local resources to repair or replace the chairs and the recipients were eventually just as bad off as they'd been before. Lesson: Pay more to purchase chairs locally and strengthen the local market to ensure that the chairs and suppliers will have longevity.<br /><br />Sharon has seen humanitarian projects with big plaques on the wall (see her talk about that about 34 minutes into the video) that stroke the ego of the donor who made it possible. But something perverse happens. The community doesn't feel ownership of the well that was dug or the clinic that was built. Eventually, it decays, along with the sign, and the donor's name emblazoned on the plaque becomes a symbol of neglect and abandonment rather than a symbol of hope and empowerment. Lesson: emphasize community ownership and maintenance. The local people must learn to build and maintain the project and have the resources to carry it forward.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-59648655733326567002009-11-30T10:53:00.006-07:002009-12-30T08:59:58.793-07:00Will Reason Fail?<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">After a debate, which argument is more persuasive? Will conservative viewpoints convince more people, or will liberal viewpoints win the day?<br /><br />I've been listening to the <a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/">Intelligence Squared US</a> debates. "Oxford style debate on America's shores." By the rules of the game, the winner is declared based on how many people <i>switched</i> rather than just the predisposition of the crowd that purchased tickets. Given that the events are hosted in New York, it comes as no surprise to me that the liberal point of view on each question usual starts and finishes with a greater majority of the vote. But which point of view causes more people to change their opinion?<br /><br />The following charts summarize the results of the debates currently available online that had a political angle. (I skipped the debates that didn't seem to highlight a left/right divide such as "Good Riddance to the Mainstream Media" and "The Art Market is Less Ethical than the Stock Market.") Click the chart to see the date of the debate the the info about the participants.<br /><br /><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/universal-health-coverage-should-be-the-federal-governments-responsibility/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7_JdnG9B98qUE-IPtHiZ7L3kqqHNVQPkx6-beqkVFTpD38vNipXsd-eiq5oHSWXUdkwWVyx54-wr42tvy4R0BulijzoX4aqvoWUr_25uxKwtxGKtbb-6mO5S9XJEzFz6YmcOs//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-is-finally-winning-the-war-in-iraq/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAaouyzb7K3j1NudoyiDKn-oCQ5FiTJfYNZqUk025U5w4oaBHqHetU2zm9A96jgIJqe1b-Z8rSgk-JybJjUMft-IeoHnZSvA7mDwaJcB5uoRY5RHqaXwREf0p6VZ3GOvhjwlnP//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/guns-reduce-crime/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ9uLtoqbi98RzFS5DRop1IILBkto2pJkaT8Ltg7tamrTj0mnGqE9uHZbnOZRAa2hg2Pzh27JBWJYoVTlnYAkw733OyWFtDzwh9b4b-af4AQeCesXU_SofreSu215Nl4SBizof//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/bush-43-is-the-worst-president-of-the-last-50-years/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhUZ9TN0hA7eWKopDGVoy3X8-n15YFPsrXJDBRDeAeZCLZzAqEUWTJbUAulmzwN41daVIjcA3jUTe3MW7b24EqbtPnjtdI1latybD_lurr6Yl9nC9LLRcUIVI8te5m1XJ8Rh5P//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/major-reductions-in-carbon-emissions-are-not-worth-the-money/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvOMXwUFQSzKzRJmy82VNCqNOKH8gw_pUDl-P2OaDOfkRPrCZIuOe3tK4HUvxvuFWbCyvRB3i4jOpE5QTLzGfAaes3NSgVTVEJ9QzqF-b5kVa56sQptQtMXn4PyWzqWz7nhxvC//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/blame-washington-more-than-wall-street-for-the-financial-crisis/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ4K_dL0KO_caQhMv1W1ufit4R_SubrsH37Id33U_bBhaK52D61RAJTM8AqqKC1387BKqTIBb5WLI1KA2ibknxbuKiP1DmpC4Bi4JhyphenhyphenDVNz2OIi-cdpvSrA5NY36sO6sUY9poo//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/its-wrong-to-pay-for-sex/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI8qUQ-5s24CUVAY2_21yTnuvLnc8EmZ_eVcNb8_lEznJoiOiPMCrOpVTYd0cjhB21ac02_GwIS2OYN80HdUKiiuDs4uOvxqSfOutV8ZQsiyYpAmkZcemyeKbEqoN4SKwMd9J2//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/diplomacy-with-iran-is-going-nowhere/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSUPibm86fO4XlBpCoY8maA95ii7f2R0-EONJGtO2m50DOdtYeGT2lJ0ZItxipNQbsDfVTbR0_eutWtbER3HBgDOiQNbEIb-MuVcMPXNl7S0F2uTX_GVxC_PqQOm9X0qpnLzfr//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/buy-americanhire-american-policies-will-backfire/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMoRMFl46mzc3d-5TE4aonAoiNbS29lQXSqYLpx1CfN27f3ZGlLErlFcxu1lOE-_48mh81djvCbZx9fAqNs9K3gnzU_0nrV-hnWD-7h_AE-xtwwlfpD_bO4Q0_fTCpZkUqf2B_//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-cannot-and-will-not-succeed-in-afghanistanpakistan/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxOxTbxSPJHuAGOFwsLU9nCfLMkVnomSG5GB-x51KsnM73-bjCzeYdt0oLOdLI56vj7oUpUoDTA3xBE7ITpT5XzGHTdc2NRC-bX6SOytrrorTUUOzOTGQQi1sQsoSE_7WbZTR5//?imgmax=800" /></a><a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/obamas-economic-policies-are-working-effectively/"><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC5uOtXn-YwJdgw3z69amU7EGb5aOaWYq_QPqJiEFrXuX_k3IsmdqZea8gtSR1RqwGBC8eVBBIfyLtf0dqsn7vX509M0kfxPovka-_bO2w3nmaGCpDnLP4m9w4WK7hhWCEFX98//?imgmax=800" /></a><br /><br />Is it surprising that you find such a high number of people that pay $35-$45 to attend a debate and leave without picking a side?<br /><br />Do these results mean that conservatives are more likely to hear the arguments before making a decision? Or does it mean that, after a full hearing of both sides of an issue, people are more likely to agree with conservatives? Do you think people, particularly conservatives, are going in with the intention of misstating their original belief so that their side will garner more "switch" points?<br /><br />Should we expect more people to be persuaded by arguments? In an "enlightened" society, shouldn't we see a large majority switching to the side with the more "reasonable" arguments? <a href="http://fora.tv/2008/06/20/George_Lakoff_on_The_Political_Mind#fullprogram">Why don't we see that?</a><br /><br /><div class="zemanta-pixie"><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=4986a93a-7cb9-8644-8848-d7c6f716e974" alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></div></div>Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-12881675117152364722009-10-11T20:38:00.002-07:002009-10-11T21:21:07.426-07:00Thanks for the MemoriesHow good is your memory? I seem to be blessed with a particularly faulty memory, including a shockingly poor ability to remember if I've seen a face before.<br /><br />Do you remember the famous Hillary Clinton whopper where she talked about her <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/">mortal peril in Bosina</a>? She said, “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”<br /><br />Her account is at odds with the facts (we have video), but the question remains, was she lying? We'll never know, but there is a remarkable amount of scientific research demonstrating the malleability of our memories. It is entirely consistent with scientific research to suppose that Hillary actually believed the Bosnia account as she told it.<br /><br />Elizabeth Loftus used Clinton as an <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/07/14/Elizabeth_Loftus_Whats_the_Matter_with_Memory">example in a lecture</a> where she recounted lots of other juicy info about memory. Here are some tidbits:<br /><ul><li>There is no evidence for "repressed memories" as popularly understood.</li><li>Researchers have been able to "encourage" people to remember childhood incidents like getting lost in the mall or getting sick after eating an egg salad sandwich--that never happened.</li><li>People can convincingly recount their memories of seeing Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, after reading a key piece of bogus advertising as a seed for the impossible memory. (They don't have Bugs at Disneyland, as you probably know.)</li><li>That false memory of the egg salad sandwich made those who were susceptible to the memory less likely to eat egg salad sandwiches up to four months later.</li><li>False positive memories about asparagus made people more likely to claim they would order asparagus at a fancy restaurant.</li></ul>Isn't it crazy how changeable our memories are? I recounted the <a href="http://docartemis.com/brainsciencepodcast/2008/07/42-onbeingcertain/">following information</a> to a colleague. A few days later she included the material in a training exercise and got all the numbers wrong. Apparently, our memories about memory research is also susceptible to corruption. (Hence this post.) <a href="http://docartemis.com/brain%20science/42-BSP-OnBeingCertain.pdf">Ginger Campbell is summarizing</a> the research presented in the book "On Being Certain" by Robert Burton. Here is an excerpt that will probably surprise you. Emphasis mine.<br /><blockquote><br />So within a day of the Challenger explosion he interviewed 106 students and he had them write down exactly how they heard about it, where they were, what they were doing, and how they felt. Two and a half years later, he interviewed them again and he found that for <span style="font-weight: bold;">25% of them their second account was significantly different</span> from their original journal entries. In fact, more than half the people had some degree of error and less than 10% gave all the details exactly the same as they had originally.<br /><br />Even so, before they saw their original journals, most of them were certain that their memories were absolutely correct. In fact many of them, <span style="font-weight: bold;">when confronted</span> with what they had originally wrote down, still had a <span style="font-weight: bold;">high degree of confidence in their false recollections</span>- even when faced with journals in their own handwriting, because they just felt that their current memories were correct. In fact, there was one student who said, "That's my handwriting but that's not what happened."</blockquote>The moral of this story? Give people the benefit of the doubt and trust their sincerity until you have solid reason to believe otherwise. Thanks for the lesson, Secretary Clinton.Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6613311.post-3180146859144380872009-10-09T19:50:00.002-07:002009-10-09T20:24:20.407-07:00A Few Nobel SuggestionsThe game is over for this year's Nobel Peace Prize competition. President Obama beat out <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/08/nobel.peace.prize/">contenders</a> like Piedad Cordoba (Colombian senator that has helped free hostages), Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad (Jordanian professor who has fostered interfaith tolerance and dialog), Sima Samar (Afghan human rights activists), and 202 other nominees.<br /><br />If the prize committee isn't aware of enough people with previous accomplishments, perhaps I can name a few for their consideration for next year. This list is just off the top of my head; surely with a little pondering you can augment the list with other worthies.<br /><br /><ul><li>Bill Clinton. He didn't do so well as president, but since then he seems to be working hard with his Clinton Global Initiative. I'll bet there are a raft of accomplishments there we can cite in the nomination letter.</li><li>Bono. He's invested his fame heavily into promoting good causes.<br /></li><li>Bill and Melinda Gates. Their work against malaria has been particularly noteworthy.</li><li>WWII veterans. Go with the large group concept that Time pioneered with their Person of the Year award in 2006. These soldiers sacrificed a lot to bring peace to the world. Sure it hasn't been perfect, but it was no small thing. Before the rest of them die off, let's give them this final honor.</li><li>Napoleon Dzombe. Yeah, you've never heard of him, but the stuff <a href="http://www.forceforgood.org/aboutus/lifetime-achievement-award/2005-napoleon-dzombe.shtml">he's accomplished</a> is remarkable. </li><li>George W. Bush. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that having Saddam off the world stage is a good step in the cause of peace.<br /></li><li>Margaret Thatcher. Her health is failing, but she is the last of the trio, including Ronald Reagan and John Paul II, who did so much to resist the march of communism and help bring it down.</li></ul>If none of those are good enough, and you need something more aspirational, perhaps you can select my kids. They bring such a huge smile to my face that perhaps they could bring world peace if I just shared them with the world.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.lavalane.org/blava/uploaded_images/2009-10-08-Fall-mountains1-701117.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 225px;" src="http://www.lavalane.org/blava/uploaded_images/2009-10-08-Fall-mountains1-701114.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Bradley Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com2