Sperm Whale Eats a Giant Squid! (click through for more photos)
Showing posts with label Huffington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huffington Post. Show all posts
November 05, 2009
September 09, 2009
news bloopers
I enjoy bloopers of all sort, because I like watching others embarrassed, so these news bloopers from HuffPo are enjoyable (someone needs to teach me, again, how to embed video) . A few are dumb, but the "Terrifying Criminal Mastermind" is pretty hilarious. Also, as per usual, I love Anderson Cooper.
July 24, 2009
I guess I'm not stupid...
...at least that's what Dr. Jon LaPook, who works for CBS and has an awesome name, tells me: "No, you're not stupid if you're confused about health care reform."
His piece in HuffPo today is about how politicians, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc., have intentionally made this issue impossible for most people to get a handle on. And he lays the four main goals of the legislation:
Coverage expansion and subsidies. This is where most of the estimated trillion dollar price tag over ten years would go -- to expanding Medicaid for uninsured and lower income people and to help people who can't afford it pay on a sliding scale for insurance through new health insurance exchanges. Insurance market reforms. This is about fair play in the insurance industry. Advocates want to eliminate practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions and jacking up premiums if they're sick. The most controversial proposal is the
establishment of a "public option" -- a government insurance plan that would compete against private ones. Delivery and payment reforms. This is about delivering more effective care at a lower cost. About 20 percent of the 2.5 trillion dollar annual health care price tag does not contribute to better health. Prevention. This has been long overlooked in America. Spend a few dollars on foot care for a diabetic and you may prevent a foot amputation and thousands of dollars in expenses.
I know embarassingly little about the health care system, so I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Clearly, the reforms mentioned above are needed, but does the current legislation go about it in the right way? Is it an efficiant use of a trillion dollars? Etc. Thanks!
His piece in HuffPo today is about how politicians, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc., have intentionally made this issue impossible for most people to get a handle on. And he lays the four main goals of the legislation:
establishment of a "public option" -- a government insurance plan that would compete against private ones.
I know embarassingly little about the health care system, so I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Clearly, the reforms mentioned above are needed, but does the current legislation go about it in the right way? Is it an efficiant use of a trillion dollars? Etc. Thanks!
June 22, 2009
Alice in Wonderland.
Check out these pictures of the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen, and the White Queen from Tim Burton's upcoming interpretation of Alice in Wonderland. The characters are played by Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Anne Hathaway, respectively. (Images taken from HuffPo.)
I am worried that this movie will be disappointing in the same way that Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was, but I have to admit that these images give me some hope. Between these visuals and the fact that the film will be shown in 3-D I will likely end up going to see this in theaters despite my reservations. Does anyone know anything else about this project? Any early reviews of the script and casting?
June 12, 2009
Best. Excuse. Ever.
During a town-hall style meeting in Green Bay President Obama wrote a note excusing an attending fourth-grader's absence from school, then walked off the stage to deliver it to her. Kennedy, the fourth-grader, will present her teacher with a note that says, simply, "To Kennedy's teacher: Please excuse Kennedy's absence. She's with me. Barack Obama." If nothing else, Obama is a pretty fucking cool president.
May 29, 2009
May 25, 2009
May 11, 2009
Just kill the fucking series.
I can't even begin to share my problems with this: Maggie Simpson, voiced by Jodie Foster, spoke her first complete sentence during a re-worked version of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.
April 28, 2009
WTF moment of the day: Specter switching parties
Update: Sorry about the size of the original picture.
The Huffington Post reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R.- Pennsylvania) will switch parties and compete in the Deomcratic primary during the 2010 election cycle. Specter said,
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
April 27, 2009
They just don't get it.
Apparently sarcasm and satire are too indirect and subtle to be understood by those who live in a strict black vs. white, good vs. evil, dichotomous world. Research has now shown, "[...] individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements."
In other words, conservatives don't get the joke.
April 22, 2009
NSFW- Richard Branson is a badass.
We all know that Richard Branson is a badass for many reasons (any who disagree should please just check out his lion-esque appearance, his world record attempts, and Virgin Galactic). Let's add another reason to the list (NSFW): he has been paid to kite-surf near his private island with a naked supermodel hanging on his back while his wife and two grown children watched from the shore. The most impressive part? The supermodel's boyfriend was the one who asked him to do it! (Granted, the boyfriend was the photographer.)
March 27, 2009
cocaine has medicinal uses?
Interesting HuffPo post about the politics and science of Plan B and marijuana laws (explains my subject line, too). The author suggests that pot be moved to a Schedule II drug, and makes a pretty convincing case for it. Not totally sure this will solve the problems (victimless criminals, a money sinkhole, etc.) related to marijuana illegality as well as fully legalizing it would, but maybe it's more realistic. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.
March 01, 2009
Rush Limbaugh you douchebag, part 1 of what I'm sure will be many
From HuffPo: Rush Limbaugh: Of Course I Want Obama to Fail
get ready for such gems as:
"Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did.... They hoped George Bush failed..." [I don't know about you, but I desperately wanted Bush to STOP failing every step of the way]
and
"We are talking about the United States of America... remaining the country we were all born into and reared and grown into. And it is under assault, it has always been under assault. But it has never been under assault like this, from within [by the Democrats]...so what's so wrong with saying I want President Obama to fail?" [um...I guess we can start with hypocrisy...]
UPDATE:
Just read this infuriating Rush quote in Sarah Vowell's Radio On:
"There is no such thing as global warming, ladies and gentlemen...You can trust me, or you can agonize. It's simpler to trust me." [global warming aside that last sentence makes my blood boil [no pun intended].]
Don't worry, no more updates - I realize this could become The Post That Never Ends, because Rush has several hours every day on the radio to say things I hate. I do invite you to share your favorite Rush-isms, though.
get ready for such gems as:
"Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did.... They hoped George Bush failed..." [I don't know about you, but I desperately wanted Bush to STOP failing every step of the way]
and
"We are talking about the United States of America... remaining the country we were all born into and reared and grown into. And it is under assault, it has always been under assault. But it has never been under assault like this, from within [by the Democrats]...so what's so wrong with saying I want President Obama to fail?" [um...I guess we can start with hypocrisy...]
UPDATE:
Just read this infuriating Rush quote in Sarah Vowell's Radio On:
"There is no such thing as global warming, ladies and gentlemen...You can trust me, or you can agonize. It's simpler to trust me." [global warming aside that last sentence makes my blood boil [no pun intended].]
Don't worry, no more updates - I realize this could become The Post That Never Ends, because Rush has several hours every day on the radio to say things I hate. I do invite you to share your favorite Rush-isms, though.
February 26, 2009
Michael Phelps will be psyched.
The Obama administration has so far shown a willingness to, in many ways, seek out and subsequently ignore controversy, whether the controversy is legitimate or contrived. This willingness has taken many forms, ranging from a nearly $1T stimulus bill to a declaration that the deficit will be halved within the next four year, from the appointment of Judd Gregg to the declared but un-planned closure of Guantanamo. In some cases Obama has argued his case pretty well (think Guantanamo) whether or not he was arguing the correct point; in others he has demonstrated a brashness and confidence unexpected by many observers despite being on the wrong side of the argument (think Judd Gregg). It seems as if Obama has chosen to make the most of the impossible situation he faces by attempting to handle not only the immediate crises (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the credit market), but also many less-pressing issues that other presidents would have left for later (e.g. the elimination of the Global Gag Rule, the institution of limits on congressional pay, and the recommendation of increased fuel efficiency standards). Obama has thus used the cover of “the worst recession since the Great Depression” to slide through some policies that would have brought down hellfire on the White House during past administrations. (This argument is related to Chris’ point that the stimulus was passed in a manner similar to the Patriot Act.)
It seems as though Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to open another front in the Obama administration’s backdoor war on outdated, inappropriate, and absurdly expensive policies: Holder declared that federal agents will no longer raid marijuana clubs in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana. [On an embarrassing note: without “The first black […]” leading his name I almost feel as if Holder’s title is missing something.]
Chalk one up for states’ rights. While this is far from legalization of marijuana federally it represents a significant deviation from past policies, and I can only hope that this indicates a shift in focus in the War on Drugs. As the above chart from 538 illustrates, public opinion is slowly moving in favor of the legalization of marijuana (both from the support and opposition sides), a trend I interpret (while hindered in no way by data or fact) to mean that the public as a whole is gradually coming to understand the differences between marijuana, which can lead to mental addictions, and more serious drugs that form both mental and physical addictions and lead to very serious health and general welfare problems (read: crime). As Nate Silver points out, though, it seems likely that, “[…] we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage [before we see legalized marijuana].”
I guess my main point is that the War on Drugs needs to be refocused in two major ways. First of all, the government should exert different efforts for the control of different drugs, with the distribution of funding and resources determined by an honest assessment of the impact of each drug on individuals and the country as a whole. Stated another way, marijuana related arrests should not account for nearly half of all drug arrests (see table below) in a country in which 97 million people have ‘admitted’ to having tried pot.
Source.
The other major change I support is less likely to be implemented, but who knows what this crazy Obama administration will do next? That change is a shift from a supply-side focus to a demand-side focus. Let’s try a mental experiment: imagine if the DEA made a bust in which it confiscated 80% of the heroin in the USA overnight. The next day, as junkies head to the corners, what will happen? Will the ‘drought’ lead users to rehabilitate, to realize the dangers of being a drug addict, to avoid crime and seek out Christ? Or will price go through the roof, likely leading to more drug-related crime as users attempt to scrounge up the necessary cash to buy some of the tiny supply? I think the latter is significantly more likely.
It is certainly easier to publicly justify supply-side programs to limit drug use: the publicity of drug busts; the visibility of border patrol agents; the high recidivism rates of addiction treatment programs; etc. Simply because a course of action is easier and less controversial, though, does not mean it is the best choice. I believe that if the United States wants to seriously attempt to combat the use of dangerous drugs it needs to rethink its classification system and the mechanisms by which it combats drug purchases.
There are a number of potential problems here, I admit. First, assuming demand for a drug falls, prices will fall. When prices fall the suppliers have less incentive to be there (less profit per unit sold), but the users have a greater incentive to use (more units of drug per dollar spent). I think these effects would interact differently based on the drug in question and the level of addiction it creates. Second, drug treatment programs are expensive. I would argue that some of this cost would be offset by the lowered costs associated with the reclassification of some drugs (e.g. if marijuana were not a drug for which one could be jailed, the country would no longer have to pay to jail those arrested with marijuana, or may not even have to arrest those people at all). Again, the net effect is ambiguous in this hypothetical world I have imagined. Lastly, and I am sure I am missing arguments for both sides, opponents of these reforms may argue that by enforcing treatment programs rather than jail time the country is choosing to give criminals a second chance at the expense of those who may have never committed a crime. I imagine an opponent thinking, “Why is that criminal allowed to walk near my child? Why do I pay for his wrong decisions with my fear over my own property and safety?” I have no rebuttal for this except for my own belief that even the best of men can fall prey to addiction and that each and every person who does deserves at least a second chance, if not more.
I hope to one day live in a country in which one mistake on the order of taking a drug does not ruin one’s life permanently. If he feels compelled to continue sneaking legislation through based on false pretenses, let’s hope Obama chooses some of the right legislation to sneak through. I apologize for the length of this ramble. I hope it received at least one drug-addled, "Hooray!" from the crowd.
It seems as though Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to open another front in the Obama administration’s backdoor war on outdated, inappropriate, and absurdly expensive policies: Holder declared that federal agents will no longer raid marijuana clubs in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana. [On an embarrassing note: without “The first black […]” leading his name I almost feel as if Holder’s title is missing something.]
Chalk one up for states’ rights. While this is far from legalization of marijuana federally it represents a significant deviation from past policies, and I can only hope that this indicates a shift in focus in the War on Drugs. As the above chart from 538 illustrates, public opinion is slowly moving in favor of the legalization of marijuana (both from the support and opposition sides), a trend I interpret (while hindered in no way by data or fact) to mean that the public as a whole is gradually coming to understand the differences between marijuana, which can lead to mental addictions, and more serious drugs that form both mental and physical addictions and lead to very serious health and general welfare problems (read: crime). As Nate Silver points out, though, it seems likely that, “[…] we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage [before we see legalized marijuana].”
I guess my main point is that the War on Drugs needs to be refocused in two major ways. First of all, the government should exert different efforts for the control of different drugs, with the distribution of funding and resources determined by an honest assessment of the impact of each drug on individuals and the country as a whole. Stated another way, marijuana related arrests should not account for nearly half of all drug arrests (see table below) in a country in which 97 million people have ‘admitted’ to having tried pot.
Source.
The other major change I support is less likely to be implemented, but who knows what this crazy Obama administration will do next? That change is a shift from a supply-side focus to a demand-side focus. Let’s try a mental experiment: imagine if the DEA made a bust in which it confiscated 80% of the heroin in the USA overnight. The next day, as junkies head to the corners, what will happen? Will the ‘drought’ lead users to rehabilitate, to realize the dangers of being a drug addict, to avoid crime and seek out Christ? Or will price go through the roof, likely leading to more drug-related crime as users attempt to scrounge up the necessary cash to buy some of the tiny supply? I think the latter is significantly more likely.
It is certainly easier to publicly justify supply-side programs to limit drug use: the publicity of drug busts; the visibility of border patrol agents; the high recidivism rates of addiction treatment programs; etc. Simply because a course of action is easier and less controversial, though, does not mean it is the best choice. I believe that if the United States wants to seriously attempt to combat the use of dangerous drugs it needs to rethink its classification system and the mechanisms by which it combats drug purchases.
There are a number of potential problems here, I admit. First, assuming demand for a drug falls, prices will fall. When prices fall the suppliers have less incentive to be there (less profit per unit sold), but the users have a greater incentive to use (more units of drug per dollar spent). I think these effects would interact differently based on the drug in question and the level of addiction it creates. Second, drug treatment programs are expensive. I would argue that some of this cost would be offset by the lowered costs associated with the reclassification of some drugs (e.g. if marijuana were not a drug for which one could be jailed, the country would no longer have to pay to jail those arrested with marijuana, or may not even have to arrest those people at all). Again, the net effect is ambiguous in this hypothetical world I have imagined. Lastly, and I am sure I am missing arguments for both sides, opponents of these reforms may argue that by enforcing treatment programs rather than jail time the country is choosing to give criminals a second chance at the expense of those who may have never committed a crime. I imagine an opponent thinking, “Why is that criminal allowed to walk near my child? Why do I pay for his wrong decisions with my fear over my own property and safety?” I have no rebuttal for this except for my own belief that even the best of men can fall prey to addiction and that each and every person who does deserves at least a second chance, if not more.
I hope to one day live in a country in which one mistake on the order of taking a drug does not ruin one’s life permanently. If he feels compelled to continue sneaking legislation through based on false pretenses, let’s hope Obama chooses some of the right legislation to sneak through. I apologize for the length of this ramble. I hope it received at least one drug-addled, "Hooray!" from the crowd.
February 24, 2009
Confirmation!
Ron Howard confirmed that work on the Arrested Development movie has begun! Mitchell Hurwitz is writing the script right now. And Jeffrey Tambor has his own solution to the 'Michael Cera is being an ass' problem: "If I have to call him up and say, 'Get on set right now, young man,' he'll be there, the movie is going to happen this year, and Michael Cera is on board. Trust me." I hope Tambor has to hit Cera at least once for his insolence and arrogance.
I kind of want to have a ridiculous celebration party when this comes out. Anyone in?
I kind of want to have a ridiculous celebration party when this comes out. Anyone in?
February 22, 2009
Shut UP
Shut UP, Rush Limbaugh (This remark came in the context of trying to understand the motives of Democrats who have disdain for America...),
Shut UP, Richard Shelby ("Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate..."),
Shut UP, Ann Coulter ("I like men, i.e. conservatives...").
No more HuffPost for me today.
Shut UP, Richard Shelby ("Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate..."),
Shut UP, Ann Coulter ("I like men, i.e. conservatives...").
No more HuffPost for me today.
February 12, 2009
Articles!
A quick article dump to start the day’s blogging activities.
”Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest” - Todd Palin is currently racing a “snow machine” 1,971 miles across Alaska, during which his “Arctic Cat's powerful two-stroke engine will emit the same amount of hydrocarbons as an automobile driving from Chicago to San Francisco and back 150 times.” Fantastic. And it only gets trashier and more polluting. First, the pollution: “[During the race] Todd Palin will release as many cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as a Chevy Malibu driven around the Earth at its equator 28 times.” Now, the conflict of interest: the race is sponsored by “[…] the petroleum giants Tesoro and Conoco-Phillips; State Farm, Wells Fargo, Frontier Airlines, Alaska Airlines and the Alaska First National Bank.” You may be saying, “But you are not being fair. Maybe the Palins do not get a shady benefit from this.” Well, Todd is an annual competitor (seemingly surprising for a race with a field of 40 people willing to do this kind of evil to the environment) who has only one four times. “Once after Sarah was elected to the Wasilla City Council, once after she was elected mayor, the year she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the year she was elected governor.” Okay, okay, maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry for trying to shame such an upstanding family.
“Video Games Are Good For Children – EU Report” - Nothing too surprising here, but it is nice to have confirmation of something I believe: An EU panel determined that "’video games can stimulate learning of facts and skills such as strategic thinking, creativity, cooperation and innovative thinking, which are important skills in the information society.’" Yay! An excuse to play more video games!
Unemployment as stimulus -
“A Novel Approach: Using Unemployment Benefits as a Means for Stimulus” – An interesting plan to maximize the benefits created by unemployment payments: instead of paying out cash to an unemployed person for a set amount of time provide that person with a voucher that subsidizes them as an employee. For example, assume Mr. Doe is unemployed and receives $200 each week in unemployment payments ant that were anyone to hire Mr. Doe it would cost that firm $500 each week, a (made-up) prohibitive amount. The likely outcome here is that he remains unemployed. But if Mr. Doe can suddenly walk into an interview and say, “Instead of costing you $500 each week I will only cost you $300 each week and the money that would have been my unemployment check is now paying the other $200 of the salary.” Obviously this has limitations (e.g. what happens when Mr. Doe’s salary is no longer subsidized?), but in the short term this plan creates a greater overall income, implying a greater overall level of consumption, for the same government investment. At the same time it increases the overall production level of the economy.
“Big Satellites Collide 500 Miles Over Siberia” – This story seems pretty ridiculous at first, though it does highlight the very real concern of the volume of junk orbiting Earth. Apparently a non-functional Russian satellite launched in 1993 and described as “[…] out of control” crashed into a commercial satellite launched in 1997, creating thousands of particles that will now orbit Earth waiting to smash into other man-made satellites. I can’t help but think of this as a case of modern space zombies in which each zombie (read: smashed satellite) spends the rest of its time trying to create more zombies (read: smash other satellites). For perspective on the dangers we are facing from orbiting junk only fifty-two years into man’s era of sending crap into space: “[…] orbital debris is now the biggest threat to a space shuttle in flight, surpassing the dangers of liftoff and return to Earth.” I will now officially swear off space flight until we have orbiting Roombas keeping me safe.
“Letting Scientists Off the Leash” - This is an interesting article written by a researcher at Stanford University who discusses the flaws in the way money for research is distributed. His main point is that the typically conservative review boards that approve funding for grant proposals do not fund very imaginative or risky research. This leads to a situation where most of the ideas we are pursuing are those that we are already sure we can turn into a profit, not those that could have a substantially larger impact but at the same time carry larger risks (in that they are more likely than the boring projects to have an outcome different from that discussed when the grant was proposed). I don’t know too much about this, but I do support the idea of devising a more efficient means of identifying and funding riskier and more creative research.
”Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest” - Todd Palin is currently racing a “snow machine” 1,971 miles across Alaska, during which his “Arctic Cat's powerful two-stroke engine will emit the same amount of hydrocarbons as an automobile driving from Chicago to San Francisco and back 150 times.” Fantastic. And it only gets trashier and more polluting. First, the pollution: “[During the race] Todd Palin will release as many cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as a Chevy Malibu driven around the Earth at its equator 28 times.” Now, the conflict of interest: the race is sponsored by “[…] the petroleum giants Tesoro and Conoco-Phillips; State Farm, Wells Fargo, Frontier Airlines, Alaska Airlines and the Alaska First National Bank.” You may be saying, “But you are not being fair. Maybe the Palins do not get a shady benefit from this.” Well, Todd is an annual competitor (seemingly surprising for a race with a field of 40 people willing to do this kind of evil to the environment) who has only one four times. “Once after Sarah was elected to the Wasilla City Council, once after she was elected mayor, the year she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the year she was elected governor.” Okay, okay, maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry for trying to shame such an upstanding family.
“Video Games Are Good For Children – EU Report” - Nothing too surprising here, but it is nice to have confirmation of something I believe: An EU panel determined that "’video games can stimulate learning of facts and skills such as strategic thinking, creativity, cooperation and innovative thinking, which are important skills in the information society.’" Yay! An excuse to play more video games!
Unemployment as stimulus -
“A Novel Approach: Using Unemployment Benefits as a Means for Stimulus” – An interesting plan to maximize the benefits created by unemployment payments: instead of paying out cash to an unemployed person for a set amount of time provide that person with a voucher that subsidizes them as an employee. For example, assume Mr. Doe is unemployed and receives $200 each week in unemployment payments ant that were anyone to hire Mr. Doe it would cost that firm $500 each week, a (made-up) prohibitive amount. The likely outcome here is that he remains unemployed. But if Mr. Doe can suddenly walk into an interview and say, “Instead of costing you $500 each week I will only cost you $300 each week and the money that would have been my unemployment check is now paying the other $200 of the salary.” Obviously this has limitations (e.g. what happens when Mr. Doe’s salary is no longer subsidized?), but in the short term this plan creates a greater overall income, implying a greater overall level of consumption, for the same government investment. At the same time it increases the overall production level of the economy.
“Big Satellites Collide 500 Miles Over Siberia” – This story seems pretty ridiculous at first, though it does highlight the very real concern of the volume of junk orbiting Earth. Apparently a non-functional Russian satellite launched in 1993 and described as “[…] out of control” crashed into a commercial satellite launched in 1997, creating thousands of particles that will now orbit Earth waiting to smash into other man-made satellites. I can’t help but think of this as a case of modern space zombies in which each zombie (read: smashed satellite) spends the rest of its time trying to create more zombies (read: smash other satellites). For perspective on the dangers we are facing from orbiting junk only fifty-two years into man’s era of sending crap into space: “[…] orbital debris is now the biggest threat to a space shuttle in flight, surpassing the dangers of liftoff and return to Earth.” I will now officially swear off space flight until we have orbiting Roombas keeping me safe.
“Letting Scientists Off the Leash” - This is an interesting article written by a researcher at Stanford University who discusses the flaws in the way money for research is distributed. His main point is that the typically conservative review boards that approve funding for grant proposals do not fund very imaginative or risky research. This leads to a situation where most of the ideas we are pursuing are those that we are already sure we can turn into a profit, not those that could have a substantially larger impact but at the same time carry larger risks (in that they are more likely than the boring projects to have an outcome different from that discussed when the grant was proposed). I don’t know too much about this, but I do support the idea of devising a more efficient means of identifying and funding riskier and more creative research.
December 23, 2008
Dangling Modifiers
I'll keep it short: I read this blurb in NYT about dangling modifiers ("As the Blues forward tried to deflect the puck past the goalie, he snatched it with his glove.").
Hardly any time at all later, I read this article at HuffPo, which began with this sentence:
"A friend of French money manager Thierry de la Villehuchet told a paper that he committed suicide in his New York office early Tuesday morning."
Wow. I've never heard anyone report their suicide to a newspaper before.
Hardly any time at all later, I read this article at HuffPo, which began with this sentence:
"A friend of French money manager Thierry de la Villehuchet told a paper that he committed suicide in his New York office early Tuesday morning."
Wow. I've never heard anyone report their suicide to a newspaper before.
Topless presidents
Huffington Post has a pretty funny slideshow of presidents without shirts on. Now, most of these pictures are fine, but I have to ask two questions: 1. Why is Nancy Reagan's top sooo low. No one wants to imagine, let alone see, what dwells under her clothing; 2. Is the former Chinese president being helped out of the water or kidnapped? In either case, what is the explanation?
Somehow Obama's and Clinton's pictures are the only ones that do not creep me out. Perhaps that is a product of my own familiarity (I can test this hypothesis by finding a topless Bush 43 picture and gauging my level of revulsion, though it would be hard to discern the basis of my disgust); perhaps they are not the physical monsters that many presidents have been (Taft, I am looking in your direction). Whatever the reason, I am glad that we do not have to see Reagan without a shirt ever again.
Somehow Obama's and Clinton's pictures are the only ones that do not creep me out. Perhaps that is a product of my own familiarity (I can test this hypothesis by finding a topless Bush 43 picture and gauging my level of revulsion, though it would be hard to discern the basis of my disgust); perhaps they are not the physical monsters that many presidents have been (Taft, I am looking in your direction). Whatever the reason, I am glad that we do not have to see Reagan without a shirt ever again.
December 07, 2008
An exception for servants...
Bush's new neighborhood did not allow non-whites to live there until 2000. Fantastic way to continue the legacy of a terrible presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
