Human decision making.

The propensity for humans to deceive themselves and selectively regard information that only fortifies their preconceived notions is strong. Robert Trivers has done fascinating research in the area, but it turns out that that has been known for quite some time. According to Slate.com:

Francis Bacon wrote in Novum Organum (1620) that the "human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it."

Study after study has shown that people ignore information that contradicts their opinions, or at best they interpret it in ways favorable to their opinions. The problem is that the opinion-making process is vital to a strong democracy, despite our nature. In that light, I wish it were possible to hold back decisions until later in the game. In the run up to the second Iraq war, Bush probably made up his mind to invade very early on, and thus ignored contradictory evidence as it came in.

Disastrous consequences aside, I hope that I can foster the ability to hold off judgment as long as possible on important decisions so that I can let reason guide me, not some archaic home-team impulse. More on those instincts in some future post.

Serenity.

From Random images

I both attract and abhor clutter. So it is with great relief that my office and my lab are both now up to snuff. At first glance, you may not regard them as particularly clutter-free, but they are miles ahead of where they were yesterday and, therefore, I am content.

Obama the elitist?

An elitist is one who wishes that society be ruled by an elite class, or a class of people considered to be the best either due to talent, wealth or power. I certainly want my leaders to be of superior talent, though they should not hold more power than is granted to them and should not be given any more privilege due to wealth than is possible.

As to who is more elitist, liberals have been out of power so long that they desire the most to be changed in government, so they have reason to want the leadership to reflect their values. Conservatives, on the other hand, have the economic wishes of the rich on their side and, in this election at least, are richer. So maybe liberals are more elitist and conservatives are the elite?

I learned something new today.

Wearing stripes with plaid is a fashion faux-pas. To that, all I have to say is:

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." -Albert Einstein.

I'm obviously concerned with more important things.

If you like biographies...

...then please rent or buy the HBO miniseries John Adams. I cannot overstate how well the series represents the recent McCullough biography, though I am less certain how well the series represents what his life was actually like, as I have only read that one biogrpahy. Since a major theme of the book and the series was Adams' perception of his historical legacy, I think McCullough went to great length the accurately portray this flawed founding father who I greatly respect and with whom can identify.

Finally, in the last episode, when Abigail dies eight years before John does, Cami and I cried harder than we had ever cried in a movie. The friendship that McCullough and the director portrayed between the two made her death and his loss truly heartbreaking.

A rebuttal to a chain email.

John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this.. It should make us all think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn countryof Iraq.

Five years after we invaded Iraq, it is now safer than it was during the height of the fighting. The point of the surge was to decrease violence in order to allow a political agreement to form. The first succeeded, time will tell whether or not it will be a long term success. As for the number of deaths, I don't know if you're saying that US military deaths are low or if Detroit is a horrible place to live, but I think we should compare total Iraqi deaths due to violence now versus before we invaded. The figures are hard to come by, but here are some sources. Reuters. Wikipedia.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war,tell them the following:

FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .. an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. & yet From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Obviously Vietnam was an unjust war, but I don't see how that is relevant to Iraq. I think the point in debate is whether or not invading Iraq was justified. By virtue of the fact that there were still arms inspectors in the country at the time of the invasion and that there is and was a sizable population of doubters, all the conditions for a justified war were not met. That's it.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

Yes, there are more dead terrorists now than there were on September 10, 2001. The question is, are we safer? If more people are turning to radical extremism now than before 9/11, than I fear for our long-term safety. Due to the fact that popularity for America is lower now than in September, 2001, I think Bush could have done better. He squandered worldwide goodwill in a hasty, irresponsible war.

But Wait, There's more.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound That was a 51-day operation...

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

These points are true, but irrelevant. You're trying to suggest that the war has not been going on too long. Just say that. Expecting a certain outcome in a certain amount of time is fine, but be clear. I think the complaint with the length of the war is that it is taking longer than Bush said it would, due to his selective acceptance of intelligence reports before the war.

But Wait ....... There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man 's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies ... in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum?'

For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Now he's a Senator!

What is the point? I am grateful that there are people willing to join the military. I hope that their leaders become wiser.

To top it off have you ever noticed that Obama is so rude and disrespectful that he can't call President Bush, President Bush? He always calls him George Bush, he is his boss and he should respect him even if he doesn't like him, he is teaching the people and youth of this nation to be rude and disrespectful and people want someone like this in office?? What do you think he's going to do if he does get into office?? People you need to wake up!! And i find it a horrible fact that mrs. obama said that for the first time in her life she is proud to be an american ! our possible next first lady of our blessed united states said this.,If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

W is not my boss. He is not Obama's boss. He is not my commander in chief. He is the head of the Executive branch of the government of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S. He was elected by the electoral college and only a vote by two-thirds of the Senate can remove him before his term. Therefore it is more correct to say that Obama is his boss. He has admitted to committing felonies. He has been accused of gross incompetence in domestic and foreign affairs. He does not deserve my respect. He should beg forgiveness for sullying the office of the President more than Clinton did.


It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating. I AM!!!

Please... don't.

"A complex world needs a good explanation"

Milenio newspaper.

Campaign finances.

Here's a detailed breakdown of fundraising and spending between the two campaigns. Some interesting highlights:
By far the biggest lead between the two campaigns is the use of small donors by Obama, which gave him $150 million more than small donors gave to McCain. Also, lawyers and teachers gave far more money to Obama than to McCain, the only profession that gave McCain more were real estate agents.

Obama needs to bring in more than $85 million in the next two months to make his decision to forgo public financing worth the extra time he has to spend at fundraisers, but it looks like he'll beat that sum by quite a bit. Money obviously doesn't buy votes, and I hope that, as the campaign turns more negative, Obama's ads will be truthful and focus on legitimate policy and character issues, instead of the recent stuff that McCain has been posting.

Though Obama did stretch the truth by claiming that McCain wanted to cut school spending (he actually voted to limit its growth), I hope that that is as bad as he gets... i.e. his character is a strong point and weakening it through those types of distortions makes me cringe. However, it is necessary for Obama to go more negative and tell all of Palin's story: her ideology, politics, and methods are so far out of the mainstream that she should be a burden for McCain as time goes on.

Will McCain win?

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

If McCain wins this election, it will be a real head scratcher. Many of his politics, notably environmental credentials, are much more moderate than Bush's. Furthermore, he seems to be more self aware than the current executive, but his economic and foreign affairs positions are nearly identical to Bush's, which are the two least popular aspects of Bush's unpopular tenure in the Whitehouse, not to mention scandal after scandal showing gross ethical lapses.

Are people actually not that mad at Bush? Do they not trust Obama? Has McCain won over his skeptical base and moderates at the same time? We'll only know some of the answers after election day. I think people are most concerned about Obama's short tenure in Washington, which is probably the reason he is the Democratic nominee.

Speaking of scandals, I think Palin's politcal style of personal attacks and vengence are just the type of warning signs that indicate future trouble in a McCain/Palin administration. It's hard to predict what her role would be: has Cheney strengthened the vice president's office permanently, or was his influence a one-time event? Either way, people are probably viewing her more carefully due to McCain's age, as she would be more likely to step in than most other past VPs.

More of the same.

You could pretty much replace Palin with W and Alaska for Washington and this article would remain just as true. Do we really want this for four more years? One of the root causes of many of Bush's quasi criminal misconduct is appointment of loyal friends instead of qualified individuals.

Creationist, book banning, naive...

... and McCain's biggest mistake? Though I strongly disagree with Palin's politics, McCain's recent surge in the polls seemed to suggest that this was a smart move by McCain. This article from the Economist, however, makes a pretty strong case that Palin could be a big problem. Not only does it show horrible judgment on his part, picking quick political points above qualifications, but she's polarizing and scares off independents, the author says.

The Economist is no liberal bastion, in fact it's so unbiased due to its foreign viewpoint that I can trust this to be a fairly rational argument. It's worth a read, especially to fellow liberals anxious about the next four years. The only problem is that people tend to be swayed more by glamor than by rational argument. Only time will tell what her ultimate effect will be.

Early mornings... argh

I've had a couple of early mornings so far this week as I try to get the oil changed and Cami's blood drawn before crowds form at the shop and Lab Corp. It's made me a bit more productive, except for the inadvertent nap I took yesterday in the comfy old chair in my office. Evil chair!

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

I have four main tasks I want to bite into today before my first seminar in college teaching this afternoon (a zero credit course that will help me make a better teaching portfolio, I hope, for any eventual job I will apply for in the future). I've done the first, getting ready for gen bio in the coming week.



The other three take more mental effort and are thus harder to initiate: part III of my prelim proposal, refine my animal behavior presentation for a presentation next week to the ecology grad students, and rescore and reanalyze some data that I collected this summer. I don't expect to finish any of those, but if I can get most of the presentation and a sizable bit of the other two done, I will be very happy. Make it so!

My pics are up.

Take a look at the pictures we took on our roadtrip from Salt Lake City to Portland, OR.

From Utah, Idaho, Oregon trip

Most of the pics are tagged with their location, so you can see where we were. Cami and I had a real fun time.