Stupid PETA Tricks

On the heels of rolling out the overt "Sea Kittens" propaganda campaign, the Emoters of PETA provide us with another example of willful inanity: "saving" George the Lobster!

The quote coming from the mouth of the leader of the PETA Inanity Brigade, co-founder and president Ingrid E. Newkirk is precious:

"We applaud the folks at City Crab and Seafood for their compassionate decision to allow this noble old-timer to live out his days in freedom and peace" [emphasis mine].

Peace? This kind of of ignorance simply HAS to be willful. The ocean is the one place where the food chain is best known and most visibly in action. Even if Ms. Newkirk has never spent an hour snorkeling on a reef, at some time she should have seen at least one Cousteau-like documentary where some ocean creature ate another one. PETAism could be just another manifestation of the Hippie Effect, in which case we just have to wait for them to die off - 'cause there's no hope for stupidity.

Here's something for the Emoters to roll around in their spacious skulls. Releasing 'George' in strange waters probably took away the one thing that allowed him to live so long in the first place: the great hidey-hole he had in Newfoundland. George may be a Striped Bass' dinner before the end of his first day off Kennebunkport.

A Guilty Pleasure:

Yes...I Have Always Enjoyed Moral Dilemmas.

Instapundit has what I think is a rather clever poll up at his site that could be a good conversation topic. He asks:

Which is worse?
a. A politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer, and lies about it.
or
b. A reporter or editor who covers for the politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer.

Myself? I picked 'b' without thinking twice. I admit this involved assuming there was no possible motive behind either act that could be considered morally 'acceptable'

When I did 'think twice' about it, I asked myself: What was in the nature of the two transgressions that would be the discriminator(s) of relative morality between them? Which IS the greater evil?

Well, on the one hand, 'a' involves infidelity and then compound it by being an even bigger cad by being unfaithful at a time when one should be most faithful by all standards of moral decency. On the other hand, 'b' could be seen as merely failing to perform the job that you are expected to perform by a customer (a trusting public), and some might argue that the public has very little right to expect that trust to be honored. Or, as they say, Caveat Emptor! So, on the surface, 'a' seems it should be considered much worse: 'b' seeming rather trite in comparison.

So again, why pick 'b' ?

Well. on the 'third thought', we must ask ourselves what are the consequences/impact of the transgressions? As I see it, 'a' can ruin a marriage and destroy at least one, maybe two families. Would it be true to state that 'b' can facilitate the behavior found in 'a', and thus promote opportunities for many such 'a' situations? Or would to so state be an exaggeration? I think not. Why not?

Let's ask ourselves what the reverse of the 'b' would mean. It would mean that anyone engaging in 'a' would run a much higher risk of being found out. While this (or even a herd of wild horses in some cases) would never completely stop some subset of a population from engaging in 'a' behaviors, it would serve to dampen the occurence of 'a' behaviors.

The absence of situation 'a' prevents harm to a specific group of people.
the absence of 'b' situation prevents harm to a much larger group of people.

Thus, while either is bad, 'b' is worse.
Or......

Any thoughts out there?



Forgot to mention: the poll results at the time I voted were running about 2 to 1 for 'b'.

About that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" So-Called 'Study'

It was a 'study group' of retired senior zeros. THEY CONDUCTED SURVEYS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. I'll get to the so-called 'bipartisan' bit in a minute.

I recently told a late commenter to an earlier post of mine:

I believe one should always argue the data and judge the source by the data, not the data by the source.

The 'study' report gives no REAL data that supports the repeal of the DADT, but that doesn't stop them from asserting that it should be repealed because there is no real data (as they see it) that supports its continuance. This report is at the very least a mere issue advocacy PR release. Is it something else? Let's see.

Now having judged the 'data' (what the source had to say) let us look at the source a little more closely and with some earned skepticism.

I've never heard of the source of the study before: The Palm Center. Nice, friendly, name....What is it?

From their website:

The Palm Center, formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Our data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high quality information is available.

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces by forging a community of scholars, creating a forum for information exchange and debate, offering itself as a launching point for researchers who need access to data and scholarly networks, and supporting graduate student training.

The Center's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell Project’ will continue to be its first priority under its new name – The Michael D. Palm Center. The goal of the DADT Project is to improve the quality of information available to public deliberations about the military policy.

So, the center's whole reason for its existence is to promote this kind of s*** as science (I love the hilarious claim of 'rigorous social science' - who says engineers don't have a sense of humor?). All the while hiding behind the 'bipartisan' disclaimer. How much press would this tripe have received if it the press release read "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military Study Calls For the End of DADT"?

George Carlin once said something to the effect of: "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

That sounds about right. Oh, and unless study techniques and data are forthcoming very quickly, I will have to call this BS 'study' PROPAGANDA!

Update 9Jun08 @2300Hrs: I've been commenting on this topic over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and have been waiting patiently for someone to pick up on the ramifications of my asserting the 'study' has a propaganda stink. Why? Because I am OF the surveyed population, and am a part of it at least as much if not more than a lot of retired generals: I am still close to my once-2lts who are now approaching flag rank, my Son is now on a base in Japan, and another significant other (don't know if this is still sensitive info and so will not reveal the relationship at this time) is headed for Afghanistan very soon. Are my opinions and reasons for them a form of bigotry? Hardly. I assert that the insistence that I must think other than I do under some PC mandate could be viewed as a form of fascism. (thank you, Jonah Goldberg). Oh, and as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware, some of my thoughts on DADT can be found here.

Update 2, 20Jul08, 2107hrs. Visited the Box Turtle Bulletin to see if any more comments of interest had materialized. Saw only one worth replying to. Saw another one from some swell guy(?) calling himself 'Ben in Oakland' who went off on a long tirade about something. I think he's upset just because I and other heterosexuals in the military don't want to sleep with him. Evidently that makes guys like me evil.

I Agree

When people watch a man stomp an infant/toddler to death, it is beyond disheartening.

I agree with Blackfive. (link probably not worksafe)

Pussies!

(I believe our PC society and twisted legal system contributes more to this than the innuring effects of video games or bad movie fare, BTW)

I am offended by the implication I or most people wouldn't have done better in the same situation. Sounds like Pussy-talk to me.

"Eco Moms" - Riiight

H/T Instapundit

Eco Moms? Who hoo! I think I'm going to be revisiting these concerned and caring people in the future. Of course I wouldn't have to if they weren't budding 'activists'. I'm thinking of setting up a counter organization. Hmmm, it will need a catchy name. I'll work on it.

Up front let me state I'm definitely NOT anti-conservation or anti-'ecology' Who IS? (Outside of Red China of course). Hell, for a decade I lived in a solar home in Northern Utah that was also partially earth-sheltered, and probably saved more energy than any ten of these people will in their lifetimes-and all without giving up any trappings of modern civilization. From the article, I'm guessing some might be spending more on 'therapy' than most of us will ever lay out for energy.

I'm more of a "better living through progress" kind of guy, and I get the feeling that these Eco Moms, like so many of the "dripping concerned", yearn for a simpler time. One that really never was.

I'm Ironman

I'll jump on any band wagon as long as it's meaningless and fun and doesn't involve dues.

So I'm "Ironman" (just like Eric at Classical Values?)

Your results:
You are Iron Man

Inventor. Businessman. Genius.

Iron Man		75%
Green Lantern		70%
Hulk		65%
The Flash		65%
Superman		60%
Supergirl		55%
Robin		55%
Spider-Man		40%
Wonder Woman		35%
Batman		25%
Catwoman		25%

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz


OK. I'm comfortable with the fact that I'm a little more Hulk and Superman and a lot less Spiderman than Eric. Dare I take comfort in the fact I'm a lot less Catwoman and Wonderwoman? Or should I be concerned that I'm a lot more Supergirl?

(I think Dr Helen would probably find how we feel about the score is a lot more important an revealing than 'how or what we score')

I'll take the Libertarian quiz later. If it doesn't conclude I'm a "Personal Responsibility" Libertarian (ie GENUINE Conservative Republican) I'll know it's a sham. (Insert Maniacal Laughter Here)

Clueless Stanford Law School Dean

That’s not TOO redundant is it?
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has put up a recent series of interesting posts that questions whether Stanford Law School is in compliance with the Solomon Act which (as described in Powerline):

…requires schools receiving federal funding to give access to military representatives for recruiting purposes, and to treat military recruiters in the same way they treat all other employment recruiters

Powerline has now received correspondence from the Dean of the Stanford Law School that puts up a rather weak case against the military’s Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy among other things, but the most telling point in the whole e-mail from the Dean gets picked up by Scott Johnson at the end. Johnson notes the Deans’ statement:

“[N]o other employer has a rule precluding some students from obtaining employment for reasons wholly irrelevant to their ability to do the work. The military's recruitment policy tells a segment of our community, for reasons that have no bearing whatsoever on their willingness or ability to serve, that they cannot do so because some other people fear or hate them for who they are.”

Johnson first notes that the Dean Kramer is “attributing phobic motives to those who disagree with him” but he then immediately skips forward to the ‘legal aspects’ of the issue (the legal-eagle that he is) and properly points out that is not just ‘recruitment policy’ but the LAW OF THE LAND.
I want to not get into the policy-law distinction though and go back to the ‘phobic motives’ point.

What caught my eye in Dean Kramer’s description was NOT the embedded ‘phobia’ canard at the end. What struck me was the absolute cluelessness of what the military is about and the lack of awareness of the argument behind not permitting open homosexuality in the military. The argument against homosexuals openly serving in the military is the SAME standard by which ALL types of conduct in the military is measured: social activity and behaviors MUST not adversely impact good order and discipline.

Perhaps as a simple civilian, Dean Kramer is unaware that putting on the uniform involves more than just ‘doing a job’ 9 to 5 with 'billable hours': even JAGs may find themselves bunked in a Combat Outpost at some time in their career.

Actually, I covered this a while back when Peter Pace was being attacked over his thoughts on the subject so here’s an excerpt of that earlier post , because the Dean seems like he might need a good example to help him think things through:

...the real issue is this:Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa -- how will (insert name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) does to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)

~Sigh~

When I run into ignorami spouting off about things military when they are totally ignorant of what it means to actually be IN the military I want to run their nose up and down my sleeve so they can count the bumps 'till they bleed. (The only thing worse is someone who should know better and still engages in WILLFUL ignorance. They get both sleeves. )

Associated Press Smearing the Military

Willful Sloppiness: Is That Anything Like Reckless Disregard?

AP Story Lead: “Military veterans in prison are more than twice as likely to have been convicted for sex offenses as nonveteran inmates, federal researchers say. They cannot say why.”

I found this AP article via James Taranto at “Best of the Web Today”. He is all over the study’s so-called ‘findings’ already (eighth item) and it is worth the trip just to read his debunking.

I think he was actually being kind, because he probably could have gone further in his critique. I base this observation on what the reader will find buried towards the end of the original article:

The study found that veterans in prison were older, more educated, more likely to have been married and more likely than nonveterans to be incarcerated for violent crimes or offenses against women or children.

Many of those findings can be explained simply by age demographics, Colby College sociologist Alec Campbell said.

Crime tends to decrease with age so older inmates are more likely serving lengthy sentences. Veterans as a group are older than the general population, so Campbell said it is not surprising to see a higher percentage of veterans imprisoned for violent crimes, which carry longer prison sentences.

Ahem…..
How many of these incarcerated ‘older’ veterans became veterans courtesy of their local draft board?

It seems to me that if one tries to establish differences between the character of veteran and non-veteran populations, one should also establish whether or not there are differences between those who are in one population by choice and those who are compelled to be in the same population only through the force of law.

A quote from Taranto helps to perform a further analysis:

What's more, it's very easy to make the sex-crime disparity vanish.

The sex-crime incarceration rate for veterans is 23% of 630 per 100,000, or 145 per 100,000. The sex-crime incarceration rate for nonveterans is 9% of 1,390 per 100,000, or 125 per 100,000. The veteran rate is only 16% higher than the nonveteran rate.

Thus, if just 20 of those 145 per 100,000 veterans (under 14% of the incarcerated Vets) were draftees, ALL differences between the two groups would disappear.

From what we see in the article, and without further detailed analysis of the prison population, the Vet/NonVet categorization and ‘disparity’ is no more relevant than categorization by eye color.

However, I suspect a more detailed analysis would reveal a story that might never get reported in today’s environment – that those who have served in today’s modern all-volunteer force trend towards much lower percentages for all types of offenders in the prison population – ESPECIALLY if you filter for fraudulent enlistments by bad actors who get past the system (hopefully not as bad a problem today as in my day).

Sloppy by Design

Taranto closes his piece with:

Probably the AP was just being sloppy, but the result was to smear Americans who have served their country in uniform.

As it appears to me, that much sloppiness in one place can only occur as part of a willful act.
The AP didn’t even care to think about the meaningfulness (or meaninglessness) of the data – It was:

1. a headline they wanted,
2. on a subject they wanted to publish, and
3. wanted to publish from a certain angle.

The proof is in how the title: "Study: Imprisoned Military Vets More Likely to Have Sex Crime Convictions Than Others" contrasts with the complete and total of quotes from an author of the study in the article:

"We couldn't come to any definite conclusion as to why,"

"I don't want people to come away from this thinking veterans are crazed sex offenders.

"I want them to understand that veterans are less likely to be in prison in the first place."

IMHO the AP owes veterans yet another apology

Global Warming and Argumentum ad numerum

OK, please try to follow the spoor trail here because it’s a little long but trust me - It's worth it.

James Taranto at Best of the Web Today (first item) calls attention to Scientific American blogger Christopher Mim’s cherrypicking of data from a poll mentioned on yet another blog site, in a vain attempt punch up the Global Warming scare with a kind of pop-consensus angle.

Taranto promptly skewers the poll and its silly findings with his ‘sarcasm tag’ discretely hidden:

“Well, if 63% of the American public says it, it must be true, right? That's how science works!”

Which is a great deal more entertaining than flatly pointing out that some people are engaging in Argumentum ad numerum .

Taranto then takes up Mim’s invitation to check the rest of the results and then uses what he finds to further beat down the Global Warmers. But what really caught my eye in the BOTW piece was the closing paragraph, where he refers to two poll questions on page 3 of 8 in the questionnaire (link to .pdf ):

And if you think the people in the survey are unqualified to weigh in on such matters, they beg to differ: 71% of them agreed with the statement "I consider myself an intellectual," and 59% agreed that "I have more ability than most people." We'll bet a high proportion of them read Scientific American.

And based upon those responses I’ll bet an even higher proportion of them are unskilled and unaware of it (.pdf).

The (few) regular visitors to this blog have seen this linked reference before, but for anyone who visits rarely or never before, it takes your browser to a wonderful APA paper that explains a lot of things you may have been wondering about. It has the winning little title of “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”. Get your own copy and read the fascinating AND entertaining findings. If the title didn’t grab you here’s the overview (emphasis mine):

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses inked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

I view this ‘poll’ for what it is: an indicator of the how well the global-warming scaremonger propaganda machine has performed to date. Too bad for the ‘Warmer’s side that Langmuir plays the long game.

Addendum: Wow! What are the Odds? Scrolling further down in BOTW to the fifth item, we find a ‘Kos Kid’ who from the skills demonstrated, also might have been a majority respondent in the Yale poll.

To close, in case anyone is interested in seriously exploring the Global Warming issue, I gave some good starting links a while back here.

Update: I decided to read the comments at the Mim's SciAm site and 'The Sietch'. At The Sietch, I found the post's author declaring he wasn't taking a position, just passing along information. I take him at his word and wanted to tell him so. Therefore I tried to leave the followup comment on his site -- but I don't leave real e-mail addresses where they are published. If I had been able to leave a comment I would have told him:

If you were just passing along the info, you should have mentioned that fact in your post where I could have seen it BEFORE I lumped you in with SciAm's Mim at my place. Advocacy such as: "It’s clear that the public is not waiting for the government to take the lead. Americans no longer think it’s entirely the domain of government to solve environmental problems. They expect companies to step up and address climate change and other concerns” when passed along without comment,looks an awful lot like "agreement".

Ack! It's Don't Ask Don't Tell.....Again!

Surprise! (not really)

General Peter Pace, good military man that he is, defers to and supports official policy (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” or DADT) but makes the egregious error of thinking he was speaking to human beings when in reality he was speaking to reporters and also offers an aside on his personal beliefs, that he was raised with the belief ….gasp!....that homosexuality is immoral.

Why if one believes the Christianphobic press machine, this is as outrageous a thing as if he said he actually believed in the 10 Commandments! (If one can be ‘homophobic’ simply by not believing homosexuality is moral, the press can be ‘Christianphobic’ for insisting a Christian belief is ‘bigoted’)

Now that an aged moderate (but pro-defense) Republican has come out calling a Christian belief ‘bigoted’ by reversing his position on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, Captain’s Quarters has chimed in on the topic (where Captain Ed is, alas, un-typically WAY off-base this time). There’s a lot of popping sounds in the comments section drowning out the few comments by people who understand the real issue….and the real issue is this:

Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa -- how will (insert name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) does to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)

An Illustrative Tale (all quotes approximate since it has been 25 years)

One of my most interesting off-duty moments while stationed at Keflavik NAS (Iceland) in the early 80’s came while sitting in my quarters watching the weekly AFRTS cable show called “Feedback”. The show was like a weekly Commander’s Call and bulletin board all wrapped up in one. This particular show was the monthly edition with the senior commanders of the Naval and Air Force components of the Icelandic Defense Force taking telephone questions from people on the base.

There was a grand opening (or reopening ) coming up of a dormitory that would house the unaccompanied Senior Enlisted (mostly Navy Chiefs) with the top floor to be dedicated to housing unaccompanied female naval personnel. This was controversial at the time because the Navy housed its people by units, and the new arrangement would move the females out of ‘female-only’ areas of their respective unit living quarters. The female personnel were not at all happy about this change: they did not want to be separated from their units -- so the phone calls became more and more irate as the show went on.

The AF Colonel was barely containing his enjoyment at his counterpart’s difficulty in fielding the tough questions, when the Navy Captain finally blurted out at the last questioner that he really “didn’t see the problem” with or "understand everyone's resistance" to the move and that this new arrangement would help “protect the females from ‘all the predatory’ males”…..when the female caller responded with heartfelt concern:

‘But who is going to protect me from all the females?”

The Colonel and Captain’ jaws dropped and crickets chirped for a while….

Then the Captain responded sheepishly with:

‘um, ah, we like to think that we don’t have that kind of problem …..

And the show wrapped up faster than you can say "DADT".

So all you people who say it won’t be a problem to lower the bar of acceptable behavior and allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military and that it won’t be prejudicial to good order and discipline, I hear:

‘um, ah, we like to think that we won’t have that kind of problem …..

Epilogue:

Navy Chiefs at ‘Kef’ were extremely heavy-handed in many things, and among them were being especially aggressive in gathering females in areas off-limits to junior enlisted without an invitation. A couple of months after the dorm was occupied, ‘someone’ (no doubt a junior enlisted male) pulled the fire alarm of the dorm in question. I was treated to quite a good show from my ‘accompanied’ quarters: all those flashing lights, with Chiefs and ladies milling around in the cold after being made to evacuate their Toga Party on the second floor, but not having enough clothes on to go anywhere else.

Extra Homework: Advanced Reading Topic

Talk about the tyranny of the minority!

Can anyone believe we would still be rehashing this as a ‘civil rights’ issue if NORC hadn’t chickened out and gamed the data summaries to hide the fact that homosexuals make up closer to 1% of the population instead of 3%?

For those who might not remember or be familiar with the study, the normally respected and disciplined NORC tried to pawn off ‘3%’ to the population in their study/book: “Sex in America”, in 1994. They did it by drawing the circle around the definition of homosexuality in an extremely broad context. All it did was piss off those (primarily religious conservatives) who thought it should be less than 1% on the one hand, and pro-homosexual activists that thought it should be 10% or more on the other. I think the end result was that hardly anybody actually read the book or studied the data provided. I highly recommend it. Read it and see for yourself what YOU think the data indicates.

Update 03/25/07 - corrected another fat-fingered typo

Spanking the Leftist Psyche Boys

Hat Tip: Dr. Helen

The Iron Shrink tears apart the methodology used in the now-famous (or ‘infamous’ as I prefer) 2003 ‘study’: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.

One wonders if the Iron Shrink’s critique will leave any scars on the egos of the authors (John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie Kruglanski, and Frank Sulloway ). Well, actually... one only wishes it would: then perhaps they would think longer and deeper before they spew their pseudoscience on the rest of us in the future. But I wouldn’t bet on it (.pdf). (yes, I do get to reference that link a lot these days don’t I?)

Dr Helen actually brought this paper up as a topic a couple of years ago. (see here and here ). In her first post, she provided a telling excerpt from the paper:

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychologicalvariables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Her first post was actually what moved her blog into my ‘favorites’ category. Posting anonymously, I wrote in the comments that the authors could have just as easily written their opening as follows (changes in italics – additional comments in brackets):

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (a desire for structure and order, principled thought–intolerance of amorality and ambivalence), epistemic and existential needs (for solutions, harmony focus, uncertainty management), and ideological justification (social success, system rationalization). A meta-analysis [how was data normalized across studies?] (88 samples [real number of interest], 12 countries [distribution?, and if there were only 88 samples, how useful is this number?] , 22,818 cases [Trojan Number!] ) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: Awareness of one’s own mortality (weighted mean r .50); living in a non-stratified, casteless society (.47); Responsible Lifestyle –intolerance of the irresponsible (.34); easily manipulated (–.32); willingness to leave questions unanswered (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure [Gee-in the original text this almost comes off as a bad thing] (.26); inability to discern sophistry from sophistication (–.20); innate desire to preserve and advance one's status(.18); and desire for unearned recognition (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of meritocracy and is motivated by needs that vary as required to manage uncertainty and threat.

The Iron Shrink answers a lot of the questions I had two years ago about the ‘study’ methods. The use of ‘meta-studies’ always causes me to be on the lookout for ‘data dredging’—and although the Iron Shrink doesn’t use the term in his expose, it appears that among other things, my suspicions were proved correct.

The 'Man' is Keepin' Us Down - NOT!

Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed!

M.Simon at "Power and Control" has an excellent account of a visit to a Netscape Blog and online thread in which he participated. His exchanges with the economics-challenged are a hoot, and he completely roasts the victim-class within. If you visit the thread (Link above: 'Netscape Blog) you will notice he shows remarkable restraint in keeping his criticism to ideas, unlike the members of the 'pity party' who lash out from the get-go.

Reading the thread I was immediately reminded of listening to 'Dr Laura' on one of my 'mega-commutes' that I used to have to take from time to time between work facilities in L.A. (She was on KFI which provided the best traffic updates). Aside from the fact I thought she too often gave really bad advice, I couldn't stand to listen to her callers after the first few times I tuned in because they all had one of the same 4-5 basic problems but somehow they all thought their problem was different and couldn't be solved by fixing it themselves. These were usually pretty obvious problems with painful but otherwise simple solutions, but the callers insisted their problems were 'different' and required 'different' answers because "Bobby REALLY loves me" or "I CAN'T stop (fill in the blank)" or blah, blah, blah.

The 'blame others for my problems' and 'He's better off therefore I'm a victim' crowd in the thread M. Simon visited seem to have that same inability to recognize real problems and solutions.

It is just a lot easier to just envy and blame others I guess.

One Step For Man, One Step Back for Grammar

Vodkapundit has a post up about the latest 'revelation' concerning (a) man's first steps on the moon. Source Article HERE

High-tech detective work apparently has found the missing "a" in one of the most famous phrases ever spoken.

Astronaut Neil Armstrong's first words from the surface of the moon on July 20, 1969, now can be confidently recast, according to the research, as, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

-"Research"? You call this research? Pfft!

First, there is a saying in web development that applies to any 'content providing' activity: "If the person can't find 'it' -- 'it' isn't there". Since none of us can find the 'missing a' with our ears, it wasn't spoken.

Second, I don't care how whiz-bang, or exotic a new and improved a pile of software is, if it is used to process a forty-plus year old chunk of audiotape, recorded in space, by a man working in a clumsy pressurized spacesuit, in an environment never before encountered by him or any other human being, as he plopped down 'to moon' off of a landing step -- it cannot be used to positively or even probably identify and discriminate the letter 'a', allegedly 'spoken' too fast to hear, from any other audible possibilities including a suppressed grunt, groan, hard swallow, or whatever.

And finally, as a ninth-grader who watched the event as it was transmitted to Earth, the original, accepted, and recognizable phrasing was so pure and so true to my heart, that sticking an unvoiced 'a' in the middle of it is akin to adding a few lines to the Gettysburg Address for laughs. Let the grammarians cavil over the differences between man and mankind, but to those of us who witnessed the images as we received them with those words, it was clear 'man' meant 'ANY man' and mankind meant 'ALL men'. So what if it isn't grammatically correct? It is great poetry!

Another Stupid 'Survey': What American Men Think?

According to an Esquire-sponsored 'survey', the "American Man" : "surprise! -- leans slightly to the Left".

1. Don't see it in the responses.
2. Don't know enough about methodology, but at best any conclusions drawn from this 'survey' could only be made concerning men who use the internet:

The Survey of the American Man was conducted exclusively for Esquire by Beta Research Corporation, an independent firm located in Syosset, New York. The 1,083 respondents were randomly selected and are a representative national sample of American men aged 25 and older. They completed the online survey between March 3 and March 7, 2006.

I wonder how badly "God-less Blue-Staters" skewed the outcomes?

Breaking News: Men Think Women Are Sexually Interested When They May Not Actually Be Interested (Duh!)

A 'new’ ‘study’ is out, and Maurice J. Levesque, “an associate professor of psychology at Elon University, in North Carolina” is perplexed by his findings. It seems to me he must have poor research instincts AND low testosterone.

Somebody tell this dweeb about When Harry Met Sally.

Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

A Cautionary Note on Civility

This is another housekeeping post for me to direct some readers to in the future, when I start inviting comment.

I am comfortable with parliamentary debate, friendly conversation, or rabid flaming -- sometimes in the same paragraph. But I do none of it gratuitously, so if someone takes issue with my ‘tone’ I’ll refer them here as a reminder:

Yes, I went to a mix of religious and secular public schools. Yes, I went to college. For a long time. I  attended many different colleges and universities chasing degrees and losing credits every time I was transferred. If I go for any more degrees at all it will be probably for another Master's, possibly in  Military History. (I've seen too much B.S. associated with people getting their PhDs, and it only narrows your job possibilities.) I was first 'published' in 1985 and the last time in 2010, on topics ranging from future UAV development, to Systems Engineering, Failure Mode Effects Testing, and Military Operations Research.  I get asked to write abstracts for other people because my abstracts always seem to be selected. I know how to build a cogent case for any position I hold, and hold only positions that can be properly supported by classical rhetoric.     

But! I also spent more than 20 years as an enlisted man, and about one third of that as an AF Senior NCO. I worked with things that go "BOOM!" the entire time (IYAAYAS!), some of it in the air, some on the ground. and all of it involving Life and Death. I have a very low tolerance for BS artists, whiners, lame intellectuals, and Squishy Christians. If you don’t like how I handle them…well, I don’t really give a Rats As...oh Hi Mom!

Updated the 'Education' part (This was first written while I was still pursuing my latest degree)