For those of you keeping score at home, that's two full Papelbons and one-cover-plus-two-sub-heading Bradys, two Red Sox sub-headings, with a Randy Moss and a Three Headed Green Monster for good measure.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
How Good Of a Sports Year Is It in Boston?
Check out five of the last eight Sports Illustrated covers:
For those of you keeping score at home, that's two full Papelbons and one-cover-plus-two-sub-heading Bradys, two Red Sox sub-headings, with a Randy Moss and a Three Headed Green Monster for good measure.
For those of you keeping score at home, that's two full Papelbons and one-cover-plus-two-sub-heading Bradys, two Red Sox sub-headings, with a Randy Moss and a Three Headed Green Monster for good measure.
Craig's List
I don't know if the author of this Craig's List ad intended her posting to come out as verse, but it did.
One of those machines that
will make a grilled cheese
or other sandwich.
It works however somehow 1 leg
is missing.
I have not used this in years
but did plug it in to make sure
it worked.
If your creative I am sure you
can come up with an idea for a leg.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Famous!
I discovered recently that I was misquoted in an article in the UR Campus Times. Gripping reading, though.
Monday, October 22, 2007
How To Talk About Wine Pretentiously
I drew stares in the 'office' today chortling at this Joel Achenbach gem. Will make you have second thoughts about becoming a home vintner.
An excerpt:
An excerpt:
Valle Puttooti White Zinfandel This is to fine wine as Dan Brown is to Shakespeare. Ideal for the damaged palate. Serious oenophiles will want to let this breathe in the glass for at least an hour, then pitch it into the flowerpot when no one is looking.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
PORK KILLS CHILDREN
I love Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) new approach to fighting earmark allocations, outlined in this Robert Novak column.
The Deathtrap of a Scientific Meritocracy
Today, Drudge highlights the comments of a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, Dr. James Watson, who said:
But it remains highly probable (for reasons related to the Law of Large Numbers) that at least one scientific study, correctly executed, will show that one race is genetically superior to another on a dimension such as intelligence. We already know that races differ in physical dimensions, such as height and hairiness. What effectively prevents the scientific community from finding genetic differences in intelligence, criminality, alcohol-proneness, etc., is that it really, really doesn't want to.
Something must give. Either we engage in science dishonestly, construing results to fit our prejudices (however noble), or we submit our values to scientific evaluation. This Morton's fork could literally lead to the dismantling of one or another of the pillars of our Enlightenment civilization.
However, it need not. By subjecting our values to a standard higher than scientific objectivity, we can maintain civilization as we know it.
Only recently have standards higher than science been eroded in human civilization. To a great extent we still practice them: we protect the sick and disabled rather than abandoning them; we do not discriminate (openly) between the children of smart people and the children of dumb people; we do not practice euthanasia. Any of these could be discarded in the name of science: spending valuable resources giving a classical education to children regardless of their genetic potential is a huge waste, statistically, to offer one example.
Why do we - and why should we continue to - protect and honor all of humanity? Because some values are informed by a conscience greater than science.
We as a civilization need not agree the source or content of all these values, provided we agree they exist and come to some compromise on a subset of them. When we are secure in our underlying conscience, we can look research in the eyes - even if it tells us something very unpleasant.
Suppose, counterfactually, that Dr. Watson (insert, "elementary, my dear" joke here) is correct. We can openly discuss and acknowledge the findings. Then, after testing and re-testing the hypothesis many times, we may be forced to alter our social policies in order to attain the goals dictated by our conscience. But we need never alter our conscientious values: that people are responsible for their own self-government, that they are equal in dignity and rights, and that their thoughts should be free and freely expressed.
[I am] "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really".This comment is clearly politically incorrect and probably scientifically incorrect. As Joseph Conrad points out in Heart of Darkness, the difference between European and African civilization is a matter of years, perhaps centuries - but not of evolutionary time.
But it remains highly probable (for reasons related to the Law of Large Numbers) that at least one scientific study, correctly executed, will show that one race is genetically superior to another on a dimension such as intelligence. We already know that races differ in physical dimensions, such as height and hairiness. What effectively prevents the scientific community from finding genetic differences in intelligence, criminality, alcohol-proneness, etc., is that it really, really doesn't want to.
Something must give. Either we engage in science dishonestly, construing results to fit our prejudices (however noble), or we submit our values to scientific evaluation. This Morton's fork could literally lead to the dismantling of one or another of the pillars of our Enlightenment civilization.
However, it need not. By subjecting our values to a standard higher than scientific objectivity, we can maintain civilization as we know it.
Only recently have standards higher than science been eroded in human civilization. To a great extent we still practice them: we protect the sick and disabled rather than abandoning them; we do not discriminate (openly) between the children of smart people and the children of dumb people; we do not practice euthanasia. Any of these could be discarded in the name of science: spending valuable resources giving a classical education to children regardless of their genetic potential is a huge waste, statistically, to offer one example.
Why do we - and why should we continue to - protect and honor all of humanity? Because some values are informed by a conscience greater than science.
We as a civilization need not agree the source or content of all these values, provided we agree they exist and come to some compromise on a subset of them. When we are secure in our underlying conscience, we can look research in the eyes - even if it tells us something very unpleasant.
Suppose, counterfactually, that Dr. Watson (insert, "elementary, my dear" joke here) is correct. We can openly discuss and acknowledge the findings. Then, after testing and re-testing the hypothesis many times, we may be forced to alter our social policies in order to attain the goals dictated by our conscience. But we need never alter our conscientious values: that people are responsible for their own self-government, that they are equal in dignity and rights, and that their thoughts should be free and freely expressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)