I am moving! (Virtually!)

Many of you know I have moved physically, but now I am moving virtually. I have now moved to a Wordpress blog, hosted on my own domain. You can find me now, at:

http://theprofessornotes.com

But that's not the BIGGEST news. I have decided to move into the world of podcasting as well. A few of you know that I have been exploring podcasting in other arenas starting with a podcast with my son (http://SCToday.net/FatherSon/wordpress) but now I have decided to move many of my thoughts from the impersonal typed page to the impersonal audio file.

Please, make the move with me and let me know what you think, not only of the move and the podcast, but also share your thoughts and your ideas. If you think I am wrong, go ahead and challenge. It's what the free exchange of ideas is all about!

Oh, and if you wish to subscribe to the podcast directly in iTunes, I will have a link there as well. For now, you can search for "Father Son Chats" in itunes to subscribe to that one, and you can search for "the professors notes" to subscribe to this one!

The Prof

NEEMO - NASA uses dives as Analogy for Space

As many of you know, one of my research areas of interest is “Space Logistics” and “Interplanetary Supply Chain Management.” We presented three papers a conference in April, and one of them (lead-author by Mke M) looked at Submarines as an analogy to long duration space missions.

NASA has another on-going mission—NEEMO. This mission titled “NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations” is “testing concepts for future space exploration at an underwater laboratory off the coast of Florida. “ It’s a very interesting concept. Of course, NASAWatch, the blog dedicated to holding NASA to task, is concerned that NASA is ignoring this mission that they themselves have funded.

NASAWatch does point to a link for the underwater webcams. They are interesting to watch, and the descriptions of the various camera views are even somewhat humorous.

If anyone is interested in Space Logistics, shoot me a note.

Syllabi and the "Inevitable"

Over at one of my frequent reads, the Community College Dean, he asked for advice on how to deal with students that leave their groups hanging high and dry on presentation day. My response was a simple "What's wrong with just simply giving the absent student a "ZERO" for the presentation?"

After reading many of the other comments, I find that the readership over there is quite a creative bunch! I enjoyed much of what they wrote, but the discussion reminded me of something else I have noticed of late. Syllabus Creep.

It seems as professors and instructors face the wide range of situations students present, we have added more and more to our syllabi. No, not content about the course--that would be reasonable. We are adding more and more about expectations of behavior, how not to cheat, when to attend class, what you will have to do if you don't attend class, and the like. Lately, I have gone for the more minimalist approach: DON'T CHEAT, OR YOU WILL BE CAUGHT.

I had read a syllabus where there was not only a list of items to bring for an exam, but an extremely long list of what not to bring. No hats. No music players. No scarves. If one could write on it, one couldn't bring it.

I have gone a slightly different route: I now allow the students to bring any personal music device that they wish. iPod, CD Player, Radio (with headset.) Whatever helps get them through the exam. Why? I know many people focus better with some "controlled distraction" rather than the random noises of other test-takers, and the opportunity to listen to something familiar may help overcome test anxiety.

I know what you're thinking. "What if they cheat? What if they dictate notes into the MP3 player? What if they include text?" Hmmm... interesting. I almost hope they do. Why? Because they had to actually read/review the material to put it into their device. Learning occurs, if only through repetition.

"Ahhh," you may ask "but what if one person does it, and then gives it to the others?" Another interesting question. The way I see it, you need to be fairly familiar with the material to be able to move quickly and accurately to the material covered in the question. Students never quite realize just how difficult an open book exam can be if you don't already know the material well enough to quickly/efficiently move through the chapters to find the answers. Those that have understood the material best are those that are best able to find the relevant information.

My goal in my classes are to encourage students to learn the material. I think this helps get there.

Lamont and Lieberman

I found this blog entry on the Connecticut campaign to be quite interesting. Go read Eric's take, at A Liberal Dose.

The Prof

Gay Marriage?

I have stayed away from this discussion, mainly because my views are quite practical, and would most likely alienate people from all sides of the debate.  Given the latest story from the Boston Herald outlining the Boston Globe's directive for gay couples to either marry or lose benefits, it's perhaps as a good a time as any to come out with my opinion... (thanks to the Flesh Presser for the tip on this one!)

While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong.  I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic--I know I don't want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)

I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the "marriage penalty" when it comes to tax structures.  While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income.  Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples.  But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.

It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue.  Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples.  In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits--and you must pay taxes.

As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action--let's welcome all married couples into the "marriage penalty" world that is the federal tax structure.  Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.

So there you have it.  I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn't been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.

A Plagiarist behind every Right-leaning Tree?

Okay, so I had to.  After so many blogs where I talk about integrity in one's writing, how could I not address the accusation that Ann Coulter is a plagiarist.  I found it interesting when I first heard about it, and intriguing when I read the posting at the Language Log (you all DO still go there, right?) 

What most intrigues me though is the sense that the Left felt it somehow necessary to go after Coulter.  Apparently the self induced blindness of the Bashists is not limited to the Administration.  Bashists must nuw blame conservatives for such things as plagiarism.  And, as is so often the case when the Bashists write before thinking, they are brought low by the facts.

There is a good analysis of the articles in question at RedState (tip of hat to Language Log).  I have to agree--when the content in question turns out to be quotes, one can't help but think the Bashists have either no sense of reason left, of they simply hope that the vast majority of people will never actually go check their claims. 

The Lieutenant--Courageous, or...

Well, it's happened. The US Army has preferred charges against "The Lieutenant."  The Lt (according to the Seattle Times) enlisted in June of 2003, to go to Officer Candidate School, receiving his commission following completion of that school.  His enlistment, and subsequent commissioning, were all contemporary with the start of the war with Iraq in March of 2003.  Despite having a family history of war protesters and resisters, the Lt says that he believed Iraq had WMDs and thus he supported the war.

Now, he believes that the President lied to us, and thus he should not be required to participate in what the Lt believes is an illegal war.  That's all well and good, except he apparently didn't pay attention during any of his schooling.  Let's lay out a few things.

1.  Lying involves knowing the truth at the time of the statement, but saying something else (lie of commission, as opposed to omission).  The charges against Bush made by the "Bashists" tend to be that the President took us to war to stop Hussein's development of WMD's and there were none, therefore he lied.  Let's ignore, for the moment, that Bush enumerated many reasons for toppling Saddam, and focus on this one aspect.  How do we determine, given that the intelligence agencies of every major world power at the time concluded Iraq had WMDs, that Bush somehow knew Saddam didn't and acted anyway?  That is what is required to support the charge of "lying."

2.  Determination of "illegality" is not the Lt's call.  Officers take an oath at commissioning.  In that oath officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" which of course can lead a few to think that they then are the final arbiter of determining what is, or is not, Constitutional.  Of course, as I have recently written elsewhere, if we allow everyone to determine what is or is not legal/constitutional, then ultimately we have anarchy.  Last time I checked, the US was still operating in Iraq under UN resolutions. The Hague (The International Court) has not issued and rulings condemning the resolutions, or the actions of the coalition.  The US Congress has not passed any law ordering the removal of US Troops.  The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in the only branch of Government with the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional, has not delivered any verdict that would lead one to conclude the US involvement in Iraq is unconstitutional. The authority of the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are constitutionally granted authorities.  It is not the Lt's place to usurp the authority of the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the President.

3.  Military service is a commitment of life.  That same oath also has the officer state "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." It would appear from much of the stories written about the Lt and his decision to enlist, and then receive a commission, that he had reservations about the US military.  The fact that, of all the reasons given for US involvement in Iraq, he was able to convince himself he could support the action based on only one of the reasons given at the time, could lead one to question whether he actually had some significant "mental reservation(s)" at the time of commissioning.  In fact, quoting from the article in the Seattle Times the Lt made it clear he had reservations apparently at the time of commissioning:

"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt."

And apparently, he also made it clear that there existed conditions upon which he would or would not engage in combat.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

These do not appear to me to be statements from a man who, at the time of commissioning, accepted his office "without mental reservation."

4.  Actions have consequences.  I can understand, and even admire, someone who stands up for what they believe and are willing to pay the cost.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood the repercussions of his actions.  Our founding fathers understood the possible repercussions of their actions.  "Give me liberty, or give me death" was not a jingoistic attempt at PR by Patrick Henry, it was a recognition of the demise that awaited him upon failure.  A courageous man accepts the consequences. 

5.  Military Officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial.  The Lt, and his lawyer, seem to think that his remarks about the President are a First Amendment issue, and that the Lt was exercising his right to free speech, when he spoke out against the Commander in Chief.  In fact, the lawyer is quoted as saying "'What's going to happen is there's going to be a major First Amendment litigation, which I think they're really crazy to invite,' Seitz said."   Alas, this shows that the counsel sought by the Lt is unfamiliar with the military justice system.  There are protections established for the military, but the nature of military service requires a different way of understanding and acting with regards to the US Constitution.  In fact according to Findlaw.com  the Supreme Court has recognized that "while constitutional guarantees apply, 'the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.'1455."  Perhaps the Lt should hire a military lawyer?

The US Army has done the right thing.  They have refused to let one Lieutenant interpret national and international law, and told him that he cannot sit as judge and jury over the actions of this government.  To do that would overstep his bounds as an officer in the US Military. 

Inconvenient? Perhaps. Truth? Perhaps not...

I have sat on this one for a while.  Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, "Pressing the Flesh", has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore's latest theatrical success.  One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda.  Of course, this has two effects.  First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event.  The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state "The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore."  By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying "You're right. We should not have said "no reputable scientist disagrees." That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans." )

Here's the problem, however.  There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor's and Master's degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming.  But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins.  They aren't saying that there isn't climate change, and they aren't saying that it might be a warming trend.  They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can "stop" the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change.  In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area. 

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal.  In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that "the debate in the scientific community is over." Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over.  He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the "non-scientists" as they seek to achieve policy.   What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason.  Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let's reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

Tax relief again...

Loyal readers will recall back in 2004 I critiqued the Congressional Bashists for their mis-reading of the CBO report concerning the distribution of the tax cuts.  It is nice to see that another blog (far better equipped as actual economists) have tackled this one, as well.

A "time line" or an "Event line"?

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while.  It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call "bashists"--those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters "apologists" but I digress...) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq.  Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there "is no plan."  The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began.  I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive.  That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion:  We should stop debating the red herring of "time lines" and start discussing "event lines."  It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events.  We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates.  It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on "event lines" rather than time-lines. 

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School.  Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage.  When one finds a mate (although the sitcom "Friends" had their gang with "Back ups" in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an "event line" associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch.  Yes, the shuttle has a "countdown" and they have the "launch windows" but those timelines are event constrained.  There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched.  When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a "Hold" on the countdown.  If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then "scrub" the mission and reschedule the launch.  The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline.  Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the "event line" we see catastrophic results.

So let's learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA.  We cannot simply set a "date certain" for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq.  Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred.  It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.

F4 vs Concrete--guess which wins?

I have finally found the video I had been seeking for so long.  As the narrative with this video points out, so many of the conspiracy theorists about 9-11-01 point out that there was very little aircraft wreckage after the airliner hit the Pentagon.  Well, those of us that have, for years, seen these types of videos expected as much.

Aircraft tend to disintegrate when they come in contact with highly reinforced concrete.

Watch... and learn.

Corrections to the Record

It is now time for me to make a (albeit minor) correction to the record.  I had (as so clearly pointed out by the NAP from ALiberalDose) not only abused, but misused the word hyperbole. 

The kind professors at the Language Log carefully point out that hyperbole is used to extend in exaggeration.  Now, thankfully, they weren't actually talking about this blog in their post, but far be it from me to not ackowledge the error of my ways.  Clearly my use of the word was not an extension of the point.  

I want to thank the kind professors at the Language Log for continuously enlightening and brightening my blog-reading day.

I want to continue to encourage all four of you, dear readers, to visit regularly the Language Log.

More son's photos

 
 

Here are two photos (well, one, really) taken by my son. As you can see, the original is in color, and only three simple effects were applied using Picasa from Google. Converted to B/W, increased the contrast (using the shadows and highlights effect) and the adjusting the focal point.

Enjoy! 

For those that wondered...

 

Apparently my appearance, and information about me, has become an issue. Here's my picture, and I have now added information to my Profile. Enjoy! 

What links should I add?

I have added a couple interesting blogs to the links section, as well as started a new section for links to informational sites.

I am wondering, dear class, what you think I should add as links? Any favorite blogs you think I should point to? Should I, out of shear magnanimity, add our dear, eloquent friend the "new American Patriot" to the list? (Remember him? He is the owner of A Liberal Dose that, if I remember correctly, wants to kick me in my nuts...)

Just leave your comments here with your suggestions, and your votes!

The Professor

More Attacks on Bad Surveys

I know, I know, I can't stay away from this topic.  Any wonder why though?  We not only have sites like "A Liberal Dose" mis-citing accurate statistics¹ we also have, as The Numbers Guy points out, bad surveys and polls being conducted.

Again, many of you will remember my discussions (here and elsewhere) on the importance of carefully developed question development as well as care in interpreting and drawing conclusions, without over-reaching.  While I have recently criticized the interpretation of published results, The Numbers Guy in his article points out that the American Association for Public Opinion Research is tackling the problem of poor surveys making it into the media--and the media unquestioningly accepting the results.

Two relevant quotes:

Faulty survey data takes many forms. Sometimes the questions are loaded, as with a survey about online gambling I wrote about in April. Other surveys have very low response rates, like a poll about the value of mothers' work; or pollsters don't disclose all of their questions nor results, raising fears they've cherry-picked those responses that reflect best on the polls' sponsors. Also, many polls you may read about have been conducted online, usually among a panel of volunteers lured by online ads -- considered a less-representative sample by most pollsters than respondents who are found by random-digit telephone dialing.

and:

Polls with pitfalls shouldn't be discarded automatically. But often they are accepted automatically by the press and rendered indistinguishable from polls conducted by more standard means.

So there you have it.  More criticisms of bad polling, bad data, and blind acceptance.  And from a reputable source, to boot!

The Prof

1.  And most recently in a fit of "hyper-'bowl'-e" misrepresenting students' putting marijuana in muffins as "spiking a punch bowl," two very different things, to be sure!

Survey and Media Distortions

Greetings once again class.  Those of you that know me personally (well, at least know me in person academically) will know I am  a stickler for survey research being done correctly, and that correctly done surveys should be interpreted in the narrow way in which they are constructed.  Those of you that have been reading my blog for a while may remember that I have a few times taken to task other sites, studies, or blogs, that have mis-represented information gathered from surveys (try here  and here), or for that matter have just run roughshod over facts (here, and here) reaching conclusions simply from the long extension of their arm rather than the close reliance of reality (yeah-long way of saying they had to stretch to get there!)  

Imagine my joy when I saw that one of my favorites blogs, the Language Log, decided to tackle another mis-reported survey.  Of course, this one is particularly juicy since the log-ers are chastising the press for getting it wrong in reporting about how stupid the American people are.  Perhaps the best point made is after listing the question asking people essentially to name the freedoms of the first amendment.  In critiquing the analysis they write: "If you're hip to the rhetoric of survey spin, you'll guess at this point that the survey asked people to enumerate first-amendment rights by free recall." 

Yup, they could stop there, but they don't!  They then go on to mention how challenging that sort of question is.  Asking someone to list off something very specific without any hints is quite difficult.  Remember essay questions in school?  The dreaded "What are 3 of the freedoms identified in the First Amendment, and explain the circumstances that caused their specific addition to the Bill of Rights?"  (Actually, when you think about it, this particular essay question is replete with hints!)

Cheers for the Language Log!

Now, for what for me was truly ironic.  Many of you remember the gracious treatment I received from the (apparent) owner of the A Liberal Dose blog (go back if you wish and read his witty comments, if your foul language detector is appropriately in place!)  Well, not only is the author of that blog a great distorter of facts (or perhaps, just a tremendous prevaricator) he is a great distorter of images.  To see what I am writing about, just go see the posting for Memorial Day weekend.  As they say, context is everything.  In this instance, we are provided a caption, and a picture of the President smiling.  Of course, we are to quickly conclude the President may well have expressed deep remorse but by his smile, he must not have "meant it."  Hmmmm... Was the picture taken at the same time as the statement? (or even within seconds, or a minute?)  Was the picture taken before the speech began?  Who was the President looking at while smiling?  (In the interest of fairness, this is the same sort of gross mis-representation that Rush Limbaugh did with the video of President Clinton laughing when leaving following the funeral of his former Secretary of Transportation.  Of course, in THAT case the clip showed Clinton crying, laughing and then crying again, in the span of 10 seconds...)

As you can see, the picture doesn't actually convey anything other than a man who can, at times, be quite "warm" most likely to a person in the crowd.  It is mis-representations like this that lead one to conclude that "A Liberal Dose" is a person with an agenda, and perhaps not much else. 

But that's alright. 

To steal from an old "Greyhound Busline" commercial "Just relax, and leave the thinking to us!"

The Prof

Gospel Music

Sometimes I just have to put a weblink out there, like this one:

Gospel Music Podcast

Charles and Matt Brady have a website, and a podcast. Interesting...

Cool, and/or Fun Tech

Okay, so here are two interesting tech items, and an interesting tech story thrown in for fun.

First, the "Star Trek Communicator" that we all have known and loved is making it's "debut."  I suppose this is a niche' market, and only (or perhaps, mostly) those daring a brave souls who seek out new life at Trek Conventions will purchase them.

Second--and far more important in my mind is my recommendation for a piece of software I have come to love.  Have you seen those panoramic photos, stitched together from several separate photos, and wished you had the skill, the patience, and the photoshop to do that? Or tried the pan-stitch software that came with your new camera, only to be disappointed with the quality, or the linearity, or other limitations?  Search no more!  Start creating your own Panaoramic photographs using Autostitch.  This software is apparently the product of an academic effort, designed to find better ways of automating the stitching process.  I have used it quite often, and as many would guess, most often for photographs up at the lake.

What to do with these photographs?  Certainly, if you have the right Epson or HP wide-format printers you can print them at home, but I recommend checking out your local Copier Store such as Kinko's, or check out the many online companies such as Shutterfly, Adoramapix, or even WalMart.  Or for those of you that haven't yet discovered the joys of Picasa by Google, download it, and see not only how easy it is to order your panoramic print online from any number of places, but see how simple and easy they have made editing any photograph.

Finally, the funny story:  Many of us have iPods, and not everyone can keep up with ther perverbial Jones' but that apparently doesn't deter apple from pushing for iPod Envy.  As this story at the "Crazy Apple Rumors Site" tells it, Apple at first thought about paying college students to look down their noses at fellow students with obsolete (read, "soooo last generation") iPods. My favorite lines?

“That is categorically false,” a visibly angry Schiller said. “We never paid anyone to do that.

“We were going to, but then we realized we didn’t have to. They were already doing it for free.”

So there ya have it, my tips, pointers, and story for the day.

Enjoy!-

Voters like to be monitored...

Those that follow my comments here, and on other blogs, know that I at times wage a battle of logic against the illogic of the left.  In fact, I find it amusing that I am so often called names, when I employ their tactics against themselves (for reference to this, go read some of the comment battles at The Lobby.)

One of the on-going battles from the left is the sense that Americans are outraged at the government's apparent monitoring of our lives.  The self-absorbed left somehow believes that the US government is actually so interested in the mundane aspects of our daily lives that they listen to us, and track information about us, and our "normal" conversations.  The left seems to think that most Americans would rise up against such government monitoring, even though the monitoring is done in the interest of national security, and thus, the safety of our populace.

Well, I for one wouldn't want to extrapolate too far, or draw too many generalizable conclusions about these views from just one election, but I do find the situation in Philadelphia interesting.  Today, Tuesday, 16 May 2006, Pennsylvania (my once and future home) held their primary elections.  While there were many outcomes that may take the headlines, including the ouster of several incumbents, the silent yet critical news story may be about the referendum.  Yes, THE referendum.  The Associated Press ran a story (found at mcall.com) that said:

 As police warn of a rising tide of gun violence, voters this week will get a chance to weigh in on whether Philadelphia should become the next big city to add public surveillance cameras to its crime-fighting arsenal.

A referendum on the ballot in Tuesday's primary will ask voters whether they think the city's charter should be amended to allow officials to use video surveillance to ''fight crime and violence'' in a way that ''protects civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests.''

As of this moment, reports are that the city, a city (like so many other cities around the nation) dominated by the left and the Democrats, has voted overwhelmingly to allow video surveillance.

The outcome, as listed at Phlly.com, at this time, is:

Referendum - Video Surveillance - Ballot Issue

Philadelphia, 1543 of 1681 Precincts Reporting - 91.79%

Name Votes Pct Yes 62,518 79.12 No 16,498 20.88

Note, this is with nearly 92% of the votes counted.  Assuming every remaining vote goes against the ballot, those rougly 8,000 votes wouldn't be enough to stop it.

Yes, Philiadelphia has voted to allow their government to monitor their activities, and record them, to provide a sense of security.  They are sacrificing security over privacy and personal rights.

Actually, I would be more opposed to this, than even the NSA listening.  Partly because of my libertarian leanings, but also because a local law enforcement officer is more likely to have personal connections with the individuals monitored, and thus the potential is far greater for personal malfeasance.

Yup.  The left likes to whine and complain about the Republicans and the Right.  They like to scream about individual rights, but put their own lives at risk and they give up those rights faster than Kennedy grabs a whisky bottle.

Language Log: Is Mark Steyn guilty of plagiarism?

Language Log: Is Mark Steyn guilty of plagiarism?

Those who know me, know my record with plagiarists. I post this link to the Language Log, in an attempt to warn all, students and others, about the problems of plagiarism, and most importantly, about the broader impact it has, beyond the classroom.

The Pro

MANPADS Protection--is it time?

Many of you, dear students, won't know what MANPADS is, and that is quite understandable.  It is defined as a "Man-portable Air Defense System."  That obviously includes such systems as Stinger missiles.  Interestingly, we as a nation are now more concerned about them as an attack rather than a defense, system.  Misnomer aside, this article "ATA Position: Counter MANPADS Deployment" outlines the case from the position of the Air Transport Association.

"Among the terrorist threats we are confronting, the risk of a MANPADS attack on a commercial airliner is an extremely serious concern. So too, however, are threats from other types of weapons and tactics that might be utilized by those intent on harming our nation by attacking our aviation system. Therefore, it is critically important in confronting all of these threats that we be guided by the best intelligence and law enforcement information available. With this information, we can apply a systematic risk management program to determine how to best marshal available resources."

The article outlines the case for MANPADS protection, but also lists a series of questions that must be addressed before any real action can be taken to protect civil travel from such threats.  The questions are listed at the end of the article, and I encourage all of you to go read them.  They are thoughtful and I believe useful in helping to frame a realistic debate on the benefits, approaches, and effectiveness of MANPADS defense.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the threats to our commercial air system.  How much do you think we should spend on systems like these?  Are you willing to pay more for your airline ticket for this level of safety?  And what is your answer to the liability question?

Enjoy!

ThinkFree Office Online (beta)

Apple Matters | Review: ThinkFree Office Online (beta)

I do believe we may have found a major contender in the online office application category.

Do any of you want to try this, and report back?

The Prof

The "Worth" of a vote

The blog, Pressing the Flesh has commented on the opinion poll showing that "35% of those responding believe that their vote for American Idol counts as much or MORE than their vote for a U.S. Presidential election. "  According to this blogger, this explains "what's wrong with the American voting public" and "why you have such incompetent representatives in the White House and Congress."

I would disagree.  This explains that only 1/3 of the American population has some (small) grasp on the concept of percentage contribution to the total.  It would seem to me that fewer people would actually vote on American idol than would in a national election, so, if you evaluate your individual voice (vote) as simply one vote in a vast, "virtually" infinite, sea of votes cast, then perhaps one would be left with the sense that their vote is "worth less" (much less) than the votes cast in a much smaller voting population.

Of course, it is the aggregration of the votes that matters, and every vote is required to get to that aggregate figure, but in "most" presidential elections, the marginal benefit of a single vote is miniscule.

For instance, if you are having a local run-off for school board, and you happen to live in a nice, small town, your one vote out of the 30 cast can be significant. It's 1/30th of all the votes cast, and one can see how important that one vote can be.  On the othe hand, in 2004, there were over <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/popular_vote.html">122 million votes cast </a> which would make one think that their individual vote is worth considerably less than it was in the election for the school board.

In point of fact, the school board candidates probably spend far more time, and would be willing to listen to that one voter for far longer, than any single voter's ability to talk with any Presidential Candidate.

This is, actually, one of the great paradoxes of voting.  The individual vote is essentially worthless, however, as part of the aggregate, contributes to the mass of votes required to achieve a victory.

I welcome your thoughts on this.  Do you feel your vote doesn't count?  How does one overcome the sense that my vote, counting for only 1/122,000,000 of the total, carries meaning and weight?

Diversify? Divest? Let's call the whole thing off

Well, McDonald's has decided to divest Chipotle.  I at one point had been quite critical of McD's purchase of what has become one of my all-time favorite restaurants.  That is, until the (then) Marketing Director for the McDonald's New York Metro region told me that the only reason I had even been able to eat at one was because of the infusion of their capital and thus rapid expansion of the chain.  This is echoed in the news story:

"Since we made our initial investment in 1998, Chipotle has grown from 16 restaurants in the Denver area to a strong and popular restaurant concept with more than 500 locations throughout the U.S.," McDonald's Chief Executive Jim Skinner said in a statement.

"However, attracting more customers to McDonald's remains our greatest opportunity for long-term profitable growth," he said.

 I, for one, am pleased to see McDonald's has come out of their slump, and that they are focusing on their core business.  This does, of course, bring us back to a fairly common business theme, that we talk about often in class.  Firms "diversify" and then they divest... diversify.. divest...  Some even step outside the realm of what would seem to make sense.  Some diversifications make sense.  GMAC not only helped finance cars, but has become quite a strong entity in financing in general--and has helped float GM in these tough times.

Others make far less sense.  For instance, remember Phillip Morris buying Nabisco, and Planters Peanuts?  So a tobacco company sells food?  That was a mistake that if I remember correctly was identified, and divested... *smile*

I look forward to hearing/reading your examples of firms that have gone through the diversify/divest cycle.

The left doesn't believe itself!

^{*cross posted from my posting at my home away from home:  http://thelobbyists.blogspot.com/*}

 In perusing many of the blogs on the left, I have detected a recurring, although not ubiquitous, theme.  Specifically, a lack of faith in the system, and an overarching belief that elections have been stolen wholesale.  In fact, they are arguing that, with the voting machines being electronic, and with various other things done, that people no longer have a voice, and that democracy is dead.   They believe Corporate America has stolen the government.

Interestingly though, they must not really believe it, because the left is looking forward to the next elections.  Apparently they don't even believe their own rhetoric.  For some reason, they hold two contradictory views.  The first view is that elections are not fair, and the outcomes are "pre-determined."  The other view?  That we can change things by getting out the vote, and voting for change.

Hmmm... are they simply stupid?  While that would be a satisfying conclusion, I am not convinced of that.  For a long time now I have held the view that accusations and charges are more reflective of the attitudes and behaviors of the people making them than the subject of the accusations.  People see the world through their own lenses, and do not easily see alternative explanations.  Or to put it another way "Bush must have lied--how else could you explain what is  happening?!"

So here is MY theory (admittedly filtered through my lense--I understand I too am captive to my own paradigm).  Keep the news story out there that Democracy is threatened.  Let people know that our nation has been "stolen" as have elections.  Convince people that they have to take action NOW to take back our government--and you can do that by getting out and voting for liberals.  So, create fear, carefully drawing lines connecting unrelated information in a compelling story that implies connections, and get people to react to it.

Yup, that's my theory, and I am sticking to it.  Liberals are trying to "steal" elections the old fashioned way.  Lying and scaring the electorate.  Popularizing crazy conspiracy theories.  Making people feel fear, rage, and hopelessness.  And then, getting people to vote for them based on irrational fear. 

I could be wrong.  But it makes for a good story, and seems as plausible as any other.

Language Log: Who is the decider?

Language Log: Who is the decider?

I must say, I find this "episode" of the Language Log uniquely satisfying. Partially because I too have fallen prey to the odd grammatical error, now and again. But mostly because it serves as a humbling reminder that we all fail, and thus, as we point out each other's failings, we all contribute.

but perhaps I read too much into this.

The last sentence though, remains priceless. Sure, pick on the word "decider." Anyone want to guess what the other "obvious" error is?