LSU wins the national championship of college football, again.
They were the lower ranked team, again.
An SEC team wins the title, again.
In 10 BCS championship games now, the SEC is 4-0, and only one of those times (Tennessee 1999) were they the #1 team going into the game. No other conference has an overall winning record in the game. And as if to rub everyone else's nose in it, recall that Auburn of the SEC went undefeated in 2003, but was snubbed for the championship game in favor of an Oklahoma team that got squashed by USC.
Looks like the evidence is strongly favoring what my coonass relations have maintained for years: the northern teams (due to proximity), high scoring teams, and teams in weak conferences where it is easier to go undefeated, get more attention from the media, and are consistently overrated compared to the SEC teams, which are renounded for playing the kind of tough defense that wins championships, and for beating each other. Lucky for them they get a chance to prove themselves on the field now and again, because were it left to the polls they'd have 1 title over the last 10 seasons instead of 4.
Now how about going all the way NCAA, and having a real playoff like every other major sport? Or do the PAC-10 and Big-10 teams, who gain the most from the current screw up known as a system, fear losing to SEC teams every year in the playoffs?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Republican Facebook Republican debate: the High and the Lows
Let the record show it was those candidates competing for the title of More-Christian-than-Thou (Huck and Mitt) that got the nastiest.
Best comeback award: to Mike Huckabee for responding to Mitt Romney's claim that he was going to explain his position on Iraq with "Which one?"
Fred Thompson talked about the Soviet Union again, but avoided naming them this time.
Debate Pussy Award: to Mitt Romney for responding to Huckabee's comeback by claiming it was a personal attack. Hey Mitt, saying you are inconsistent isn't a personal attack. Saying you are an phony asshole is.
Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney think our military needs to be the size of the one we had when the Soviet Union was our enemy, 40% larger than we have. Shades of Democrats in the 80's who claimed welfare would encourage people to work if we just gave them more of it.
Worst Counterexample: Rudy Guiliani's response to Ron Paul's assertion that a foreign policy that has us occupying land in that area of the world gives Muslims the motivation to attack us that mentioned the Munich Olympic attacks...on the Israelis.
Irony Award: to President Bush for insisting that a President needs to have a core set of principles he adheres to, "in good times and in bad". The one constant factor in the failures of this administration has been the President has maintaining his position on issues even during bad times, ie, when the evidence suggested doing otherwise. What we need is a president that doesn't maintain a doomed course out of principle.
Gut wrenching (in a good way) Award: everything John McCain says about serving in the military. On some levels, he seems like the only real candidate.
Gut wrenching (in a bad way) Award: When McCain and others talk as if Al Qaeda defeating America, as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could have, is a remote possibility.
The Get a Clue Award: When Romney and others claim we are the greatest nation on earth. We used to be the greatest nation on earth. We could be the greatest nation on earth. But if you think we are, right now, the greatest nation on earth, I want some of what you are smoking.
The Say Nothing Award: to Fred Thompson, for responding to a question about our recent policy of military aggression by saying "We should only go in where we should go in". Way to appear to agree with everyone while saying nothing Fred.
Most revealing moment: When Huckabee said "if the primary thing we're facing is war, we'll be talking about military size and military might..." Notice that negotiation, understanding our enemy, or knowing how to end the war weren't in his top two. Size and power were. Again, if the Bush administration has taught us anything, it is that our military might, unmatched in the world though it may be, has limits far below what some would have us attempt with it.
more to come...
Best comeback award: to Mike Huckabee for responding to Mitt Romney's claim that he was going to explain his position on Iraq with "Which one?"
Fred Thompson talked about the Soviet Union again, but avoided naming them this time.
Debate Pussy Award: to Mitt Romney for responding to Huckabee's comeback by claiming it was a personal attack. Hey Mitt, saying you are inconsistent isn't a personal attack. Saying you are an phony asshole is.
Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney think our military needs to be the size of the one we had when the Soviet Union was our enemy, 40% larger than we have. Shades of Democrats in the 80's who claimed welfare would encourage people to work if we just gave them more of it.
Worst Counterexample: Rudy Guiliani's response to Ron Paul's assertion that a foreign policy that has us occupying land in that area of the world gives Muslims the motivation to attack us that mentioned the Munich Olympic attacks...on the Israelis.
Irony Award: to President Bush for insisting that a President needs to have a core set of principles he adheres to, "in good times and in bad". The one constant factor in the failures of this administration has been the President has maintaining his position on issues even during bad times, ie, when the evidence suggested doing otherwise. What we need is a president that doesn't maintain a doomed course out of principle.
Gut wrenching (in a good way) Award: everything John McCain says about serving in the military. On some levels, he seems like the only real candidate.
Gut wrenching (in a bad way) Award: When McCain and others talk as if Al Qaeda defeating America, as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could have, is a remote possibility.
The Get a Clue Award: When Romney and others claim we are the greatest nation on earth. We used to be the greatest nation on earth. We could be the greatest nation on earth. But if you think we are, right now, the greatest nation on earth, I want some of what you are smoking.
The Say Nothing Award: to Fred Thompson, for responding to a question about our recent policy of military aggression by saying "We should only go in where we should go in". Way to appear to agree with everyone while saying nothing Fred.
Most revealing moment: When Huckabee said "if the primary thing we're facing is war, we'll be talking about military size and military might..." Notice that negotiation, understanding our enemy, or knowing how to end the war weren't in his top two. Size and power were. Again, if the Bush administration has taught us anything, it is that our military might, unmatched in the world though it may be, has limits far below what some would have us attempt with it.
more to come...
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The Political Implications of the 2010 Census
Early projections from Election Data Services and Polidata give the Republicans some rare good news. The seats in the House of Representatives for each state is determined by their proportion of the population, with each state guaranteed a minimum of one. 2010 marks the next census, and new figures for the House. According to the projections, here is how many seats each state stands to gain or lose:
WINNERS:
Texas — up four seats to 36.
Florida — up two seats to 27.
Arizona — up two seats to 10.
North Carolina — up one seat to 14.
South Carolina — up one seat to seven.
Georgia — up one seat to 14.
Utah — up one seat to four.
Nevada — up one seat to four.
Oregon — up one seat to six.
LOSERS:
New York — down two seats to 27.
Ohio — down two seats to 16.
Massachusetts — down one seat to nine.
New Jersey — down one seat to 12.
Pennsylvania — down one seat to 18.
Michigan — down one seat to 14.
Illinois — down one seat to 18.
Minnesota — down one seat to seven.
Iowa — down one seat to four.
Missouri — down one seat to eight.
Louisiana — down one seat to six.
California — down one seat to 52.
If we use the latest two elections as guide, the census data implies the Republicans will gain about 15 seats. Everyone wants to move south.
WINNERS:
Texas — up four seats to 36.
Florida — up two seats to 27.
Arizona — up two seats to 10.
North Carolina — up one seat to 14.
South Carolina — up one seat to seven.
Georgia — up one seat to 14.
Utah — up one seat to four.
Nevada — up one seat to four.
Oregon — up one seat to six.
LOSERS:
New York — down two seats to 27.
Ohio — down two seats to 16.
Massachusetts — down one seat to nine.
New Jersey — down one seat to 12.
Pennsylvania — down one seat to 18.
Michigan — down one seat to 14.
Illinois — down one seat to 18.
Minnesota — down one seat to seven.
Iowa — down one seat to four.
Missouri — down one seat to eight.
Louisiana — down one seat to six.
California — down one seat to 52.
If we use the latest two elections as guide, the census data implies the Republicans will gain about 15 seats. Everyone wants to move south.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Telling Scorecard of Iowa Spending: Romney $6.5M, Huckabee $1.5M
In yet another data point to be ignored by those who obsess over campaign finance reform, Mitt Romney outspent Mike Huckabee over 4 to 1 and was still defeated. One would think after the failures of presidential bids by huge spenders Ross Perot and Steve Forbes, among many, many others, the idea that someone could "buy" a presidency simply by spending huge sums of money would die. What candidates like this make clear is that one cannot buy the election if one does not have either ideas or a personality that voters like. This should likely become more true over time as more and more communication is done via free media like the internet. No candidate lacks the ability to get their message out any more.
Friday, January 4, 2008
James Randi Retires the Challenge Undefeated
In news which should bring mixed feelings, James Randi has announced that he is discontinuing the JREF $Million Challenge after its 12 year anniversary, March 6, 2010. I will play psychic and predict that no one will beat the challenge in the interim, and I'll have a better hit percentage than most of them ever do.
This is one of those issues that really exposes how unobjective the media can be. The data demonstrating the impotence of paranormalists is overwhelming. Any reasonable person examining it would conclude that psychic claims lack sufficient evidence. People like Randi, Penn and Teller, and CSICOP have been exposing psychics for the poor magicians they are for years. If one is not convinced by the raw data, there are some logical arguments for which no psychic or their defenders have offered anything resembling a reasonable rebuttal. For example, why hasn't a psychic ever gone to Vegas and wiped them out? There are so many options, roulette for the telekinetically inclined, poker for the mind readers, blackjack for those who can remotely view, and pretty much any game for those who can see into the future. Why aren't half the lottery winners psychics? The lame claim that the psychics aren't interested in personal fortune doesn't wash, because they could easily give the money they win to a charity, or the poor, or a hundred other sources more worthy of the money than casino barons.
Why has no psychic helped us solve any historical mystery? If they can really talk to the dead, how about chatting with Jimmy Hoffa about where he is buried, or Hitler to see if he is still alive, or to any inventor or scientist, about discoveries they were about to make prior to their death? If they can talk to Einstein about the past, why not the future too? The reason is obvious: those that claim they can speak to the dead are masters of MSU.
Why are there no rules in sports to account for the paranormal? If telekinesis was real, it would play hell with golf, if not any sport with a ball. Mind reading would be a killer skill for a linebacker or quarterback, as would foreknowledge. Funny how the paranormalist's abilities never ever show up in any relationship with someone having a vested interest in them failing. The reason again is obvious: you have to be grief stricken and desperate to hear from your dead loved ones to believe their BS.
And yet, to observe the media, be it TV, or the movies, or the written word, psychics are presented as, at worst, being doubted by some, and at best, undeniably real. The fact that James Randi has had this challenge in effect for about 8 years with ZERO losses to the side thought correct by a majority of Americans ought to be huge news. So should this:
"Our expectations at first were that we’d attract major personalities by this means, but they’ve avoided having to take the test by simply not applying; those who have actually applied are generally honestly self-deluded persons"
In other words, Randi's challenge has provided an interesting indication of which of these performers actually believes his own bullshit, and which are true con artists. Sure, some of the honest ones might eschew the test for various reasons, but one can be pretty certain that none of the con artists will agree to the test. For once they really do know the outcome ahead of time. The next time you see one of these paranormalists making ridiculous excuses for why they refuse to take $1M of James Randi's money, your con artist spidey sense should be tingling.
As a tribute to Randi, and those past and future debunkers of bullshit, watch one of his favorite targets, Silvia Browne, get pwned.
Hat tip Mark at Denialism Blog.
This is one of those issues that really exposes how unobjective the media can be. The data demonstrating the impotence of paranormalists is overwhelming. Any reasonable person examining it would conclude that psychic claims lack sufficient evidence. People like Randi, Penn and Teller, and CSICOP have been exposing psychics for the poor magicians they are for years. If one is not convinced by the raw data, there are some logical arguments for which no psychic or their defenders have offered anything resembling a reasonable rebuttal. For example, why hasn't a psychic ever gone to Vegas and wiped them out? There are so many options, roulette for the telekinetically inclined, poker for the mind readers, blackjack for those who can remotely view, and pretty much any game for those who can see into the future. Why aren't half the lottery winners psychics? The lame claim that the psychics aren't interested in personal fortune doesn't wash, because they could easily give the money they win to a charity, or the poor, or a hundred other sources more worthy of the money than casino barons.
Why has no psychic helped us solve any historical mystery? If they can really talk to the dead, how about chatting with Jimmy Hoffa about where he is buried, or Hitler to see if he is still alive, or to any inventor or scientist, about discoveries they were about to make prior to their death? If they can talk to Einstein about the past, why not the future too? The reason is obvious: those that claim they can speak to the dead are masters of MSU.
Why are there no rules in sports to account for the paranormal? If telekinesis was real, it would play hell with golf, if not any sport with a ball. Mind reading would be a killer skill for a linebacker or quarterback, as would foreknowledge. Funny how the paranormalist's abilities never ever show up in any relationship with someone having a vested interest in them failing. The reason again is obvious: you have to be grief stricken and desperate to hear from your dead loved ones to believe their BS.
And yet, to observe the media, be it TV, or the movies, or the written word, psychics are presented as, at worst, being doubted by some, and at best, undeniably real. The fact that James Randi has had this challenge in effect for about 8 years with ZERO losses to the side thought correct by a majority of Americans ought to be huge news. So should this:
"Our expectations at first were that we’d attract major personalities by this means, but they’ve avoided having to take the test by simply not applying; those who have actually applied are generally honestly self-deluded persons"
In other words, Randi's challenge has provided an interesting indication of which of these performers actually believes his own bullshit, and which are true con artists. Sure, some of the honest ones might eschew the test for various reasons, but one can be pretty certain that none of the con artists will agree to the test. For once they really do know the outcome ahead of time. The next time you see one of these paranormalists making ridiculous excuses for why they refuse to take $1M of James Randi's money, your con artist spidey sense should be tingling.
As a tribute to Randi, and those past and future debunkers of bullshit, watch one of his favorite targets, Silvia Browne, get pwned.
Hat tip Mark at Denialism Blog.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Obama owns Iowa, the US next?
We thought it could happen, but it still has to sink in now. Barack Hussein Obama won the Iowa caucuses, and not by a small margin. If the thought of a black man winning an election in whitebread Iowa is not shocking enough, consider that he outpolled Hillary Clinton 35% to 30% (as of 10:30 CST) among women. He garnered over 50% of the youth vote. His performance was downright stunning. Perhaps all America needed to elect a black president was to have one that was not all about being black (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton), or a complete lunatic (Alan Keyes).
This result should be especially disturbing to Hillary Clinton, who, with her love-her-or-hate-her personality, could not afford anything other than victories with a multiple candidate field. As other candidates exit, their voters are less likely to move to Hillary than the other candidates. An Obama/Edwards ticket looks more likely than ever.
This result should be especially disturbing to Hillary Clinton, who, with her love-her-or-hate-her personality, could not afford anything other than victories with a multiple candidate field. As other candidates exit, their voters are less likely to move to Hillary than the other candidates. An Obama/Edwards ticket looks more likely than ever.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Religious thought vs Scientific Thought: a Flowchart
From Corpus Callosum comes this fabulous flowchart that very nicely illustrates the difference between the two modes of thought.
Notice how the religious chart ends, while the science one keeps looping around to look for more evidence and more understanding. This is science's great strength, but unfortunately its PR Achilles heal, and why so many flock to religious views despite science's superior epistemological record. Religion offers certainty, with the corollary lack of change, and no need for any of the hard work scientists spend so much time on. This holds much appeal for those who want a simple, black and white world so badly they are willing to ignore the considerable evidence that it is neither.
Notice how the religious chart ends, while the science one keeps looping around to look for more evidence and more understanding. This is science's great strength, but unfortunately its PR Achilles heal, and why so many flock to religious views despite science's superior epistemological record. Religion offers certainty, with the corollary lack of change, and no need for any of the hard work scientists spend so much time on. This holds much appeal for those who want a simple, black and white world so badly they are willing to ignore the considerable evidence that it is neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
