Shameless

A tour of the house of Jeremiah Wright, the preacher of the church Barak Obama attended for many years.

And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts, and there are none save
a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the
wearng of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strife, and malice, and
persecution, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every
one have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. For behold,
you do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning
of your churches, more than you love the poor and the needy, the sick and the
afflicted. (Mormon 8:36-37)

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is quoted as saying:

Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there.
But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial
majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said
Pelosi.

If there were a prize for fatuous utterences by a politician, this would be in contention.

Not that the Republicans have it much better.
Senator Ted Stevens R-Alaska, was convicted yesterday on seven counts of
felony corruption, he announced today that he had no intention of resigning.
Well, and why should he? No conscience, no shame. But then, since I'm not from
Alaska, I don't get a choice about whether I want this particular convicted felon
serving in the Senate.

Wearied

Over the past couple of months, I've been reading quite a few political blogs. I tend to read the comments as well, and while there are some very intelligent and well-thought responses, a great many of the comments are intolerant and hateful. It's depressing to wade through through the sensless comments, and get stirred up to say something...only to realize that it would take me
quite some time to labor over an intelligent response, and wind up deleting half of what I wrote,
because in the end, isn't fitting. I really hate venemous conflict.

Part of the difficutlty is that I'm very much concerned over the upcoming election. I've stated before that I don't trust Barak Obama, and the more I see, the less I like. I'm afraid of being someone infected by overly partisan information, but when I look at the other party...it's even worse. There are those in the country who are predicting civil war, in the not so distant future,
and I read all too many people who are calling to "Get your gun and be ready for a fight". It could come to that. But I certainly hope not, and I'd rather avoid it.

I don't really think that if Barak Obama wins the election, he's going singlehandedly repeal freedom of the press, or religion, and unleash the FBI on everyone who disagrees with him.
The rule of law isn't going to evaporate overnight.

I'm somewhat distracted by another question, one that came up about the logic of what is compulsory and forbidden:
If (A) Forbidden, then (not-A) is compulsory
If (A) is compulsory, then (not-A) is forbidden.

A couple of specific examples were used. Those are hard to refute, but in generally, this
kind of argument is tricky to make. From my studies as an amateur logician, this looks like a branch of deontic logic, which resembles modal logic and isn' strictly aristotelian. This analysis doesn't account for the optional: That which is neither obligatory nor forbiddent. Also, there's a possible question of dichotmimes... there may be a middle ground between A and not-A. So, I'm sucpicious of the logic, though I can't quite refute it. I'll have to set this one aside.

I still see the debate on same-sex marriage in California, and I really object to the rhetoric that anyone who doesn't approve of it is a bigot and trying to deprive homosexuals of equal civil rights, or that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't have a clear, sound refutation of these argoments, and if I did, those who advocate same-sex marriage wouldn't listen anyway. And I don't have much of a way to appeal to the undecideds.

I also came across an article (Helen McAffrey, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which deplored the demonization of Sarah Palin She expressed suprise that, since since Gov. Palin is an example of what has been considered a feminist ideal (combining motherhood and a career) that she would be so viciously vilified. She objected to a student who wore a T-shirt with the slogan, "Sarah Palin is a ****, and expressed her opinion that Gov. Palin ought to be treated with respect and consideration. I was suprised to read how many of the commenters on this article defended the attackers. When did obscenities become accepted in academic discourse? The next step after violent and degrading words is violent and destructive actions, and it's not all that big a step.

I've been pondering on how radical feminism...the man-hating, lesbian, genitalia focused, pro-choice and anti-marriage wing of it... is dehumanizing to both men and women. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been all that surprising that someone who represents the opposite evokes such mindless hatred. Feminist, behold thyself.

I saw in another bit of news that the "Code Pink" organization that had announced its intention to shut down the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley, California, is moving out of its offices there. Yes, as I recall, that WAS the strategy advocated by those who opposed the Vietnam war, "declare victory and get out". I'm sure it will work just as well this time around. Didn't anyone warn these people that real peacemaking can be *hard*?

Circus

In the past week, I've been watching in amazement, and some amusement, as Democrats have gone screaming ape over Sarah Palin. There is a whole list of rumors that have been floated, picked up, and soberly repeated by leading media. Some of them are so clearly absurd that they give the clown show at Ringling Brothers-Barnum and Bailey serious competition.

The show of verbal acrobatics including headstands and backflips from politicians and pundits who've participated in the ' hear fabulous rumor/ broadcast fabulous rumor / have fabulous rumor exploded within a day or two' act is truly amazing. I'd need a video camera to capture it. I did manage to puch up a bit of some delightful satire, such as appears at the end of this blog post, which captures some of the hysterical absurdity of the last week's political dialogue.

Since I do have other things to do, I can't do any justice to a review, but I must confess that for the moment I'm being hugely entertained by what's beginning to resemble The Greatest Show on Earth.

Presidential Campaign

I'm still watching. On the Republican side, I was sort of hoping McCain would pick Romney for his running mate, but there were certainly a number of indicators that he might not. I'm not too disappointed. He could have done a lot worst than Sarah Palin. A lot worse..I was afraid that if he had chosen someone obviously pro-choice, I couldn't vote for the candidate of either party.

On the Democratic side, I mentioned my impressons at the beginning of the month. I haven't paid much attention to Senator Biden, but from what little I've heard, his selection as Obama's running mate does not improve my impression of Obama.

The campaign's treatment of Stanley Kurz, a journalist who has been investigating Obama's possible connections with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground is a distinct black mark. If I had ever been inclined to favor Obama, this would give me serious pause.

I was ten years old in 1968, when organizations such as the Weather Underground, the SDS, the Black Panthers, and others were advocating violent overthrow of the US government, planting bombs, and the like, and a couple of years later I had a teacher who made sure I heard about it.

The things I read about Bill Ayers, one of the founders of this group, suggest that he has changed tactics, not ideologies, going in for indoctrination of the young as more effective than bombings. If he were one of Obama's mentors or associates, I am an concerned that he may have absorbed some of Ayer's ideology. This is very much not what I want in the Presidency.

The attempt to shut down or shout down critics is also worrisome. This is not someone I want anywhere near a position of authority over the US Military, Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice, with the full power of the government to bring to bear against his critics.

Obama not for President

I've been somewhat following the Presidential campaign, or rather, the discussion of it. First, I admit, there is a certain amount of partisan bias: I've been more or less conservative ever since I was old enough to start reading about politics, back when I was twelve or so. I'm not and have never been particularly enthusiastic about John McCain. However, I shuddered with horror about Hillary Clinton getting into the White House. The only reason I'm not more concerned about Barak Obama is that he strikes me as a lightweight who's already on the verge of self-destructing. It is becoming increasingly evident that that that he has an inflated reputation and opinion of himself without the experience, brains, or backbone to justify it.

The physics of weight loss

In response to a discussion on another blog, I sat down to do some thinking on weight and weight loss. For those who cite mass-and-energy balance principles, "calories in = calories out" where "calories in = food intake" and "calories out = exercise" is so oversimplified that it's actually wrong.

"Calories out" has to be adjusted for base metabolism rate. This is affected by growth rate, for the youthful, and such things as pregnancy, lactation, and menstruation in women. The efficiency of exercise also depends on muscle proportions: those with comparatively more/larger muscles (such as men) will be more efficient at expending calories with exercise. Both of these are also affected by body shape and proportions. People generate heat in proportion to their volume or weight, but get rid of it roughly proportion to their surface area (affected by shape). Volume goes up much faster than surface area.

This also helps account for why obese people find it harder to exercise. The body only tolerates a narrow range of internal temperature. A person who can't shed heat as fast through sweating and rapid breathing as he (or she) is generating it through exercise will be psychologically compelled to slow down or shut down the exercise. It seems to be one of those limits on what your body will let you do with it. Those who have found a reasonably effective balance between heat generated and head expended in extended aerobic exercise may find incomprehensible that an overweight person can't, or won't do the the same exercise and get the same benefit. But it's true. Different people sometimes really do require different approaches.

"Calories in" has to be adjusted for digestive efficiency (the ration of calories absorbed to calories ingested). This tends to change with age. I've seen studies that show it's affected by the types and proportions of gut bacteria. It's also affected by the kinds of food one eats, since some foods are more easily digested than others.
Altogether, these suggest that the efficiency of increased exercise in losing weight tends to do down as one gains in weight. Adjusting the diet would seem to be the more effective approach.

Lockjaw

There are several things I've wanted to comment on in the past couple of weeks, but it takes me forever to write things, simply because I keep going back and rewriting, and rethinking, and rephrasing anything I write so much. The final draft may have very little resemblance to what I started out to say, and then I wind up deciding I probably shouldn't say it at all.
I'm becoming rather disappointed with my selection of political blogs. I tend to read the comments, and...gah..I want intelligent discussion, not insane ranting and raving:

XYZ said 987. What a @?*! Everybody knows 123
ABC said 234 and he's a &*$#.
No. XYX is a @#%.
No, ABC is, and so are you, you #&@ !
Same to you, $#%& !

Except that blogs from the other side of the other end of the political spectrum look even worse.

I've also been following LDS-oriented blogs, and might like to link to some of them, except that the largest aggregator or portal seems to have something of a liberal bias, and I haven't found a better one yet. (yes, I'm too lazy to maintain a list of my own favorites here. Or maybe it's not lazy...It's just that blogging isn't really all that high a priority and I have other things to do).
Reading intelligent, informed commentary on practically any subject makes me feel ignorant, so wind up going back to work on my knowledge base . so I don't feel like I'm in one of those nightmares where I find myself suddenly unclothed in front of a crowd whenever I say anything.