Impressive assistance

So Michelle and I go for bike rides quite frequently. Most of the time, we throw the bikes in the back of the truck and drive out somewhere with good trails or nice scenery. Yesterday we went out and had a great time riding and had an interesting encounter.

After putting the bikes in the back, we drove home. On the way home, I stopped at a stoplight where I would be turning right. As I slowed up to the turn, I saw a cop car coming our way on the opposite lane. Thinking to myself, "ahh copper" I instinctively check to make sure my seatbelts are on, and glance in my mirrors...and to my surprise, Michelle's bike rolls off the bed of the truck and onto the street.

I had forgotten to close the bed of the truck.

The bike fell smack dab in the middle of the street, cars quickly coming our way. To my surprise, the passing cop turned all the way around, flipped his lights on, and blocked oncoming traffic so we had time to grab the bike, throw it in the truck, and continue on our way.

Needless to say, I felt guilty about my initial negative reaction to the police office, but felt amazingly grateful and impressed by his assistance. He didn't get out or say anything, and as soon as I got the bike in the car, he drove off.
Whatever preconceived notions you have of a group or type of people, you should always prepare for those notions to be blown away. And when it happens, boy is it a shocker. How childish our minds are sometimes.

Barbara Boxer: Please Call Me 'Senator'

This was posted over at politics daily:

Overheard at a Senate hearing yesterday:

"Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I'd appreciate it."
--Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Brigadier General Michael Walsh during Senate hearing Tuesday, when he the general repeatedly said, "Yes, ma'am," and "No, ma'am," when answering Boxer's questions at hearing she chaired on New Orleans' levee system.

Comments?
Insecure intellectual lightweight she is. She earned it? No, she was elected to it. If our system of elections was based on merit rather than your personal wealth and ability to distort the truth maybe then she would have earned it. The General, on the other hand, has earned his title because it is based on hard work and self sacrifice. Let's see if the Senator is willing to give her life in the service of her country. The Senator has nothing but contempt for the General and the military.

A new pet peeve...

That's right, another annoyance that I feel must be published. In fact, I think it is really important to know what your top 10 pet peeves are, and share them with those closest to you. Make sure you think it over before you blurt them out, because I've learned that it really reveals a lot about the person.
I haven't organized my top 10, but here is my brand new one:

CNN, Fox News, and other large news conglomerates using internet forum posts to bolster a news piece. For instance: "Jane245, says this about gay rights" and then they put a picture of the forum, as if it is a legitimate source. Is that hilarious or what?? It is especially funny when you they quote people with names like "hairymole7" or "bigtim". Are we getting that desperate for commentary that we have to search the wasteland of internet forums? This should be a number one "no-no" taught in journalism. I know for a fact that I would be laughed at in the scholarly field if I referenced such sources. Journalism has already lost much prestige in the last decade, must we make it worse?

Oh, and what's with people who never use the suicide lane when turning left, feeling the left blinker is sufficient. Ugh!

My phone set up

Here is a clip of my current phone layout.

Over-hyped "Missing Link" Lemur Discovery

Thx to Brian Switek for this tidbit:

WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING

Ground-Breaking Global Announcement

What: An international press conference to unveil a major historic scientific find. After two years of research a team of world-renowned scientists will announce their findings, which address a long-standing scientific puzzle.

The find is lauded as the most significant scientific discovery of recent times. History brings this momentous find to America and will follow with the premiere of a major television special on Monday, May 25 at 9 pm ET/PT chronicling the discovery and investigation.

Who: Mayor Michael Bloomberg; International team of scientists who researched the find; Abbe Raven, President and CEO, A&E Television Networks; Nancy Dubuc, Executive Vice President and General Manager, History; Ellen Futter, President, American Museum of Natural History

"The most significant scientific discovery of recent times", eh? What could it be? Life on Mars? Time-travel? Teleportation? The Higgs Boson? A diet cola that doesn't taste absolutely awful? Well, no. It's all about a little primate from Germany.

Last week periodicals like the Wall Street Journal and the Mail Online heralded the discovery of a 47-million-year old adapid primate from the famous Messel deposits in Germany. These deposits are well-known for containing exceptionally well-preserved mammals, and this particular lemur-like primate fossil contains soft tissue impressions and gut contents.

An exceptionally preserved fossil primate is pretty exciting, but that's not why the publicist for tomorrow's AMNH event wrote one of the most overblown press releases I have ever seen. No, the paper, which will be released in PLoS One tomorrow, claims that this particular primate is of vital importance to the origin of anthropoid primates (or monkeys and apes, with our species being included in the latter category). As might be expected during this significant year, it is going to be called Darwinius masillae and you can get a "sneak peek" at it here. According to the authors of the paper Darwinius supports the hypothesis that anthropoid primates evolved from lemur-like animals.

I have yet to see the paper, but I am skeptical of this conclusion. First, one of the main authors of the paper is Philip Gingerich, who has been maintaining the evolution of anthropoid primates from adapids for years despite evidence to the contrary. (See Chris Beard's The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey for a good review.) This is directly related to the second problem, which is that adapids were strepsirrhine (popularly called "wet-nosed") primates more closely related to modern-day lemurs, lorises, and bush babies. Instead anthropoids and the stock from which they arose are haplorrhines ("dry-nosed" primates), with tarsiers and an extinct group of tarsier-like primates called omomyids being much closer to them than the adapids.

According to preliminary reports Gingerich et al. link Darwinius to anthropoids by saying that it lacks a tooth comb and a toilet claw, two characteristics of strepsirrhine primates. As the author of A Primate of Modern Aspect writes, though, the lack of these two features does not automatically make Darwinius a transitional form from adapids to early anthropoids. It could be, and may be more likely to be, a unique part of the adapid family tree, and I will be very interested to see if the new paper contains a cladistic analysis. (I was a bit disappointed that Gingerich's last major descriptive paper on the early whale Maiacetus did not contain a cladogram).

I have the feeling that this fossil, while spectacular, is being oversold. This raises an important question about the way scientific discoveries, particularly fossil finds, are being popularized. Darwinius is just the latest is a string of significant fossils to be hyped in the media before being scientifically described (or at least before that information is released to the public). Other recent examples include "Dakota" the Edmontosaurus, the pliosaur "Predator X", and "Lyuba" the baby mammoth. I am glad that these finds are stirring excitement, but I am a bit put off by the way they are presented.

Companies like National Geographic and the History Channel are taking a larger role in how these discoveries are being presented. Each of the fossils I mentioned above have had books, feature articles, documentaries, or some combination thereof produced about them before any scientific description of them has been published. These promotional materials make grand claims but are vague on details, which are reserved for later academic publications. This can potentially create problems for effective science communication.

Consider, for example, the grand claims made about finds like Darwinius. It is being heavily promoted but scientists have not yet had a chance to see the fossil or read the paper describing it. When they get a call from a journalist or are asked their opinion on it, then, it can be difficult to discuss the find because they do not know the details. This can be harmful as it can not only lead to the spread of overblown assertions but it can also make us look foolish if these finds do not turn out to be all they were cracked up to be. This could especially be the case with Darwinius. Though heralded in documentaries and in the news as one of our direct ancestors, it is probably a very interesting lemur-like primate on a different evolutionary branch. I can only imagine the field day creationists are going to have if this is the case, and I am frustrated by the way mass media outlets manage to bungle genuinely interesting scientific discoveries.

GM's Saturn Shows Problems With Incumbent Firms Disrupting Themselves

"In July 1990, the first Saturn rolled off the Spring Hill, Tenn., assembly line, with Roger Smith of General Motors holding the key." Source of the caption and the photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Clayton Christensen has shown that incumbent firms find it extremely difficult to adopt disruptive innovations that would leapfrog their current dominant business model. GM's abandonment of its Saturn experiment would seem to be an apt illustration of the point:

(p. A29) "I'm absolutely convinced that the Saturn way could have worked," said Michael Bennett, the original U.A.W. leader at Saturn. "But what we had was never embraced or adopted."

Mr. Bennett, like many others, can point fingers to explain why Saturn fell short of its promise.

Mr. Bennett blamed a lack of interest by G.M. executives who succeeded Roger Smith, who as chief executive in the 1980s committed $5 billion to begin Saturn.

But those who followed him -- including John F. Smith Jr., who became chief executive in 1992, and G.M.'s current chief executive, Rick Wagoner, who ran its North American operations in the 1990s -- had bigger worries.

They had to lead the company through the financial turbulence at G.M. in the early 1990s. And with managers at G.M.'s other, older brands begging for investment, G.M. executives declared Saturn would have to prove it deserved more support, even though its small cars were accomplishing their main goal of winning buyers from imports.

Despite G.M.'s pledge that Saturn would be run as a separate company, with its own car development and purchasing operations, it was folded into G.M.'s small-car operations in 1994, and its lineup did not receive any new models for the next five years.

For the full story, see:

MICHELINE MAYNARD. "With Saturn, G.M. Failed a Makeover." The New York Times (Thurs., December 3, 2008): A1 & A29.

Christensen's fullest complete expression of his views can be found in:

Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

"The final Saturn built at the plant in March 2007." Source of the caption and the photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Consumers May Help Save the Day

Bhide makes thought-provoking comments about the role of the entrepreneurial or "venturesome" consumer in the process of innovation. The point is the mirror image on one made by Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy when he emphasized that consumer resistance to innovation is one of the obstacles that entrepreneurs in earlier periods had to overcome. (The decline of such consumer resistance was one of the reasons that Schumpeter speculated that the entrepreneurial might become obsolete.)

I would like to see Bhidé's evidence on his claim that technology rapidly advanced during the Great Depression. The claim seems at odds with Amity Shlaes' claim that New Deal policies often discouraged entrepreneurship.

(p. A15) Consumers get no respect -- we value thrift and deplore the spending that supposedly undermines the investment necessary for our long-run prosperity. In fact, the venturesomeness of consumers has nourished unimaginable advances in our standard of living and created invaluable human capital that is often ignored.

Economists regard the innovations that sustain long-run prosperity as a gift to consumers. Stanford University and Hoover Institution economist Paul Romer wrote in the "Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" in 2007: "In 1985, I paid a thousand dollars per million transistors for memory in my computer. In 2005, I paid less than ten dollars per million, and yet I did nothing to deserve or help pay for this windfall."

In fact, Mr. Romer and innumerable consumers of transistor-based products such as personal computers have played a critical, "venturesome" role in generating their windfalls.

. . .

History suggests that Americans don't shirk from venturesome consumption in hard times. The personal computer took off in the dark days of the early 1980s. I paid more than a fourth of my annual income to buy an IBM XT then -- as did millions of others. Similarly, in spite of the Great Depression, the rapid increase in the use of new technologies made the 1930s a period of exceptional productivity growth. Today, sales of Apple's iPhone continue to expand at double-digit rates. Low-income groups (in the $25,000 to $49,999 income segment) are showing the most rapid growth, with resourceful buyers using the latest models as their primary device for accessing the Internet.

Recessions will come and go, but unless we completely mess things up, we can count on our venturesome consumers to keep prosperity on its long, upward arc.

For the full commentary, see:

Amar Bhidé. "Consumers Can Still Spot Value in a Crisis." Wall Street Journal (Thurs., MARCH 11, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Bailouts Reduce Resources Left for Entrepreneurs

Columbia University Professor Amar Bhidé has authored two important books on entrepreneurship. Some of his thoughts on the current economic crisis follow:

(p. A15) Our ignorance of what causes economic ailments -- and how to treat them -- is profound. Downturns and financial crises are not regular occurrences, and because economies are always evolving, they tend to be idiosyncratic, singular events.

After decades of diligent research, scholars still argue about what caused the Great Depression -- excessive consumption, investment, stock-market speculation and borrowing in the Roaring '20s, Smoot-Hawley protectionism, or excessively tight monetary policy? Nor do we know how we got out of it: Some credit the New Deal while others say that that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression.

. . .

Large increases in public spending usurp precious resources from supporting the innovations necessary for our long-term prosperity. Everyone isn't a pessimist in hard times: The optimism of many entrepreneurs and consumers fueled the takeoff of personal computers during the deep recession of the early 1980s. Amazon has just launched the Kindle 2; its (equally pricey) predecessor sold out last November amid the Wall Street meltdown. But competing with expanded public spending makes it harder for innovations like the personal computer and the Kindle to secure the resources they need.

Hastily enacted programs jeopardize crucial beliefs in the value of productive enterprise. Americans are unusually idealistic and optimistic. We believe that we can all get ahead through innovations because the game isn't stacked in favor of the powerful. This belief encourages the pursuit of initiatives that contribute to the common good rather than the pursuit of favors and rents. It also discourages the politics of envy. We are less prone to begrudge our neighbors' fortune if we think it was fairly earned and that it has not come at our expense -- indeed, that we too have derived some benefit.

To sustain these beliefs, Americans must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee rather than be a dispenser of rewards or even a judge of economic merit or contribution. The panicky response to the financial crisis, where openness and due process have been sacrificed to speed, has unfortunately undermined our faith. Bailing out AIG while letting Lehman fail -- behind closed doors -- has raised suspicions of cronyism. The Fed has refused to reveal to whom it has lent trillions. Outrage at the perceived use of TARP funds to pay bonuses is widespread.

For the full commentary, see:


Amar Bhidé. "Don't Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers." Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 17, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)


Bhidé's two books on entrepreneurship are:

Bhidé, Amar. The Origin and Evolution of New Business. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Bhidé, Amar. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Where Human Beings Cease to Be Human...

Well, sadness hits hard as news continues to spread of the two homicide incidents in Alabama and the German City of Stuttgart. Here as a link to the Alabama case, and the one in Stuttgart. It is such horrible news, both that such evil people exist and that 25 people were killed by their hands. 25 individuals who had family and friends. 25 people who had aspirations to do something in this life, dreams to become fathers or mothers, grandparents to grandchildren. It is vivid example of utter sadness and evil.


While I'm at it, allow me a moment to quickly explain something that irritates me, hopefully without detracting from the seriousness of these recent massacres. When 9/11 occurred, I was driving to a psychology seminar in southern California. I remember driving past the John Wayne Airport, and how eerie it felt to see all our planes grounded. When I got to class, the professor didn't say much about the events. I don't think at that moment the word "terrorist" was even discussed yet. In fact, nothing was discussed in our large classroom of roughly 250 students. The professor proclaimed that we have a moment of silence. We sat in what I personally felt was a moment of awkwardness and uselessness. I never appreciated or understood "moments of silence." Would it not be more useful to take a moment of clarification, or gratitude, or appreciation, and explain to despondent students that we live in a world where evil abounds and a world where suffering occurs. And yet, the world is a glorious and beautiful place where a two-fold joy can be experienced for every downtrodden and sad event in our lives. Why sit in silence? There are wonderful learning opportunities, powerful chances to express remorse for the loved ones of the fallen, and to express gratitude for life itself. If I lose my life or the life of a loved one (God forbid a hundred times) by some heinous act of another, I would rather a professor make one powerful sentence that could forever influence the lives of the living, than 5 minutes of useless silence.

Given the recent events, I predict a brief revival of the discussion on guns and our access to them. There may also be discussion concerning why God would create a world where such things can exist, or how horrible of actions humans are capable of. I recently watched the movie "The Invasion", with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. It is basically a rehash of the Body Snatchers. As some of you may already know, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and thought it achieved great success in being a suspenseful thriller. And I'm not a big Nicole Kidman fan. Honest! I think this was one of her best, along with Far and Away. Daniel Craig was great, but his part in the film was much too small.
The shuttle crash as a means to introduce the virus was clever enough, though not elaborated upon. The use of "House"-like pictures of what was going on in the body was also very good and thoroughly entertaining. Think "The Andromeda Strain" meets "I am Legend". The ending of the film was also a little unsatisfactory.

The philosophical underpinnings of this film were also worth contemplating. Do we have a world without violence by all becoming dittoheads, or do we have conflict and remain human? Some may opt for Stepford, but I kinda like having differences.
One of the alien races makes a profound statement after most the population have lost their free will and become benign zombies:

"Have you seen the television, have you read the newspapers, seen whats happening here? What we're offering? A world without war, without poverty, without murder, without rape...a world without suffering. because in our world no one can hurt each other or exploit each other or try to destroy each other because in our world...there is no other. Fighting us is fighting for all the wrong things. Our world is a better world."

Interesting, but incorrect thought.

The movie ends with the complaint that it would be nice to "imagine a world where every newspaper is not full of war and violence." Daniel Craig sits at the table, reading a newspaper, and complains about how horrible the world is. Then the camera zooms out from Nicole Kidman's face, a look of wonder and confusion on her face, as if maybe the zombie world would have been better.

Life is rough sometimes, but really? Either come out and say it: this world is horrible and it isn't worth having free will. Or teach the viewers a notable lesson: evil exists in the world, but that is the consequence of free will, and that same consequence brings some wonderful experiences in this life.
As a Mormon I agree with one conclusion in the movie: in order to accomplish a world with no pain or evil acts human beings would have to cease to be human. Our nature is quite contrary to COMPLETE harmonious lives together. Indeed, a change in human nature would have to occur in order to live with free will and live without evil inclinations.

A True Hammering...

A response to James Marcy, LDS 'Hammering'

Let’s spare ourselves the mundane and over-worked discussion of separation of church and state and get right to the point of Jimmy Marcy’s pet peeve and legal misconception. What are the facts? About 60 percent of the state’s residents belong to the LDS Church and between 80 and 90 percent of Utah’s legislators also belong to the LDS Church. Utah is also officially known as the beehive state, an obvious LDS reference to the Book of Mormon Deseret, or honeybee.

The LDS Church is headquartered in Utah, and has been for a long while, and any dramatic legislative changes that occur will inevitably effect the image of the Church. All that being said, Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville has assured us all, including Jimmy Marcy, that “they [the LDS Church] are not the Legislature and they do not legislate policy." In fact, he even gave us an order of influence: “Legislature first and Mothers Against Drunk Driving second, followed by the restaurant and hospitality associations.” Yes, many legislators are members, but the LDS Church leaders fall into last place behind all other influencing factors regarding this reform.

Mr. Marcy, you have nothing to fear. If you’re going to be mad about an organization getting its nose into politics, visit MADD.org and speak with the mothers against drunk driving. How dare they dictate their moral standards to us! Indeed, the LDS Church is discussing nothing about faith or God or religion in regard to this issue, but merely offering persuasive advice from a moral standpoint. Treat the Church as an interested business partner. Should I go into the statistics of land and business ownership of the Church within Utah state lines?

Let me put this bluntly: given the LDS Church’s local history, local wealth, power, influence, and unique connection to the state (unlike any other in the nation), they most certainly have a special spot in the discussion of what many politicians are calling “the most significant legislation of the decade.”

Perhaps you need to spend less time in Utah and more time in Washington so you can get a feel for the true “hammerings” that occur from all sorts of organizations, politicians, and lobbyists when passing various legislature. The Mormon Church has done nothing illegal or even ill-advised. This man's commentary is just one more example of Mormon bashing by people with nothing better to do. If you feel something was illegal, email me and I'll make a special post explaining it to you in complex legal terms.

This is from Bruce L. Olsen of the LDS Public Affairs:

"The Church makes no apology for making its views known on issues that it considers essential to the well-being of Utah society. It does so as part of our democratic process, through formal lobbying of members of the legislature in the same way that other interest groups seek to explain their views."

Mr. Marcy needs to stop fearing a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition, or the religious massacres of Vlad the Impaler, or pious conquests of Saladin and Richard Lionheart. Wrong era, wrong country, wrong church. Let us all hope that his “enough is enough” statement implies immediate relocation, though perhaps this new legislation will find him the means to get himself hammered and drink away his vacuous fears of LDS command and conquer.

That’s me in the corner…

Remember that REM song with the oh so catchy tune and seemingly controversial title “Losing My Religion”? I say seemingly because the truth is that the title refers to Southern slang meaning to be “fed up” or “at the end of your rope,” at least according to Michael Stipe. Originally Warner Bros. execs didn’t want to release a record with religious symbolism but finally gave in after the lyrical explanation. Good thing too: it was a top 5 single that won a Grammy in 1992.

Why bring it up? Because everyone loves pop-up music commentary and a lot of people are having the same misconception about a national study that suggests a larger percent of Americans are rejecting…what? Organized religion.

The report, organized by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford Conn., surveyed 54,000 adults. Among the results, the survery found that 15 percent of respondents said they had no religion, compared to 8.2 percent in 1990. Members of Christianity also plummeted from 86% to 76%.

Now what’s the problem here? Or is there a problem? I’ve already heard all sorts of arguments that this is a persisting problem that involves not properly relating to a new generation – sharing the gospel in a way that connects to the current generation.

I think that is bogus.

What are you suppose to do, deliver the message of God with an electric guitar or maybe pay Hannah Montana to deliver the message? A lot of news channels are reporting this under some title like: “Americans are Becoming Less Religious”, or something along those lines. Last time I checked, 92% of Americans believed in God and considered themselves “religious”. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines “religious” as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Believing in God and being truly “religious” has nothing to do with going to church. In fact, I’ve been to quite a few churches of different religions and I can understand why many people desire to be unaffiliated with them. Additionally, it is difficult to attend church weekly or even monthly! I can fully understand when people convince themselves that they can be saved without attending a sermon or participate in highly committed social organizations. It’s difficult, but most certainly doesn’t tell us the religious inner workings of our fellow citizens.

What’s the point? This study isn’t bad news at all. Many Americans still believe in some kind of creator and some sort of after-life contingent upon our actions in this life (85% in fact). Indeed, this is wonderful news for people of my faith, the LDS Church. Although the survey shows marginal Mormon population increase in the last 7 years, no decline is certainly good news, and with a decrease in most other church attendance, this gives an opportunity for conversions.

The bad part about this study is that one may find it more difficult to believe in God without the association with other believers that many church organizations offer. This study doesn’t currently show anything, but if this 10% never join any church, it might definitely lead to an atheistic approach to life, and possibly anarchy. There is strength in numbers, but lets not assume that 10% of our nation are no longer religious, at least for a while. They're certainly not losing their religiosity, but are simply "fed up" with some of the church systems and organizations that they've belonged to.

You gotta check this out