Reality-Based Community

Wikipedia's article on the term reality-based community has an interesting nugget. The term was originally used by people inside the Bush administration to refer to people who advocate decisions based on analysis of evidence. Obviously this is in contrast to a faith-based community. Here's an interesting encounter that a reporter had with a Bush aide in 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

"Discernible reality"?!

Mencken Quote

Maybe I shouldn't be quoting a racist, but I thought this was a funny way of putting the current state of affairs in America:

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

-- H.L. Mencken, 1920

I also thought this was a funny quote from the same guy, and it applies whether you're religious or not:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Don't Hassle the Hoff

I feel like making a quick tribute to Hasselhoff today. BTW I'm not gay. No, really, I'm not.

Harper to the Rescue

The CBC is reporting that Stephen Harper is going to take a detour on his way home from the G8 meeting and personally rescue a few Canadians stranded amongst the current violence in Lebanon. Before leaving for Cyprus, he's going to leave non-critical staff behind to make room for as many civilians as possible on the trip home to Canada.

When I first read that, I immediately thought "Ugh! He's just trying to look like a hero. It's 100% photo-op" but then I told myself not to be so cynical. After all, he is helping people by doing this, so why question his intentions?

Officials said only Harper's wife, Laureen, and a couple of his communications staff and his official photographer, will fly to Cyprus with him.

Right. Critical staff. Like his god damned official photographer. Bleh, oh well, I'm sure Paul Martin would've done the same.

Pregnancy 'Resource' Centres

Some U.S. congressman organised a test to see whether "crisis pregnancy centres" were giving accurate information to pregnant teens who called them up. These crisis centres are mostly run by religious groups, which is fine, except...

20 of the 23 centers reached by the investigators (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion.

The misleading or dishonest information was broken down into three categories: abortions cause breast cancer, abortions cause fertility problems, and abortions are more traumatic than giving birth. From this article:

Eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that "all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would "affect the milk developing in her breasts" and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
[...]
Seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to "many miscarriages" or to "permanent damage" so "you wouldn't be able to carry," telling the caller that this is "common" and happens "a lot."
[...]
However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion "goes up by seven times." Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is "much like" that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and "is something that anyone who's had an abortion is sure to suffer from."

I have no idea what a pregnant teen goes through, but having an impartial person to talk to would obviously help. I mean, maybe some freaked-out boyfriend or parent is pushing for an abortion or whatever. So why do these places have to screw it up with cherry-picked info and outright lies?

I thought this was interesting, from Wikipedia:

Pro-choice advocates have accused crisis pregnancy centers of deliberately misinforming women on abortion and birth control. On March 30, 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced a bill called the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act", which aims to hold crisis pregnancy centers up to truth in advertising standards.

I think it's hilarious that laws even have to be passed for stuff like that. Just like advertising firms, some religious groups have priorities they put above the teen's own interests, so similar laws have to be put in place to protect teens from disinformation. Some of these places are run by a group now called Care Net, originally the Christian Action Council. This article quotes a spokeswoman from Care Net saying that the breast cancer, fertility and trauma stats are accurate despite scientific consensus saying otherwise. At least they believe what they're telling teens then... I guess.

I googled "pregnancy in London, ON" and exactly two locations showed up within the city limits. Both of them are pro-life groups. The London Crisis Pregnancy Center on Piccadilly St has some insane statistics on post abortion stress; stuff like "65% consider suicide" and "100% feel regret." The other one is Birthright International that has a place on Richmond St. I can't tell from their web site whether they're honest or not:

BIRTHRIGHT DOES NOT
...use "scare tactics" or pressure.
...show abortion slides or pictures.
...picket or harass abortion clinics.
...evangelize.
...lobby for legislative changes or engage in the public debate on abortion.

Cutest. Thing. Evar.

From Cute Overload:

The Wal-Mart Effect

Numeric life sums up a study on Wal-Mart from Discover magazine:

A group of Penn State agricultural economists find in (US) counties with new Wal-Mart stores, the usage of food-stamps is 100% higher. They blame Wal-Mart causing the collapse of mom-and-pop local business networks and low wages.

Maaaybe Wal-Mart simply builds new stores in counties that already use lots of food stamps, but I doubt it. Once you're an employee of Wal-Mart, you can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart. And get your insurance through Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart becomes a form of company store for some people. I highly recommend the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price for anyone interested in such stuff.

Zombie Game

This is the most insane experiment ever. Derren Brown hypnotises this dude with a video game, kidnaps him, and wakes him up in a real-life version. The guy freaks out. If it's not a hoax then it's a huge gamble legally (or maybe not in the UK?). The video is 10 minutes.

Harper's Plan 5uX0rZ

I didn't read the corresponding study yet but I like some of the "well duh" headlines in the CBC article, such as:

   Problems will continue under Tory plan: study, and

   Poor areas will be hurt most, analyst warns, and

   Working parents not well-served.

God damned $1200 rebate.

When Condoms Cost $1000

I try to avoid televised sports so, instead of watching the World Cup match between France and that other country (Poland? Paraguay? Meh, something like that), I'm browsing the operations research category in Wikipedia.

Here's a gem: the safe sex makespan problem.

The safe sex makespan problem is used in operations research as an example that the cheapest capital cost often leads to dramatic increase in operational time, but that the shortest operational time need not be given by the most expensive capital cost.

M men are each to have safe sex with N women using condoms. Each condom can be used any number of times, but the same side of one condom cannot be exposed to more than one person. Condoms can be re-used any number of times, and more than one can be used simultaneously.

Given M men and N women, the minimum number of condoms C(M,N) required for all the men to have safe sex with all the women is given by:

• C(M,N) = M + N - 2 if both M,N >= 2
• C(M,1) = M
• C(1,N) = N
• C(1,1) = 1

Those dirty OR people and their hot safe-sex orgies. At least I'll never have to worry about this particular problem.

Open Access Publishing

Wikipedia has an article on Open access (OA), an alternative to the pay-for-subscription publishing model.

Tell Me About It