It is really nice to have a legit President (one who was actually elected) and one that can speak English really, really well.
Transcript of Obama's inauguration speech.
Analysis by Stanley Fish.
Hooray! We've only been working on this paper for about four years. We added a major dimension to the statistical analysis (major regroupings for ANOVA), re-ran all the analysis, then the dataset was cleaned up so we had to re-run everything again on slightly different variables, then revisions and more revisions. All three authors have moved since we started.
Davidson, R., Poor, N., Williams, A. (Forthcoming). Stratification and global elite theory: A cross-cultural and longitudinal analysis of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research.
Wow, I had no idea that was the title. I wasn't in charge of that part, I did all the analysis and SPSS work.
Dear Dr. Davidson,
Thank you very much for your revised manuscript "Stratification and Global Elite Theory: A Cross-Cultural and Longitudinal Analysis of Public Opinion" and your extensive letter to the editor specifying how you dealt with the remarks of the reviewers. We are delighted to let you know that we will publish your article in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research under the condition that you make a slightly revised version of the manuscript based on the remarks in your manuscript.
Technologically, biologically, culturally. Think diversity of opinion.
The president’s elderly stepgrandmother brought him an oxtail fly whisk, a mark of power at home in Kenya. Cousins journeyed from the South Carolina town where the first lady’s great-great-grandfather was born into slavery, while the rabbi in the family came from the synagogue where he had been commemorating Martin Luther King’s Birthday. The president and first lady’s siblings were there, too, of course: his Indonesian-American half-sister, who brought her Chinese-Canadian husband, and her brother, a black man with a white wife.
Too many companies out there have not understood that they are content delivery companies, and instead become fixed on the idea that they are solely about delivering that content over one (or primarily one) type of channel.
The music industry... Even though they had seen transformations from vinyl to CD, they also had cassette and 8-track in the mix, but lately they became obsessed with CDs and only CDs. If they had understood that they were a content company, and needed to deliver their content over a variety of channels (like the Internet), they would have managed the transition much better.
The movie industry, despite Jack Valenti's famous Boston Strangler comment, seemed to deal with VCRs, DVDs, rental stores, and now online delivery a little better.
Newspapers still haven't figured it out, and have been struggling with and against digital distribution networks for about 30 years. Yes they're online now, and I think the NYT is slowly figuring it out (multimedia, photo essays, and I especially like some of the blogs there), but they think they are newspaper companies. No no, newspaper companies [sic], that's your channel. You're a content company. You have content. Your business plan is to deliver it in the best way(s) possible. If newspaper is not the best channel, then find the best channel(s). Maybe papers, the web, and TV. Yes I just said TV. How about a (satellite?) radio channel? Yes, there is value in the newspaper distribution network, but the primary value is the information.
I am very tempted to title this "Food Porn" but I think some people don't know the phrase (no it does not typically mean anything to do with porn, it's just foodies have a similar reaction to it). But, the photos are beautiful. Makes me think I need to re-post all the food from my defunct UM blog.
Thai Food Blog
Two things in the media have been rather horribly wrong, although the second one was only today but two things was one too many.
The NY Post, which is very trashy and revels in being so, had the big front page splash (pun intended) about the airplane landing safely in the Hudson. The call it the "Miracle on the Hudson." Sorry, no, that assumes that the pilots didn't know what they were doing, and that they were doomed to crash and many people were going to die, except that some unknown, invisible force (which had just moments before thrown some birds in the engines, so nice!), intervened. ("Engines Missing" is the headline, well yes, they do tend to get ripped off the plane in the event of a water landing, so, no surprise that they're not attached -- but they're not missing, they're just at the bottom of the river.)
The pilots on American commercial jetliners are heavily trained in dealing with emergencies and are highly qualified to do so. No miracle, just good training, and the good foresight to train pilots in case of emergency. Luckily there was enough open space on the Hudson, which is fairly large, but it is also full of boats. Hitting a boat is probably worse than hitting a bird.
But, the Post is trash. It's like the Boston Herald. Waste of paper.
The second, also annoying, is how in the many Bush reviews now that he is finally leaving, too many commentators are unproblematically saying that Bush has had, over his eight years, both record high and low approval ratings, with the low being current (and for a while), and the high being right after 9/11.
Except, his high approval rating after 9/11 wasn't an approval rating for him at all.
That's why we have training (like pilots!) in survey methodology. Just because you ask a question that looks simple and straightforward doesn't mean that it is. Human psychology is way too complex for it to be that easy. Of course, Bush didn't do anything after 9/11 except make some speeches, so there wasn't much to approve of. What people were responding to was showing faith in their country and patriotism. The President is, among other things, a figurehead, a human representation of the country. Expressing faith in the president is, in some cases, equivalent to expressing faith in the nation. Given that Al Qaeda had just shown us that we shouldn't have had much faith in our nation's ability to defend itself from terrorism (did you forget the first time they tried to destroy the WTC in 1993? You did? Shame on you! Didn't think they'd try again, huh? Complacency!), many people felt it was an important time to express faith in their nation. (The horribly sad story of the complete failure of the communications on that day is so depressing -- given how good the republicans are on security, you think they would have done something about that ahead of time -- oh, they didn't did they? They didn't defend us from the worst (so far) terrorist attack on US soil -- how good at security are they, you have to wonder. If they were any good, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.)
Here it is right here in the NYT today.
In surveys that began with Gallup polling in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mr. Bush has the distinction of being the president with both the highest and lowest approval ratings. The highest, 90 percent, was recorded shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
One of those supposed "Ancient Chinese Proverbs" (might actually be, how to tell?), I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I learn. That's why we have students do in-class exercises, presentations, and write papers and exams -- so they do things, and learn. Like sports. Do you: listen to descriptions of basketball to learn it, watch tape to learn it, or, do you actually practice which means you are doing the sport? You do, and you learn. Yes you listen and watch too, but, you do.
So, this is old hat.
MIT just got on board with its physics classes. Nice!
Highly annoyed by the advertisements for the new TV show, Lie to Me. Basic cop/mystery show (like CSI, Law and Order, NCIS, etc.) and the twist is the main character who can tell, based on body language alone, if someone is lying. The premise here is that non-verbal communication (that's the term of art in the academy) is a dead giveaway, is readable, and is accurate.
That's a lie. It isn't.
I've taught it, so, I've read the material. And if it is so easy, then why can only the main character do it? I think there is a connection between the idea that it is easy to figure this stuff out with the idea that yes, untrained idiots can easily spot terrorists. As others have pointed out, when you have amateurs doing terrorist surveillance, you get amateur-level security (for instance, see Patrick Smith's "The Hazards of Flying While Muslim", and the horrible story of an innocent techno-art student almost being shot by police).
The only amusing thing here is that one of the advertisements for Lie to Me, like the recent NFL ads, uses a Morrissey song (Glamorous Glue, in this case). Two in one year, that's a record.
I recently realized how architecture and cooking are pretty much the same thing. Artistic and scientific (if you doubt that cooking good food has anything to do with science, watch Alton Brown). Different regions of the world have their own versions of both that are easily recognizable. Often made to reflect local materials. Both are good. Often, simpler is better.
Three items for you, dear reader ("dear reader" is so Victorian of me, I don't believe I actually do that, I think it is funny but personal). This way you don't have to read my writing, you can read someone else!
Bono (of U2 of course!) in an NYT opinion piece.
An article about Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu Linux. If you do not know what... no no, read it anyways if you do. I haven't actually read it yet. That is how much faith I have in it being something you need to know! And this is only the second time I recall seeing the word "hegemony" in an NYT article, so, must read. Here's a snippet:
Close to half of Google’s 20,000 employees use a slightly modified version of Ubuntu, playfully called Goobuntu.
Two items today: A very bad online survey (sadly most surveys I take online have problems), and the statistical package R makes the NYTimes!
Let's start with R. You can read about R in the NYT story, or on Wikipedia, or go to R's homepage itself.
But, what I want to point you to (besides R's open source status), is the horrible quote in the NYT article from a marketing shill from SAS, a competing statistics program (along with SPSS and Stata).
...Anne H. Milley, director of technology product marketing at SAS. She adds, “We have customers who build engines for aircraft. I am happy they are not using freeware when I get on a jet.”
Q: Which two of the following categories are most important to you, meaning you would not be willing to cut your spending if you needed to spend less on something?
