There’s a nice guide to flip-flopping in the New Republic.

Do you remember when conservatives used to speak warmly, and sometimes rapturously, about Barack Obama? That was back when they were certain that the Clinton voodoo magic would make Hillary the nominee, and Obama her sympathetic roadkill. Since then, the right has made the horrifying discoveries that Obama is, successively, a left-wing ideologue, a coddler of anti- Americanism, a wine-sipping elitist, and, now, a shameless flip-flopper. The man will say anything, discard any position, in order to win the election.

Whimsley explores the poles of political thinking on economic issues.

Imagine a society where everyone gets the same income. Then the income of one quarter of the population suddenly increases by a factor of five while the income of the other three quarters stays the same. How would we compare the society before and after this jolt of riches? Here are some common reactions:

* The average income has doubled. The new world is better than the old.
* Most people in the society have seen no change. The new world is not really different from the old world.
* There is increased inequality. The new world will be marked by unequal access to power and by failing democratic institutions. The new world is worse than the old.
* … and on and on. You know the drill.

He quotes two Op-eds that take opposite views and concludes but they are both correct because they are addressing different aspects of the same idea - that regulation and the market are different ways to ration access to goods.

Some scarce, essential goods (health care, education, defense, crime- and fire-fighting) are provided most efficiently by governments; others (cellphones, clothing, cars) are provided most efficiently by the market.

No conflict.

The trick is knowing which is which.

The Ranger makes a point that I have made a thousand times, comparing american nature documentaries to British ones:

To The Ranger’s British eyes, this American clip seems almost patronising and childish in its presentation. And yet the content is little different; the difference is purely stylistic. It represents another interesting cultural difference across the Atlantic. And of course, The Ranger is forced to wonder, what do viewers in the US and elsewhere think of the BBC’s Attenborough style of natural history presentation? Do they find these scholarly discourses dull and dusty? Do they long for the commentator to chuckle in an avuncular manner or say “Whooa!”?

Compare for yourself.

National Geographic:

BBC:

Another difference that The Ranger does not observe is that US documentaries are usually hosted by Hollywood actors while British ones are usually hosted by scientists.

Moral? If you want to do cool science, become an actor.

Nature documentaries was my favourite genre as I was growing up but now I can barely stand to watch them. When we discovered around episode three that the magnificent Planet Earth was originally narrated by David Attenborough, we turned it off and pledged to buy the British version on DVD so we wouldn’t have to listen to any more Sigourney Weaver.

I was delighted to find that someone had left me the full lyrics for Judas and Mary I love strangers!

They are my favourite people. So kind. It made my morning.

The hymn sheet story was also a good excuse to get in touch with Mark who used to operate the other Hymn Sheet Contraption. He claims that he and Iain Turner were much faster than Graham Burton and I because Iain was a giant and Mark was really quick with numbers. If course, I don’t believe him because he also claims that he beat me in my very first 100 metres and everyone knows that’s just patently untrue.

The track at Chis and Sid was on not-very-well-kept grass (in the winter it was a rugby pitch) and was carefully arranged so that the home straight was up hill against a constant headwind. It made long distance races brutal because you’d be trying for a big finish but as you turned the corner a gale would kick up and you’d be struggling up the hill as your last reserves of energy seeped away.

Anyway, our school was big on sports and everyone had to do rugby or cross-country in the winter and cricket or athletics in the summer. Our summer PE lessons would have us going through all the track and field events one by one and the first we ever did was the 100 metres and I was in the same race as Mark.

It being my very first race and all, I didn’t know how to pace myself and I started rather slow. By 50m, I was a few paces behind the pack but I had a big finish and passed several people in the last 20m. I just managed to squeak by Mark at the finish line to finish in 14.2sec (that sounds crap, but remember it was uphill and against the wind and we were only 12).

Mark still maintains that he beat me that spring day in 1978 but we both know the real truth. I think the only way to resolve this issue is if we have a re-match.

How about it Mark? Are you scared?

For a whole weekend, my children and I were doing our bit to prevent global warming.

Click image for more

I think I would have to be pretty hungry before I attacked a crocodile.

See more pictures and find out who won at Zooillogix.

Very funny video, Even for people who don’t know any chemistry.

[This one got stuck in the 'drafts' bucket because I enjoyed his book so much that I want to write a worthy review. Sorry, Steve Grand. I have moved on.]

If I became suddely independently wealthy, I would be doing what this guy is doing:

One of the things I often find myself talking to the public about, for example, is the increasingly inescapable evidence that we are machines; that a human mind in all its glory is a mechanical consequence of the lawful interactions between trillions of very simple moving parts, and not some kind of vitalistic magical essence attached by a silver thread to a body. For most people this is very hard news to take, and they rebel against it. “What about culture?”, they say. “What about free will?” “How dare you suggest I’m some kind of jumped-up pocket calculator!” But as an engineer I have a huge respect for machinery and see things differently. Recognizing that we are machines doesn’t demean us at all; it just shows us what astounding and beautiful things machines are capable of. I find it awe-inspiring.

Read the interview.

Read the book.

Both outstanding.

Anyone play his game?

[another half finished post. no idea what it was about or who said it]

Senator Hillary Clinton’s use of the phrase “elite opinion” to dismiss the near unanimous opposition of economists to her proposal for a gas tax holiday was a landmark in the use of elite to attack expertise supposedly beyond the comprehension of average Americans. One might as well say that there is no point in consulting musicians about music or ichthyologists about fish.

[every now an then I go back and hit publish on half-finished drafts. Today is such a day.]

It’s the high numbers in Azerbaijan (42%) and Nigerian (60%) that scare me.