Sexism in the Presidential Campaign

McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin - governor of Alaska - as his running mate today has me reflecting on the accusations of sexism in the coverage of this year's race. I've been skeptical of the claims of Hilary backers because she's such a unique figure. If a cable news host calls her "power hungry," is it because she's a woman, because she's is perceived to be where she is because of nepotism, because she lacks Obama's charisma, or for some other reason? It's impossible to say because not only because a woman has never been a realistic presidential candidate, but also because she's such a charged figure from the Clinton Years.

That being said, the "Commander In Chief" vetting that Palin is now undergoing doesn't pass the sniff test. Palin's resume is thin, but not barren. She's been in politics 16 years as a City Councilwoman, mayor, in various state government executive positions, and for two years as a successful governor. Contrast this to Obama's resume: 11 years in politics as a state senator and senator, as well as stint's as a community organizer and law lecturer. Neither of these resume's is clearly better than the other.

Obama is widely seen, however, as (possibly arguably) ready to be President. Yes, readiness is the central message repubs are pushing, but he is leading in the polls. I get the feeling that most people see him as a legitimate President, even if they plan on voting against him. Palin is a different story, though. My gut reaction on hearing her announcement, and what I'm guessing most people feel, is that she's clearly unready to assume the mantle. Part of this, of course, is because of the fact that most of us have never seen her before and because she's a Washington outsider. I do think the fact that she's a young, good looking woman plays a significant role, however. And make no mistake, Sarah Palin is a babe:

Veep Thoughts

If you've got nothing better to do than follow the day to day swings of the presidential election, you know that Obama is likely to announce his running mate tomorrow or Friday morning. Right now the leading contenders are said to be Evan Bayh (Indiana Senator), Joe Biden (Delaware Senator), Tim Kaine (Virginia governor) and Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas Governor). The inevitable whispers of Hilary Clinton are also out there, but they don't seem very likely - sources say she hasn't been vetted by the Obama team, and after reading about her inner circle in the Atlantic article its hard to believe we wouldn't have heard. In any case, here is my take on the four most oft-mentioned candidates.

Kathleen Sebelius

As a national co-chair of his presidential campaign, Kathleen Sebelius has earned Obama's trust and gratitude. She reminds me of Mark Warner; she is extremely popular in a deeply conservative state in spite of holding several liberal positions (pro choice, especially). Her selection, however, is not going to deliver Kansas and may come across as gimmicky. Fair or not, I think it would come across as appeasement of Hillary's supporters. Rather than uniting the party, I think divisions would be reinforced, not forgotten about. Could she be one of the biggest losers of the drawn out primary?

Tim Kaine

I'm not high at all on the Virginia governor. His light resume (Richmond City Council - ooooh, Lt. Governor, Governor) does not bring the right tone to the ticket. He's described as a rising star in the Democratic party, but I don't think any serious pundits can actually mean that. What's his signature accomplishment? Enacting hugely unpopular Abusive Driver Fees? He has no bona fides on either the economy or defense (or anything, really), and frankly, he just doesn't look good on camera. He rode Mark Warner's coattails to power in Virginia, and doesn't bring a single thing to the ticket. I'm sure that the Obama campaign is too intelligent to give him the nod, leading us to...

Joe Biden

Look at that mug! There is the seasoned vet we need. He's not afraid to be aggressive, he's an experienced and competent attack dog, and he brings all the gravitas that Kaine lacks. A senator for decades, he's got foreign policy experience coming out his ass - just witness his most recent trip (and harsh words for Russia) to Georgia! It's not surprising that he's got the most buzz right now. Are there any problems with this selection? As far as I can see, there's just one, but its major. Presidential elections for the last several decades have revolved around one of two issues: the economy and defense. Remember Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid." Remember evil doers, 9/11, and the last eight years? If Democrats can make this election about the economy, they look good. The problem with Biden is that his selection cedes the field to McCain - rather than pushing an aggressive economic message, this pick is defensive. Obama already loses the national security vote and his selection should change the playing field, not play D in a losing battle.

Evan Bayh

I can't find anything interesting to say about Evan Bayh. He's a boring speaker. He's a boring senator from a boring state. He's on the Banking and Housing/Urban Development committees, so he supposedly brings economic experience to the campaign. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't seem like he can deliver Indiana (unless Gary puts him over the top!) If he's the best 'economic message' veep candidate we can find, I'm somewhat depressed for the Democratic party. That being said, of the four most hyped options, he seems like the best to me.

Everyone Else

There are two candidates who are leaps and bounds ahead of these four, and who, unfortunately, will not be picked. The first is John Edwards. As much as I didn't love him as a presidential candidate, as much as I think he comes across as phony and insincere (the haircut, the house, the mistress, the lies), and as much as he is political poison at this point, he is a candidate driven by an economic message. The point is moot now, but before the cheating scandal, ask the average voter about John Edwards and the first thing that comes to mind is "Two Americas." That's the kind of powerful, visceral economic message we need in a vice-presidential candidate. His selection would have set the tone for the entire presidential campaign, but unfortunately thats just a fantasy at this point.
The ultimate, game-over, plan the party selection would be Mark Warner. The former Virginia governor (and soon to be freshman senator) is the best and most effective Democratic politician I've ever witnessed. He's like an authentic Mitt Romney (and if you know me, you know how I feel about my neighbor, Mitt). Warner worked for telecom regulators after law school, went on to make a fortune (on the up and up) founding Nextel, and won the Virginia Governorship. His term (limited) first term was, again, Mitt-esque. He inherited a financial crisis and was forced to renege on a campaign pledge not to raise taxes. Unfortunately, this was the death knell of his political career, as he was labeled a tax and spend governor who was out of touch with normal people, and run out of office with Bush-like approval numbers... Wait a second, that wasn't Mark Warner, it was every single other Democratic politician in the world. What actually happened is that he rescued VA from its financial crisis, got it named the best managed state in the country, left office with approval ratings in the 80s (!), and flipped two senate seats and a governorship from red to blue. As veep, he delivers Virginia, no question, and puts us in line for 16 years in the white house. Current Washington rumor has it that he's cured cancer as well, but doesn't want to politicize it by announcing this development before his current senate race is over. Unfortunately, he took a pledge not to accept the VP nod and continue serving the people of Virginia. I believe that Mark Warner will be president one day, the sooner the better!

So I got a little off track with my Warner excitement. Now I'm depressed thinking about these VP possibilities. If I had to pick one, go with Bayh for the economic message. If you want to play defense on national security take Biden. Or you could go crazy and pick Hillary for a "Unity Ticket." We'll find out tomorrow (or Friday).

I saw this on Barstoolsports. This chick is their "I don't fuck around" award winner of the week. I would have to agree.

The McCains Are Old

From Jonathon Martin's Blog:

Cindy McCain went to a Michigan hospital this afternoon after an exuberant supporter shook her hand hard enough to cause a minor sprain.

With her husband at a mid-day fundraiser in West Bloomfield, McCain was greeting donors when one offered a handshake so vigorous as to exacerbate an "existing carpal tunnel condition for which she has had previous surgeries," according to Melissa Shuffield, her spokeswoman.

McCain left the fundraiser and visited a nearby hospital where she was x-rayed and given pain relief for what Shuffield called "a minor sprain."

She is to return to the campaign trail tomorrow.

I guess this isn't the biggest story of the season, but you kind of have to question the wisdom of the doctor who prescribed her "pain relief." It's not like she doesn't know where to get it herself, after all.

Brad Sucks - I Don't Know What I'm Doing

Solid Stuff. Support independent music!

The Smyth Report: Administrative and Technical History of the Manhattan Project

The Smyth Report is the "official" U.S. government account of the administrative and technical history of the Manhattan Project. Released six days after "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima, the report's stated goal is to educate the American (and worldwide) public about the principals and capabilities of atomic energy, specifically its military applications:

"The ultimate responsibility for our nation's policy rests on its citizens and they can discharge such responsibilities wisely only if they are informed. The average citizen cannot be expected to understand clearly how an atomic bomb is constructed or how it works but there is in this country a substantial group of engineers and scientists who can understand such things and who can explain the potentialities of atomic bombs to their fellow citizens. The present report is written for this professional group and is a matter-of-fact, general account of work in the USA since 1939 aimed at the production of such bombs."

The report addresses three major areas that I find particularly interesting while occasionally providing a glimpse into the personalities and ideologies of the (mostly non-military) scientists involved with the Manhattan Project. First, its treatment of the science behind the bomb is interesting because it is both accessible and built on first principles. Rarely has such such massive research been undertaken, and the focus on applicability rather than "pure science" is easily apparent throughout the report. Lots of space is dedicated to the tension between scientific principles and industrial capacity. In fact, I was surprised by the set of challenges faced. Drawing a blueprint of an atomic bomb turns out to be fairly easy; learning how to refine the fissionable material, manufacture precision explosives, etc turns out to be the limiting factor. Interestingly, this is still true today; Iran is not limited by its technological understanding but instead by its limited industrial capacity.

The tension between the scientific and manufacturing camps raises the second interesting aspect of the Smyth Report; the administrative history of the Manhattan Project. These section really provide insight into the personalities and group dynamic that were involved. Especially regarding the issue of censorship, the report reveals the complicity (or cooperation) of U.S. scientists:

"This arrangement was very successful in preventing publication and was still nominally in effect, in modified form, in .June 1945 Actually the absorption of most physicists in this country into war work of one sort of another soon reduced the number of papers referred to the committee practically to the vanishing point, It is of interest to note that this whole arrangement was a purely voluntary one; the scientists of the country are to be congratulated on their complete cooperation. It is to be hoped that it will be possible after the war to publish these papers at least in part so that their authors may receive proper professional credit for their contributions."

Another interesting nugget is the developing tension, even then, between American heros and French cheese eating surrender monkeys. In the spring of 1939, Neils Bohr led a coalition of eminent U.S. scientists who voluntarily agreed to cease publishing relevant papers; this arrangement failed, however, due to the refusal of "F. Joliot, France's foremost nuclear physicist, apparently because of the publication of one letter in the Physical Review sent in before all Americans had been brought into the agreement. Consequently publication continued freely for about another year although a few, papers were withheld voluntarily by their authors." In it's discussion of the project's administrative history, the report helps us learn a bit more about some of the leading scientists and military leaders. Their wisdom comes through most clearly in report's summary, however.

In the conclusion, the author exhibits remarkable prescience, accurately predicting several future developments in applied atomic science and articulating ways in which the Manhattan Project fundamentally changed the world. The conclusion is short and dense; I won't summarize because the entire thing is worth reading, but this is the final paragraph of the report:

"Because of the restrictions of military security there has been no chance for the Congress or the people to debate such questions. They have been seriously considered by all concerned and vigorously debated among the scientists, and the conclusions reached have been passed along to the highest authorities. These questions are not technical questions; they are political and social questions, and the answers given to them may affect all mankind for generations. In thinking about them the men on the project have been thinking as citizens of the United States vitally interested in the welfare of the human race. It has been their duty and that of the responsible high government officials who were informed to look beyond the limits of the present war and its weapons to the ultimate implications of these discoveries. This was a heavy responsibility. In a free country like ours, such questions should be debated by the people and decisions must be made by the people through their representatives. This is one reason for the release of this report. It is a semi-technical report which it is hoped men of science in this country can use to help their fellow citizens in reaching wise decisions. The people of the country must be informed if they are to discharge their responsibilities wisely."

More than anything, this leaves me nostalgic for a government I feel like I can trust. This attitude is woefully missing from our government today, which instead reflexively hides anything the least bit controversial. I hope that future administrations will recognize the essential role an active and educated populace plays in creating good government, but frankly, I'm not optimistic.

Punctutation

Consider the following two letters, same words, different punctuation:

Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours?
Jill

Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
Yours,
Jill

Pretty funny, no?

It's all from Lynne Truss' book Eats, Shoots & Leaves, a bestseller all about punctuation. Witty book and highly recommended.

Literotica Contest

Announcing the first in a series, the NATAB Literotica Contest. Blog authors must submit and post a work of original literotica of no more than 1000 words to be judged by vote of general readership! Submissions are due by 6:00 PM Friday, August 15.

The sweet smell of sweet breads.

Crystal swore under her recently freshened breath as her high heel cracked beneath her. The gum in her mouth caught in the back of her throat and she gagged like a cat expelling a recently formed hair ball. Although she had experienced many embarrassing moments in her life - like the time at the University of Florida when she accidentally walked into a wet t-shirt contest on her way to an interview, forcing her to show up with her white oxford sticking translucently to her dark, hershey kiss shaped nipples - this might be the worst one yet. As her smooth, tanned leg folded underneath her, the skirt her much shorter roommate had lent her crept up her backside, revealing the red lace of her skimpy thong.

"Shit. Shit. Shit." She mumbled, trying to right herself, pull down her skirt, take off her heels, and mask the gag with a series of small coughs while maintaining some semblance of grace and poise. Just as she had finally stood up and put herself back together, sans shoes, she heard a noise behind her.

"Ahem."

She turned around. Standing behind her was the most gorgeous man she had ever seen. He was tall, with the broad shoulders of a lumber jack. His neck bulged with lean, sinewy muscles and his skin was dark and musty against the pale pink of his button down shirt. He was smiling at her with a Cheshire Cat grin, his white teeth shining like a row of perfectly groomed soldiers, saluting her and mocking her at the same time. A dark stubble covered the landscape of his tanned cheeks and his eyes shone with the bright blue of precious sapphires.

"I was going to help you up," he purred at her, a lion sizing up his lunch. "But it was more fun to watch you help yourself."
Crystal was flabbergasted. Not only was this man absolutely stunning, with a vibrating charm that pulsed with sexuality, his voice dripped over her like sweet molasses, hardening around her vocal cords and making it impossible for her to answer. This man just saw my thong, she thought, and wondered if she was more mortified or more turned on.
"Listen," he continued, "where do you need to go?"
She swallowed carefully and told him the name of the woman with whom she was supposed to be meeting. "Well, you'll need to take the elevator," he answered, and with one, strong, muscular hand he took her elbow and guided her roughly through the open doors.

As they watched the numbers climb towards the fourteenth floor, where Crystal knew she would have to get off, something came over her. Maybe it was the way the small, dark hairs of his chest beckoned playfully from the top of his shirt. Maybe it was the forceful manner in which he had led her into the elevator. Maybe it was the sweet smell of his cologne or the sour tang of his breath. Whatever it was, Crystal did something she had never done before. Something she had never thought she would ever do. She pressed the emergency button and stopped the elevator.

She turned back around and saw the same look of amusement and appreciation in the man's eyes. He crept toward her like a cat about to pounce on his prey. Her round, perky breasts rose and fell quickly as she stood there, waiting for what seemed like an eternity for him to touch her. He grabbed her by the hips and pulled her toward her. She felt his bulge thicken against her thigh as he lightly pulled on the skin of her neck with his teeth. Beads of sweat flowed between her breasts, down her taut, glistening abdomen as she buried her fingers in his thick, curly brown hair. "Take me," she groaned as his tongue darted in and out, teasing the essence of her aching womanhood.

He worked his way slowly down, from her ear lobe to the v of skin that her shirt revealed. Then he carefully unbuttoned each button, biting her gently and sucking softly on her breasts and stomach. She moaned and felt her red thong dampen between her legs. The stranger responded by pulling her leg up around his waist and pressing her hard against the elevator wall. He let his fingers trace the valley behind her knee, trail up the back of her thigh, and feel the moist wetness of her vagina. He let one finger explore the area, then two, then three. Before she knew it, his entire fist was inside of her, causing explosions of pleasure to devastate her body like an atomic test ground. He allowed her to teeter on the brink of orgasm, and then he pulled out his fist and grabbed her arm, telling her gruffly to lie down on her stomach. She did so, panting with anticipation as he carefully pulled her skirt up towards her head and pulled her thong down around her ankles. He entered her from behind, thrusting so deep she felt like he was touching her soul with his glistening, gigantic member. Quickly, she felt the blood rushing between her thighs, the exquisite pain of her orgasm pulsing under her skin, up her body, and out her fingers. She screamed. She couldn't help it. But he wasn't quite done. Just as he came, he pulled out his bratwurst and she felt the warmth of his semen spilling over her soft, prostrate buttocks. It dripped down her like opalescent tear drops, leaving a pearly trail of passion.
The stranger stood up and pulled his pants back on. He restarted the elevator as Crystal pushed down her skirt and put on her underwear. Just as they reached the fourteenth floor, he pulled her towards him, kissed her hard and long on the mouth, and whispered in her ear:
"Nice underwear."

Homer Simpson Euro

MADRID (Reuters) - A one euro coin has turned up in Spain bearing the face of cartoon couch potato Homer Simpson instead of that of the country's king, a sweetshop owner told Reuters on Friday.

Jose Martinez was counting the cash in his till in the city of Aviles, northern Spain, when he came across the coin where Homer's bald head, big eyes and big nose had replaced the serious features of King Juan Carlos.

"The coin must have been done by a professional, the work is impressive," he told Reuters.

The comical carver had not taken his tools to the other side of the coin displaying the map of Europe. So far, no other coins of the hapless, beer-swilling oaf have been found in circulation.

"I've been offered 20 euros for it," said Martinez.

Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist, the newest Smashing Pumpkins album, was released in the U.S. on July 10, 2007. I remember Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness mostly for the singles, especially Bullet with Butterfly Wings. What I notice most about this release is the totally recognizable and unique sound of Billy Corgan's work. More so than almost any other album I'm listening to right now, Zeitgeist is a coherent album rather than a collection of songs. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the Pumpkins' sound is so unusual, but I have the feeling that many of the songs from Siamese Dream or Mellon Collie wouldn't sound right on this album. It's like a planet, and each track is a different aerial shot. Songs like Neverlost and Bleeding the Orchid are like high aerial shots, surveying the planet and setting the tone of the rest of the album.



Both remind me of the Pixies "Where is My Mind," especially in terms of the haunting choral background. In both cases the effect is to create a haunting, wide open atmosphere that imparts a sense of yearning to the music. Amongst these album defining tracks are others like "Bring the Light." If Neverlost is an aerial survey of a country, Bring the Light is a snapshot of a city block: a different sound and feeling, but undeniably part of the larger whole.



I especially like the solo at 2:00 of this song. It's got the usual guitar layering, but what I really like is that it's a short, punchy, powerful solo set in a much more wandering soundscape. The way it drives the song for 20 seconds is a really cool contrast to the solo at the end of Neverlost, which rides along with the background rather than cutting through it. There are little quirks like this all over the album; right when you think you're descending into a melancholy abyss, you're woken up with angry hard rock. Though it's not always what you'd expect, Zeitgeist is a really satisfying listen as an entire album. Do yourself a favor and throw it on headphones when you have a chance to listen to the whole thing uninterrupted. The first few times I listened to it piecemeal I was totally unimpressed, but since getting a sense for the whole thing its been one of my favorite albums.

Save Money at the Gas Pump....

By voting for Obama!

Paris Hilton

I love Paris Hilton. Most people don't know that she inherited less than five million dollars. Now that's not peanuts, but there are literally thousands of kids in their late teens and twenties who inherit that much money and would kill to be Paris Hilton. She's taken no discernible skill or talent and built an empire. She's hugely rich now, and its almost all self made. Fuckin' a right. And it's pretty sad that she has a more intelligent take on energy policy than John McCain. Our. Country. Is. Fucked.

Oprah Has the Power to Pick the Next President

According to a study by economists Tim Moore and Craig Garthwaite of UMD, Oprah is omnipotent. Though they aren't the first scholars to note this fact, no one has yet applied her influence to politics. In fact, the authors attempt to show that her endorsement swung the Democratic primary to Obama. In short, it was worth between 423,123 and 1,596,995 votes with 95% confidence, and:

"Barack Obama received 278,966 more votes that Hillary Clinton. Given that 423,123, the lower bound of the estimated impact of the endorsement is greater than this difference, the results suggest that Oprah's endorsement was responsible for the difference in the popular vote between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

The study used 'O' magazine subscription data as a proxy for Oprah's influence. The authors found that this variable was significantly positively correlated with both votes cast for Obama and overall turnout (both .95 confidence).

"For example, a 10% change in the county-level circulation of 'Oprah' is associated with an increased vote share for Obama of approximately .2 percentage points... In total, we estimate that the endorsement was responsible for 1,015,559 votes for Obama."

As a point of reference, county wide voting results were more influenced (per individual) by gender, age, and education than 'O' readership. Subscriptions were more predictive than factors like veterans population, urban/suburban mix, or unemployment, however. Holy Shit.
This study reinforces some notions that I had, and drops one huge bombshell. First, everyone knows that Oprah is powerful. She's been named to Time Magazine's list of 100 most influential people more than any other individual in history. She's the highest earning celeb year after year (270 million in 2007). Sales of books in her book club routinely jump 10,000% (!) upon inclusion. The list goes on and on. What I didn't expect, however, was the importance of celebrity endorsements to political outcomes. I doubt most observers would tell you that her endorsement effected the outcome, and that's what is so exciting about studies like this. They give you important information that isn't necessarily intuitive. This particular endorsement by Oprah probably represents the absolute upper bound of the impact of celebrity endorsements. She's the most powerful celebrity today not only in terms of media exposure and income, but also in her ability to drive consumer preferences amongst her fans. This makes her uniquely situated to effect electoral outcomes. Additionally, her political "brand" hasn't been contaminated by previous endorsements or political speech, putting her in a unique position to speak to many voters. I wonder whether other celebrity endorsements will be found to have a significant effect (the authors point to Chuck Norris's endorsement of Mike Huckabee as one possibility). Also, the authors point out that the celebrity endorsement effect may be most pronounced in primaries, where differences are mostly personal rather than ideological. After all, a non-politician celebrity is uniquely positioned to reinforce personal characteristics, but probably is not credible on the policy battleground.
I wouldn't say this paper is overwhelmingly convincing; the authors come up with a model and then think of everything they can to control for, rather than coming up with a particularly elegant framework. That being said, it's definitely good food for thought. If you've read this far, there's a chance that you might actually check out the study. Don't bother with the discussion of model building - it's not really necessary to understand either their methodology or results. Read the into and then skip right to the good stuff.

Smell and Learning

We've all heard about the unique roll played by olfaction in the panoply of human sensory experience (!). Smells trigger the most enduring and vivid memories, humans are better at discriminating subtly different smells than other sensory inputs, etc. This article in the New York Times retreads a lot of this ground, but one thing stood out to me in particular:

"In one experiment, Dr. Gottfried said, subjects exposed to a single floral scent for just three and a half minutes markedly improved their ability to discriminate among whole families of flower odors. In another, participants soon learned to distinguish normally undetectable differences between one herbal smell and its mirror-image molecular twin if they were given mild electric shocks every time they guessed wrong."

I don't think this study is interesting because of what it tells us about smell, but because of what it tells us about learning. Presumably, participants could not learn to discriminate between the scents under normal conditions. When a shock was applied, however, their learning ability increased. I wonder if subjects merely concentrated more because of the shock threat, or if there's some other mechanism at work. Would they learn at all (or as well) if there were a set number of learning trials before the shocks began? Presumably participants would have the same incentive to learn if they knew shocks were imminent. Obviously, incentives can change learning outcomes. But this study seems to show that incentives can change the capacity to learn, which is surprising to me. Anyone know the mechanism at work, or any other research along this avenue?