WulfCry Weblog

I’m sorry. I know I don’t usually post sciency stuff, but Gigantor the Space Age Robot is pretty darn cool! Full story is here.

Special delivery

When Endeavour docks at the space station late Wednesday, the crew will quickly get to work by retrieving pieces of a massive robot named Dextre with the shuttle’s robotic arm.

Astronauts are slated to spend two spacewalking days assembling the 1.72-ton robot, which will use two 11-foot (3.4-meter) arms, gripper-like “hands” and a tool belt to gently replace failed components outside the space station. The Canadian Space Agency built the new robot to help relieve station astronauts of the more routine maintenance work outside the ISS.

“Dextre is ‘Gigantor the Space Age Robot,’ is what I think,” said [Rick] Linnehan, who will partake in the device’s assembly. “He’s massive and crawls around the station. He’s got two big arms and he’s got all these appendages and tools to plug in. It’s pretty wild.”

Before Dextre is put together outside of the ISS, however, astronauts willinstall the Japanese Logistics
Pressurized (JLP) module — that nation’s first room in space, and the first of three Kibo laboratory components.
“For the first time we’ll have representatives from four nations; from Russia, from the U.S., from Europe and from Japan,” [Takao] Doi [of Japan] said of the JLP’s installation, calling his own participation a dream come true. “Some people have been working on this program more than 25 years, it’s just unbelievable.”

The STS-123 crew will also spend two other days outside the airlock to test heat-resistant tile repair methods and replace bearings in a damaged solar array joint.

My son would love this stuff.

Hope is tomorrow’s veneer over today’s disappointment.
- Evan Esar

More on open primaries.

Jan’s response to my last post implied disbelief that anyone would vote in the primary of the opposition party just to promote a more beatable candidate. I know it happened, though, and the only question is on what scale.

The anecdotal evidence I have is from listening to Hugh Hewitt on my drive home yesterday. He was taking calls from republicans in Texas and Ohio. Of the three calls I listened to, two people had crossed over and voted for Hillary because she would be easier to beat. One of them said that his polling place had large stacks of forms to change your party affiliation on the spot to do exactly this, and people were waiting in line for the opportunity. The third was very proud that she had voted for McCain, but said her son had crossed over, and “felt so dirty he had to go home and take a shower.”

And well he should. Again, I know it’s tactically sound, but shouldn’t democracy be more about getting the best candidates, and not about ensuring you can force your will on others. The country as a whole benefits from making sure the two major candidates in November actually represent the people who voted for them. The “crossing over” technique cheapens and already cheap process.

More evidence comes from a Cleveland Plain Dealer article:

“I voted for Hillary,” said Republican Eric Klieber, 56, of Cleveland Heights. “John McCain has a better chance of beating her than Barack Obama. . . . If the Democratic race was decided, I’m sure a lot of them would vote for the candidate less likely to win.”

Clinton was the defector’s choice in Cincinnati, too. In Hyde Park, an affluent neighborhood, a volunteer for Clinton said a number of Republicans told her they voted for Clinton in hopes of seating a Republican in the White House in November.

“It doesn’t bother me,” Brenda Weaver said, while passing out campaign literature outside a church. “I say, ‘Way to go, more votes for her!’ ”

I’m not sure what’s more disturbing, here. The utter lack of recognition of this process by mainstream media (I had to search long and hard to find the Cleveland article) or the fact that the Clinton Campaign is okay with this. Either way, I would really like to see demographic studies done to see how much of Clinton’s win in Ohio came from such tactics. It would be much harder to track in Texas, but it’s a question that needs asking.

I’d like to believe that if such information became public, Clinton would give up the ghost and do what’s best for her party, but then, I’ve already pointed out that democrats are retarded, and I don’t think it will ever happen. She’s really like a chihuahua clamped down on the jugular of the Democratic primaries. At this point, if she wins the nomination, McCain wins. Even if she loses, her dragging out the nomination only bleeds democratic resources and splits the democratic vote. Either way, McCain wins.

So a plea to the Chihuahua–let go.

To know a man, observe how he wins his object, rather than how he loses it; for when we fail our pride supports us; when we succeed, it betrays us.

–Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832)

Those of you who have talked to me know that I am generally a fan of open primaries. Indeed, I was very upset that I wasn’t able to vote on Super Tuesday, since I am a registered Independent. Allowing Independents and moderates to vote helps ensure that the options are not as polar as they have been in the past, and generally gives more people a voice. In addition, the votes of Obamacans have helped Obama succeed where he otherwise may have not.

The results of the Republican Primaries, however, have made open primaries in the remaining races more treacherous, though. Now that McCain has more or less sealed the deal, Republicans have little motivation to vote in their party’s primary, and every incentive to f*** with the democratic race. Indeed, some conservative bloggers have proposed doing just that.

Fortunately, Ohio is closed, but Texas is wide open. In a race against Clinton, McCain would likely pull most of the independent and moderate vote. In addition, with Clinton as such a divisive figure, many democrats may stay home. Considering also that Obama is likely to get both Obamacans and many independents, as well as the fact that he has far more potential to get college kids off their asses to vote, that means that Republicans have a much better shot in the general election if Clinton gets the nod.

I foresee shenanigans in the Texas primary. It is far more tactically sound for republicans to cross the line and vote Clinton in Texas. It’s also disingenuous, though, and would disenfranchise liberals and moderates. I hope Republicans will do the honest thing, instead of the politically expedient thing.

Regardless, I am forced to reconsider my stand on open primaries, at least in the late races where there is so much potential for a farcical outcome. Perhaps the answer is semi-open primaries, where registered Independents can vote in either primary, but Democrats are precluded from Republican races and vice versa. I still like the option to choose, though. Hopefully, people will do the right thing and vote for who they most want as president (even if it means a protest vote for Romney) rather than trying to set up a dishonest victory for their candidate by voting for a vulnerable opposition.

The results on March 4 should be interesting.

“Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.”
–Paul Valery (1871 - 1945), Tel Quel 2 (1943)

Law school has pretty much hammered into me that assertions need support, and every sentence needa a footnote. That isn’t such a bad thing, except that I tend to have little time to research / write on a topic, and ADD (combined with the use of different computers for different tasks) demands that I lose my sources between the research and writing periods of an entry. I decided that if I was ever to post on this site again, I’d have to bend the rules and take a page from my older brother’s handbook, and put the burden on the reader to find sources to refute my assertions. So here goes: And If you question any of my assertions, email me (or comment) and I will give you the source(s).

Gods know I’ve gotten some flack for being an economic conservative (of the “spend less” kind, not the laissez faire kind; see below) and suporting Barack Obama. There are absolutely some policies of his with which I disagree. His education plan, for example contains some government programs that I think would be better served by placing more reliance on the family unit. But I think he has a far better chance of reaching across the isle and acting for America than either McCain or Clinton. In addition, He is far more likely to be less hawkish than either of them, and less likely to serve corporate interests than Clinton. Don’t get me wrong, my belief in the need for a viable third party makes me half hope McCain or Clinton will win, only because their victory will show the American people how establishment candidates will be more of the same Washington Party (term stolen from Charles Goyette). But the issue that stands out to me the most is the economy.

Clinton is too beholden to corporate interests to make a change, and McCain too dependent on the Republican base to try for any meaningful resistance (let alone the fact that he has endorsed Bush’s tax cuts with the sole reservation of spending). But change in overall economic policy is needed, beyond just spending cuts. Recently, the median income has only risen an average of 1% per year. Income rates for college graduates has actually fallen. Being poor, I would like to blame the rich, but the top percentile (no, not the top decile) of earners has a rate of growth comparable to the median. Only the top 1/2 of 1% has seen any real growth. That means that any real growth.

The logical conclusion is that the rise we have seen in GDP (and there has been) is a product of those 1/500, or corporations. Now a laissez faire market tends to lean towards trusts (monopolies), and the tepid growth rates for the average worker (and even professionals) tends to belie the fact that savings in corporate earnings translate to higher wages. Yet the positive impact of corparate investment (on both technological progress and unemployment) also makes me pause to increase corporate tax rates. The solution, then seems thus:

1.) Increase enforcement of antitrust laws. THis should be coupled with both restrictions on mergers and support for small businesses. After all, small businesses are more dependent on good help, and are more likely to pay a decent wage.

2.) Increased taxes / regulations on the highest 1/2 of 1%. CEO’s do NOT need to make that much money, and old money lends itself to an aristocracy.

3.) Protection of American industry. Globalization is GREAT for the poor in other countries, but I can’t help but see what it does to the working class at home. As someone who’s worked in customer service, an industry increasingly shipped overseas, I can see the harm it does to American workers. Besides, what would’ve happened in World War II if all our steel mills were in China? Or Japan? We have to be self-sufficient, and we ave to make sure American Workers have a living wage. Neither of those happen when our workers compete with those willing to take $1 per hour to people working 70 hours per week. The result is that crucial industries move beyond our control, and our standard of living stagnates.

For the reasons stated above, Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to fix this.

I ran across this interesting article about education reform and candidates’ reluctance to address it on the campaign trail. As a largely conservative critique of both Democratic candidates and teacher’s unions, it predictably harps on teacher accountability. Not to downplay accountability–as a former teacher I have seen firsthand the typical product when there is no incentive to excel. But it is only one piece of the puzzle.

Indeed, the article itself opens by pointing to three common threads in countries with superb educational programs:

The answer came back, somewhat unsurprisingly, that these countries have the best teachers: educators who are respected, rewarded, and held accountable for their performance in the classroom.

But then the entire diatribe revolved around accountability–not respect or rewards. I left teaching precisely because it was not rewarding. Parents and administrators don’t respect you, and tend to point their fingers at teachers for underperforming students rather than even questioning whether the student is putting forth any effort. And with a payscale that would be a pay cut for janitors and cabdrivers, it’s no wonder the majority of new teachers don’t stick around.

In short, accountability is only a piece of the puzzle, and can’t be oversimplified into financial bonuses for getting kids to pass standardized tests. Any attempt at accountability has to look at teaching for what it is–an art and a valuable public service. In addition, you have to include the other two ingredients if you want the educational system to succeed. If good teachers aren’t respected or rewarded, don’t be surprised if they decide to go into fields that apparently value their talents and education more highly.