Sunday, February 27, 2005
Why Aren't More Women Interested in Math? We need problems we can relate to!
Harvard's Lawrence Summers, obviously a very dangerous thinker, had the audacity to ask people in the free-thinking academic Ivy-covered institution to consider several alternative hypotheses for the paucity (fancy, Harvard word I picture him using at some point) of women in math and science. While I support his right to speculate, I think he missed the chance to address the real issue, which is of course, that we're not interested in jet propulsion, analysis of structural stress or similar blah-blah. Why not reach out to women with some problems that are of some interest to us?For example:
#1-Mary weighs 150 lbs, and Susan weighs 110 lbs. If each woman uses a 4 hp vacuum weighing 15 pounds, how long will it take Mary to vacuum a 500 square foot space? Would the force vectors change if Mary was wearing high heels and pearls and Susan was wearing tennis shoes and sweats?
#2-Jennifer was walking through the mall when she saw a to-die-for Prada bag in the window of a boutique. She screeched to a stop, and tried to read the partially-concealed price tag. She couldn't quite see the number, but she knew it was a 4 digit number. And:
1) She could see a number 1.
2) In the hundred's place she sees that the number is 3 times the number in the thousand's place.
3) She sees that the number in the one's place is 4 times the number in the ten's place.
4) Finally she sees that the number 2 is sitting in the thousand's place.
How much is the bag, and should she tell her husband after she buys it?
#3-Judy bought 7 silk blouses, for $9.95 each. The cashier charged her an additional $13.07 in sales tax. She left the store with a measely $7.28. How much money did Judy start with, and why wouldn’t she just wait until she could use her preferred customer card?
#4-Anne gave Sarah half of her lipsticks. Sarah gave Sally half of the lipsticks she received from Dana. Sally kept 8 of those pogs and gave the remaining 10 to Dana. How many lipsticks did Anne give Sarah? Which shade will help Sarah get more dates?
#5-The average number of cookies that Jane can make from each batch of her chocolate chip recipe is 36. If she uses her friend Laura’s larger Cuisinart and can produce 50% more cookies per batch, what will be the average number of cookies and how many batches will she need to make for her husband’s poker night?
Harvard's Lawrence Summers, obviously a very dangerous thinker, had the audacity to ask people in the free-thinking academic Ivy-covered institution to consider several alternative hypotheses for the paucity (fancy, Harvard word I picture him using at some point) of women in math and science. While I support his right to speculate, I think he missed the chance to address the real issue, which is of course, that we're not interested in jet propulsion, analysis of structural stress or similar blah-blah. Why not reach out to women with some problems that are of some interest to us?For example:
#1-Mary weighs 150 lbs, and Susan weighs 110 lbs. If each woman uses a 4 hp vacuum weighing 15 pounds, how long will it take Mary to vacuum a 500 square foot space? Would the force vectors change if Mary was wearing high heels and pearls and Susan was wearing tennis shoes and sweats?
#2-Jennifer was walking through the mall when she saw a to-die-for Prada bag in the window of a boutique. She screeched to a stop, and tried to read the partially-concealed price tag. She couldn't quite see the number, but she knew it was a 4 digit number. And:
1) She could see a number 1.
2) In the hundred's place she sees that the number is 3 times the number in the thousand's place.
3) She sees that the number in the one's place is 4 times the number in the ten's place.
4) Finally she sees that the number 2 is sitting in the thousand's place.
How much is the bag, and should she tell her husband after she buys it?
#3-Judy bought 7 silk blouses, for $9.95 each. The cashier charged her an additional $13.07 in sales tax. She left the store with a measely $7.28. How much money did Judy start with, and why wouldn’t she just wait until she could use her preferred customer card?
#4-Anne gave Sarah half of her lipsticks. Sarah gave Sally half of the lipsticks she received from Dana. Sally kept 8 of those pogs and gave the remaining 10 to Dana. How many lipsticks did Anne give Sarah? Which shade will help Sarah get more dates?
#5-The average number of cookies that Jane can make from each batch of her chocolate chip recipe is 36. If she uses her friend Laura’s larger Cuisinart and can produce 50% more cookies per batch, what will be the average number of cookies and how many batches will she need to make for her husband’s poker night?
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Million Dollar Rationalization: It's All About Frankie
Several callers to the special edition of the show last Saturday from the Chicago Auto Show experienced a rare and disturbing sensation. They disagreed with me! The issue was the critically acclaimed, Oscar-nominated movie, Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby.” I’ve got major issues with this flick, even though I did concede that Hillary Swank’s performance, as Maggie is outstanding. I also found the boxing sequences incredibly realistic, or so they seemed to someone who granted has never set foot in the ring.
As I said, my problems with the movie are many, including:
*The ridiculously one-dimensional portrayal of Maggie’s family. Actually, one-dimensional would be a step up. “Cartoonish” would be more accurate. Think Nelson Muntz from “The Simpsons,” and you’ll have a good idea.
* The deceptive advertising for the film, which leads the unwary to assume it is an inspirational work about a female Rocky, not a dragged-out bring down about euthanasia. Look at how it’s described on Fandango’s website:
"Clint Eastwood directs and stars in this film about an aging boxing trainer named Frank (Eastwood), who reluctantly agrees to take on determined female boxer Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank). Both fighter and mentor have been swayed by damaging bouts with life. Together, they build a mutual foundation of strength and belief."
Apparently they thought mentioning the paralysis and subsequent offing of the determined boxer by the aging trainer would be bad for business.
*The whole euthanasia thing, and Frankie’s reaction to Maggie’s paralysis. He’s supposed to be this crusty coach, whose heart was touched by this determined young woman, who he helped bring from miserable poverty and obscurity to fame and relative fortune by nurturing her talent as—what? —a fighter. So when she invokes the touching story of her father and his beloved dog, which the father took out and killed when the dog could no longer walk, and asks him to do her the same favor, what does he say? Does he say, “Maggie, I know you feel depressed and discouraged, but let’s take a step back and think about this thing. Who knows what miraculous cures medical science might have in a couple of years? You’re young! And Maggie, you are a FIGHTER, so let’s fight this thing! I told you I’d always be here for you, and I’m here for you now.” No, he says, “Don’t ask me that.” Could there be a more lame response? Frankie’s idea of being there for Maggie is helping her die, which I find very, very disturbing. Also, would it have been so bad for him to bring in a DVD player, a computer, and an Xbox for Maggie? Good grief, he shows up and reads from some borefest of a book, and that’s supposed to cheer her up? I wanted someone to kill me during the last 45 minutes of this thing I was so bored, so I guess I understand a little of what Maggie was feeling.
The callers who disagreed suggested another interpretation. They think the movie is not about Maggie, but about Frankie, and all his guilt, not only over Maggie’s tragic assault in the ring by an opponent he originally rejected for her, but also over Morgan Freeman’s character, Eddie. Eddie lost his eye in a fight, and Frankie blames himself for that, too. (An aside: I love Morgan Freeman, but is it my imagination or has he been doing the same shtick since “The Shawshank Redemption?” How many times do we need to see him doing a voice over, dispensing sage advice to the lead character? But I digress …) Eddie is the only survivor of this whole story, seen at the end of the movie, writing to Frankie’s daughter, the one who always returned her dad’s letters unopened. Eddie wants her to know “what kind of man” her father was. As he said that (in voiceover of course) I was thinking “What kind? A murderer?” Time magazine’s critic Richard Schickel called the characters in this movie “the most lovable, take-to-your-heart characters that you can imagine.” I guess I’ve got a hard time seeing a coach and mentor who kills his star athlete as lovable, but maybe it’s just me.
Since I have the smartest listeners in the world, I decided to reflect on what they had to say, and I have concluded that they are right. This movie is about Frankie, and what it says about him is not good. He is not only flawed, as we all are, but so narcissistic that he is thinking mainly about himself, not Maggie, from the boring books that satisfy him to his final solution. It assuages his guilt to dispatch her by giving her a fatal shot and then disappearing forever, so that’s what he does. He makes this choice even though he’s been doing to mass every day for 23 years. But maybe that’s the whole point. Before packing his bag with syringes and heading over to the least secure medical facility on the planet (where else can you literally get away with murder and leave undetected?), he discusses his moral turmoil with his priest, who predictably suggests that he leave this tragic situation in God’s hands. He replies that Maggie didn’t seek God’s help. She sought his. So, Frankie has placed himself in God’s role, and he admits it. Then he acts on it. I don’t think all the mass had much effect, do you?
Maybe that’s why this movie is so popular among the elitists in the Academy. It's the perfect film for liberals It celebrates their cherished belief in moral relativism and man-as-his-own God that eliminates all those pesky, annoying and worst of all "judgemental" rules that cramp their style. It also embraces the notion of doing what is expedient or best for oneself, while at the same time striking a pose of moral superiority for doing what is right. If it feels good, do it. Then say it was the right thing to do. It's a win-win!
Several callers to the special edition of the show last Saturday from the Chicago Auto Show experienced a rare and disturbing sensation. They disagreed with me! The issue was the critically acclaimed, Oscar-nominated movie, Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby.” I’ve got major issues with this flick, even though I did concede that Hillary Swank’s performance, as Maggie is outstanding. I also found the boxing sequences incredibly realistic, or so they seemed to someone who granted has never set foot in the ring.
As I said, my problems with the movie are many, including:
*The ridiculously one-dimensional portrayal of Maggie’s family. Actually, one-dimensional would be a step up. “Cartoonish” would be more accurate. Think Nelson Muntz from “The Simpsons,” and you’ll have a good idea.
* The deceptive advertising for the film, which leads the unwary to assume it is an inspirational work about a female Rocky, not a dragged-out bring down about euthanasia. Look at how it’s described on Fandango’s website:
"Clint Eastwood directs and stars in this film about an aging boxing trainer named Frank (Eastwood), who reluctantly agrees to take on determined female boxer Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank). Both fighter and mentor have been swayed by damaging bouts with life. Together, they build a mutual foundation of strength and belief."
Apparently they thought mentioning the paralysis and subsequent offing of the determined boxer by the aging trainer would be bad for business.
*The whole euthanasia thing, and Frankie’s reaction to Maggie’s paralysis. He’s supposed to be this crusty coach, whose heart was touched by this determined young woman, who he helped bring from miserable poverty and obscurity to fame and relative fortune by nurturing her talent as—what? —a fighter. So when she invokes the touching story of her father and his beloved dog, which the father took out and killed when the dog could no longer walk, and asks him to do her the same favor, what does he say? Does he say, “Maggie, I know you feel depressed and discouraged, but let’s take a step back and think about this thing. Who knows what miraculous cures medical science might have in a couple of years? You’re young! And Maggie, you are a FIGHTER, so let’s fight this thing! I told you I’d always be here for you, and I’m here for you now.” No, he says, “Don’t ask me that.” Could there be a more lame response? Frankie’s idea of being there for Maggie is helping her die, which I find very, very disturbing. Also, would it have been so bad for him to bring in a DVD player, a computer, and an Xbox for Maggie? Good grief, he shows up and reads from some borefest of a book, and that’s supposed to cheer her up? I wanted someone to kill me during the last 45 minutes of this thing I was so bored, so I guess I understand a little of what Maggie was feeling.
The callers who disagreed suggested another interpretation. They think the movie is not about Maggie, but about Frankie, and all his guilt, not only over Maggie’s tragic assault in the ring by an opponent he originally rejected for her, but also over Morgan Freeman’s character, Eddie. Eddie lost his eye in a fight, and Frankie blames himself for that, too. (An aside: I love Morgan Freeman, but is it my imagination or has he been doing the same shtick since “The Shawshank Redemption?” How many times do we need to see him doing a voice over, dispensing sage advice to the lead character? But I digress …) Eddie is the only survivor of this whole story, seen at the end of the movie, writing to Frankie’s daughter, the one who always returned her dad’s letters unopened. Eddie wants her to know “what kind of man” her father was. As he said that (in voiceover of course) I was thinking “What kind? A murderer?” Time magazine’s critic Richard Schickel called the characters in this movie “the most lovable, take-to-your-heart characters that you can imagine.” I guess I’ve got a hard time seeing a coach and mentor who kills his star athlete as lovable, but maybe it’s just me.
Since I have the smartest listeners in the world, I decided to reflect on what they had to say, and I have concluded that they are right. This movie is about Frankie, and what it says about him is not good. He is not only flawed, as we all are, but so narcissistic that he is thinking mainly about himself, not Maggie, from the boring books that satisfy him to his final solution. It assuages his guilt to dispatch her by giving her a fatal shot and then disappearing forever, so that’s what he does. He makes this choice even though he’s been doing to mass every day for 23 years. But maybe that’s the whole point. Before packing his bag with syringes and heading over to the least secure medical facility on the planet (where else can you literally get away with murder and leave undetected?), he discusses his moral turmoil with his priest, who predictably suggests that he leave this tragic situation in God’s hands. He replies that Maggie didn’t seek God’s help. She sought his. So, Frankie has placed himself in God’s role, and he admits it. Then he acts on it. I don’t think all the mass had much effect, do you?
Maybe that’s why this movie is so popular among the elitists in the Academy. It's the perfect film for liberals It celebrates their cherished belief in moral relativism and man-as-his-own God that eliminates all those pesky, annoying and worst of all "judgemental" rules that cramp their style. It also embraces the notion of doing what is expedient or best for oneself, while at the same time striking a pose of moral superiority for doing what is right. If it feels good, do it. Then say it was the right thing to do. It's a win-win!
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Liberal Media Celebrates One of Its Own
“I could say that I was in Beijing when it was staged. And it was a sensation there. They understood every single word of it.
I think it succeeded for several reasons. One, of course, because it dealt with the parent-child relationship. It dealt with something that we all face in our lives all the time.
The other was it was about losing and winning, succeeding or failing. You put those two things together and you have got a play. And then when you have Arthur Miller writing that extraordinary dialogue, creating that incredibly eternal world, then you have a universal theme.” (on MS-NBC, 2/11/05)
If you listened to last Sunday’s show (2/13/05), you heard that soundbite of James Lipton, the “Behind the Actor’s Studio” guy, reflecting on his experience seeing Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” performed in Bejing. When I heard him say it, I thought “Of course the Chi-coms understand a play bashing capitalism, and saying the promises of the American Dream are hollow, empty promises dangled in front of a bunch of schmoes who are suckers if they buy into them.” This play is Miller’s most notable work, and is characterized as profound. The worshipful tributes to him, including one on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, seemed endless. MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann, a real social critic, he, said that Miller “may also have been one of the lynchpins of the American conscience.” Nice hedge, Keith. You may as well have said he may have been an aardvark. Or a communist. Oh, wait, he was a communist, or at least had communist leanings. Remember how Elia Kazan was demonized for his decision to “name names” before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? Kazan was a committed liberal who realized that there was no percentage for the American left in becoming a passel Stalinist apologists, so he did the right thing, and the Left never forgave him. Miller, on the other hand, never gave up his crypto-commie beliefs. His work, ostensibly serious social commentary, was little more than a hackneyed recitation of leftist dogma that pandered to the prejudices of his admirers.
The late great Pauline Kael, about “American Beauty,” wondered in exasperation “Can’t liberals see that this movie sucks up to them at every turn?” I think they could see it, but much like they do with “Death of a Salesman,” they were willing to overlook that because it feels so good to have their sentimental views confirmed.
“I could say that I was in Beijing when it was staged. And it was a sensation there. They understood every single word of it.
I think it succeeded for several reasons. One, of course, because it dealt with the parent-child relationship. It dealt with something that we all face in our lives all the time.
The other was it was about losing and winning, succeeding or failing. You put those two things together and you have got a play. And then when you have Arthur Miller writing that extraordinary dialogue, creating that incredibly eternal world, then you have a universal theme.” (on MS-NBC, 2/11/05)
If you listened to last Sunday’s show (2/13/05), you heard that soundbite of James Lipton, the “Behind the Actor’s Studio” guy, reflecting on his experience seeing Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” performed in Bejing. When I heard him say it, I thought “Of course the Chi-coms understand a play bashing capitalism, and saying the promises of the American Dream are hollow, empty promises dangled in front of a bunch of schmoes who are suckers if they buy into them.” This play is Miller’s most notable work, and is characterized as profound. The worshipful tributes to him, including one on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, seemed endless. MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann, a real social critic, he, said that Miller “may also have been one of the lynchpins of the American conscience.” Nice hedge, Keith. You may as well have said he may have been an aardvark. Or a communist. Oh, wait, he was a communist, or at least had communist leanings. Remember how Elia Kazan was demonized for his decision to “name names” before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? Kazan was a committed liberal who realized that there was no percentage for the American left in becoming a passel Stalinist apologists, so he did the right thing, and the Left never forgave him. Miller, on the other hand, never gave up his crypto-commie beliefs. His work, ostensibly serious social commentary, was little more than a hackneyed recitation of leftist dogma that pandered to the prejudices of his admirers.
The late great Pauline Kael, about “American Beauty,” wondered in exasperation “Can’t liberals see that this movie sucks up to them at every turn?” I think they could see it, but much like they do with “Death of a Salesman,” they were willing to overlook that because it feels so good to have their sentimental views confirmed.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
If you listen to a Lackoff, You’ll Get What You Deserve
“[Jim] Wallis (“a left-leaning evangelical author”) has suggested that when the Bush Administration releases its budget on Feb. 7, for example Democrats argue that it is a “moral document” and, as such, expected cuts in Medicaid funding violate the biblical tenet to support the poor.”
“Trying Out a More Soulful Tone,” by Perry Bacon, Jr, Time, February 7, 2005, p. 32.
Stuff like this is what make democrats so much fun to watch. Mr. Bacon is writing about the Democrats and their latest political strategy. In the aftermath of the disaster that last fall’s election presented them, they’ve decided that they need to appeal to people of faith, so in addition to seeing them toting around 30-lb bibles, we can enjoy watching them claim that it is the government’s responsibility to refrain from violating the tenets contained therein. Oh, I don’t think the ACLU is going to like that, Liberals. What happened to your precious separation of church and state?
They are constantly tying themselves into this sort of knot, what I like to call a “Which is it?” Examples: women belong in combat, yet are incapable of protecting themselves from rude, crude office Lotharios without the assistance of a legion of federal bureaucrats and ambulance chasers armed with do-gooder legislation, or there is no more important right than free speech, unless it’s “hate speech,” in which case it must be ruthlessly suppressed.
Now, the same people who find it unacceptable for a Ten Commandments monument to come within a molecule’s distance of public land are suggesting that duty of the federal government to implement the biblical agenda, and, here’s the best part---they don’t even see any inconsistency there! What are they going to say—we have to spend more on social programs because God says so? Christianity’s God? I thought that guy was verboten when it came to public policy, public land, public schools, and public restrooms. OK, maybe not the public restrooms, although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I learned that the ACLU had launched a project to ensure that there were no dangerous religious symbols lurking behind any of those hand dryers.
Of course, maybe the real significant aspect of Mr. Bacon’s article is in this sentence from the last paragraph: “But the biggest risk for the party is to come off as insincere.” Ya think? Mr. Wallis and the dems other new guru, Berkeley’s George Lackoff (rhymes with—well, you know) think it’s all about saying the right words to the yokels in the red states. God help them.
“[Jim] Wallis (“a left-leaning evangelical author”) has suggested that when the Bush Administration releases its budget on Feb. 7, for example Democrats argue that it is a “moral document” and, as such, expected cuts in Medicaid funding violate the biblical tenet to support the poor.”
“Trying Out a More Soulful Tone,” by Perry Bacon, Jr, Time, February 7, 2005, p. 32.
Stuff like this is what make democrats so much fun to watch. Mr. Bacon is writing about the Democrats and their latest political strategy. In the aftermath of the disaster that last fall’s election presented them, they’ve decided that they need to appeal to people of faith, so in addition to seeing them toting around 30-lb bibles, we can enjoy watching them claim that it is the government’s responsibility to refrain from violating the tenets contained therein. Oh, I don’t think the ACLU is going to like that, Liberals. What happened to your precious separation of church and state?
They are constantly tying themselves into this sort of knot, what I like to call a “Which is it?” Examples: women belong in combat, yet are incapable of protecting themselves from rude, crude office Lotharios without the assistance of a legion of federal bureaucrats and ambulance chasers armed with do-gooder legislation, or there is no more important right than free speech, unless it’s “hate speech,” in which case it must be ruthlessly suppressed.
Now, the same people who find it unacceptable for a Ten Commandments monument to come within a molecule’s distance of public land are suggesting that duty of the federal government to implement the biblical agenda, and, here’s the best part---they don’t even see any inconsistency there! What are they going to say—we have to spend more on social programs because God says so? Christianity’s God? I thought that guy was verboten when it came to public policy, public land, public schools, and public restrooms. OK, maybe not the public restrooms, although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I learned that the ACLU had launched a project to ensure that there were no dangerous religious symbols lurking behind any of those hand dryers.
Of course, maybe the real significant aspect of Mr. Bacon’s article is in this sentence from the last paragraph: “But the biggest risk for the party is to come off as insincere.” Ya think? Mr. Wallis and the dems other new guru, Berkeley’s George Lackoff (rhymes with—well, you know) think it’s all about saying the right words to the yokels in the red states. God help them.