Now that Senator Barack Obama has won the Democratic nomination for president, John McCain's chances of becoming the 44th President of the United States of America are very high. I have a feeling that John McCain will win the electoral college by a large margin, though the popular vote will be very close. Obama might even win the popular vote by a percent or two. McCain will win most, if not all, of the swing states.
This isn't wishful thinking. I believe that when the choice is either Obama or McCain, Obama is the lesser of evils. McCain would be a complete disaster. Obama would be a disaster, too, but not as much as McCain.
I didn't like Obama's speech to AIPAC. He went so much overboard, going as far as promising a united Jerusalem, that it became unbelievable. There's no real reason for him to oppose giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as their capital other than to win the Jewish vote.
Here's what will be most likely to get him as much of the Jewish vote as possible: picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate. If he doesn't want Bill and Hill on his back, he can choose one of Clinton's top supporters, Ed Rendell, the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania.
Just a thought.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
RNC, Obama and Auschwitz
Okay, this campaign is really getting stupid. Barack Obama made an innocent mistake when he talked about his great-uncle's participation in the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp. Obama said it was Auschwitz, while it was actually Buchenwald. I'm no fan of Obama, but I just can't see anything sinister about his remarks.
An RNC spokesman said this raises "questions about [Obama's] judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief", according to CNN.com's Political Ticker. Indeed, we have seen the dangers of a president who mixes up two different places and two different threats, like Iraq and Iran or Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One guy misspoke. The other mishandled the United States and the world. Quite a difference, don't you think?
An RNC spokesman said this raises "questions about [Obama's] judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief", according to CNN.com's Political Ticker. Indeed, we have seen the dangers of a president who mixes up two different places and two different threats, like Iraq and Iran or Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One guy misspoke. The other mishandled the United States and the world. Quite a difference, don't you think?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Winehouse's Rehab Among the Rockets
It has been reported that British singer Amy Winehouse is no longer saying "no, no, no" to rehab. Of all places in the world she has decided to enter a rehab program in Israel, and of all Israeli rehab programs she has chosen the one in Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon. That's the largest city within the range of rockets from Gaza. I wonder if she realizes this. Maybe this is a new thing - adventure rehab, a cross between rehab and adventure tourism. Perhaps Winehouse, who is Jewish, is showing her solidarity with the junkies of southwestern Israel this way.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Florida and Michigan's Leverage
The Democratic Party's state branches in Florida and Michigan should threaten the national party that if their delegates are not seated at the national convention in Denver this August, they will not put the Democratic Party's nominees on the ballot in these two states. Instead, one Michigan Democrat and one Florida Democrat will run together for president and vice president in those two states under the Democratic Party line. Such a move would pretty much ensure John McCain's victory in November, so the DNC would have to listen in order to avoid this scenario.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Survivor: Undisclosed Location
E-MAN NEWS SERVICE - Just a week after the announcement that the 17th season of the hit reality show "Survivor" will be filmed in the African nation of Gabon, new information has been leaked regarding the 18th season of the show.
"Survivor: Undisclosed Location" will pit eight Americans, most of them beautiful actors and models from California and New York, plus a token older and/or ugly person, against eight people with Arab-sounding names from around the globe. While the Americans must apply and go through a series of auditions, the foreigners will be picked up without having to do anything. The tribe names have been confirmed as Mukhabarat and Mujahideen, said to be local deities of the indigenous culture.
"It will be an interesting experiment," said a reliable source within Mark Burnett Productions, which produces the series. "We decided to do this now, with the season that will be filmed between October and December 2008, since this is probably our last chance for this particular concept. The Bush administration has been very helpful in recruiting contestants from outside the United States and finding a location for the game. Come January, we may not see as cooperative an administration as the current one."
When asked about the various challenges the contestants will have to play in order to win rewards, immunity idols, and eventually the grand prize of $1 million (or 1 million Iraqi Dinars, depending on the nationality of the Sole Survivor), the source agreed only to say that "if you liked underwater challenges in pervious seasons, the competitions we're planning this time will absolutely take your breath away."
"Survivor: Undisclosed Location" will pit eight Americans, most of them beautiful actors and models from California and New York, plus a token older and/or ugly person, against eight people with Arab-sounding names from around the globe. While the Americans must apply and go through a series of auditions, the foreigners will be picked up without having to do anything. The tribe names have been confirmed as Mukhabarat and Mujahideen, said to be local deities of the indigenous culture.
"It will be an interesting experiment," said a reliable source within Mark Burnett Productions, which produces the series. "We decided to do this now, with the season that will be filmed between October and December 2008, since this is probably our last chance for this particular concept. The Bush administration has been very helpful in recruiting contestants from outside the United States and finding a location for the game. Come January, we may not see as cooperative an administration as the current one."
When asked about the various challenges the contestants will have to play in order to win rewards, immunity idols, and eventually the grand prize of $1 million (or 1 million Iraqi Dinars, depending on the nationality of the Sole Survivor), the source agreed only to say that "if you liked underwater challenges in pervious seasons, the competitions we're planning this time will absolutely take your breath away."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Peres and Olmert Love Bush
President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush spoke at an event commemorating sixty years of Israeli-American relations. President Bush was happy to hear, and moved by, the praise his Israeli hosts lavished upon him. I, on the other hand, found it embarrassing. They should have stuck to praising the American policy of friendship and support for Israel over the decades and given Dubya himself no more than a few token words. But no, they had to call him a great leader, a man with a vision, a champion of freedom and democracy, a man who history will treat kindly, blah blah blah.
Sure, they can't say how horrible a leader he really is. They can't say "Thank you, President Bush, for making Israel less safe by attacking a country that, as it turns out, was never really a threat to us and instead made it a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda and Shi'ite terrorism. We really appreciate the fact that now that you have failed in Iraq, the United States can't afford to face what seems to be a greater threat than Saddam Hussein ever was". And the list of bad things goes on... They can't say all those things, but they shouldn't say what is at best a bunch of lies about how great he is (at best, since the worst case scenario is that they actually believe what they are saying, which means our leaders have horrible judgment).
The event tonight was part of a conference about the future of Israel, organized by President Peres. Channel 1, the public channel that is owned by the government but supposedly independent from it, showed the whole US-Israel event, including the video clips about the history of the two countries' ties with each other. I felt like I was watching North Korean or Cuban TV. The clips weren't mini-documentaries but rather straight out of the PR department. It was absolutely ridiculous.
Sure, they can't say how horrible a leader he really is. They can't say "Thank you, President Bush, for making Israel less safe by attacking a country that, as it turns out, was never really a threat to us and instead made it a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda and Shi'ite terrorism. We really appreciate the fact that now that you have failed in Iraq, the United States can't afford to face what seems to be a greater threat than Saddam Hussein ever was". And the list of bad things goes on... They can't say all those things, but they shouldn't say what is at best a bunch of lies about how great he is (at best, since the worst case scenario is that they actually believe what they are saying, which means our leaders have horrible judgment).
The event tonight was part of a conference about the future of Israel, organized by President Peres. Channel 1, the public channel that is owned by the government but supposedly independent from it, showed the whole US-Israel event, including the video clips about the history of the two countries' ties with each other. I felt like I was watching North Korean or Cuban TV. The clips weren't mini-documentaries but rather straight out of the PR department. It was absolutely ridiculous.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Minority Running Mates
Instead of writing lists of likely vice presidential running mates I'll just make some "demographic predictions". Chances are far greater that I'll be right this way.
- First of all, no more than one of the running mates will be a white male Christian. It is quite possible neither one of them will be a WASP, but definitely not both of them.
- Since I doubt that all four people on the two major tickets will be senators, no more than one current senator will be a VP nominee.
- Both will come from either red (conservative) or purple (swing) states. Neither one will come from a blue (liberal) state, unless Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton run together.
- If Barack Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination, his running mate will not be black. John McCain's running mate will probably not be black, either.
- Both running mates will be between the ages of 50 and 65.
- One or both of the running mates will be a member of at least one of the following groups: women, Latinos and Jews.
- Neither RM will be openly gay or bisexual, nor will be even suspected as such.
- At least one, but probably both, will have previous executive experience as a governor, major city mayor, United States Cabinet member, diplomat, high ranking military officer or a prosecutor.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Hezbollah and Lebanon
I can't say I really know what's going on in Lebanon right now. I hope things calm down, since it doesn't seem that the government is powerful enough to assert itself. The worst thing for Lebanon and the Middle East would be if Hezbollah took over the country. They're already in control of most of it, so some would say it might be better if they were openly in control rather than secretly the puppet master of Lebanon. That isn't the case, though. As long as they are only in partial control Lebanese secularists and moderates can gradually get stronger and eventually assert themselves.
It seemed odd to me that Sheikh Nassrallah said the Lebanese government declared war on Hezbollah. Isn't that like an acknowledgement that they are a state within a state? How can war be declared on a political party?
It seemed odd to me that Sheikh Nassrallah said the Lebanese government declared war on Hezbollah. Isn't that like an acknowledgement that they are a state within a state? How can war be declared on a political party?
Hillary Must Defeat Obama
Senator Hillary Clinton, as the only qualified of the three candidates left in the race, must not quit. If she will not be the Democratic nominee then the United States will have to choose between two very different paths, but both of them just as dangerous. Clinton is the sane middle between the militarism of John McCain and the naivete of Barack Obama.
Right now, it looks like the race is finished and Clinton doesn't have a chance, but she should try anyway. Obama is a horrible candidate as it is, and would make a horrible president, so it doesn't really matter if she bloodies him ahead of November.
Right now, it looks like the race is finished and Clinton doesn't have a chance, but she should try anyway. Obama is a horrible candidate as it is, and would make a horrible president, so it doesn't really matter if she bloodies him ahead of November.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
A Day Without Palestinians
This Thursday Israel will celebrate its 60th Independence Day. For a vast majority of Israelis, as well as many non-Israeli Jews and gentiles, the creation of the state in 1948 and its many achievements are truly a cause for celebration. We mustn't doubt the rightfulness of our very existence as a free and independent nation.
Independence Day is also the one day we should be allowed to forget about the negative aspects of our country. Let's not think about the security situation, the decline of the welfare and healthcare systems or the corruption of our prime minister.
Also, it's a day on which we should not think about the Palestinians, what we have done and continue to do to them, or what we and the Palestinians do to each other. 364 days out of they year we should remember them and strive for peace in order to make their lives, as well as ours, better. But on the day we celebrate our independence, there is absolutely no reason to commemorate the Nakba or to think of Palestinian suffering. The Palestinians are free to commemorate their tragedy, but they shouldn't expect Israelis to do so.
One day each year, we can pretend Palestinians do not exist.
Independence Day is also the one day we should be allowed to forget about the negative aspects of our country. Let's not think about the security situation, the decline of the welfare and healthcare systems or the corruption of our prime minister.
Also, it's a day on which we should not think about the Palestinians, what we have done and continue to do to them, or what we and the Palestinians do to each other. 364 days out of they year we should remember them and strive for peace in order to make their lives, as well as ours, better. But on the day we celebrate our independence, there is absolutely no reason to commemorate the Nakba or to think of Palestinian suffering. The Palestinians are free to commemorate their tragedy, but they shouldn't expect Israelis to do so.
One day each year, we can pretend Palestinians do not exist.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Hamas: Holocaust Planned By Jews
Hamas: Jews planned the Holocaust
By HAVIV RETTIG, The Jerusalem Post
Jewish leaders concocted the mass murder of handicapped Jews in order to keep from having to support them, and this murder is what the Jews term "the Holocaust," according to a documentary special that aired on April 18 on Hamas's Al Aqsa television station.
Palestinian Media Watch located and translated the contents of the footage, which it uploaded to YouTube under the headline "Hamas: Jews planned Holocaust."
According to the documentary's narrator, Israel's first prime minister David Ben Gurion decided that Jewish "disabled and handicapped are a burden to the state," after which "the Satanic Jews" - the film cuts to a picture of a hassidic Jew - "thought up an evil plot to be rid of the burden of disabled and handicapped" - the film then cuts to piles of emaciated corpses - "in twisted criminal ways."
"This is official Hamas TV," explained PMW director Itamar Marcus. "It's owned and totally controlled by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, and it goes out by satellite to the whole Arab-speaking world."
The program dealt primarily with the Holocaust, but included comparisons to the Palestinian situation, calling the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps a "holocaust" and blaming Israel for a "Palestinian holocaust."
"They [the Jews] were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression," explains the documentary's narrator, cutting to scenes of Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan and Ben Gurion. The film claimed Jewish leaders blamed the Nazis for their own massacre of Jews "so the Jews would seem persecuted and try to benefit from international sympathy."
The film offers an "expert" - Amin Dabur, head of the "Center for Strategic Research" - who explains that "the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on."
There is some tension in the film between blaming the Jews for the massacre of Jews, and denying the massacre took place. According to Dabur, Ben Gurion was interested in sending "strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while all the rest - the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent [to die] - if it can be proven historically" - a reference to a claim heard often on Hamas television, from Iranian leaders and elsewhere in the Muslim world that the Holocaust has yet to be proven historically.
Continues Dabur: "They were sent [by the Jews to die] so there would be a Holocaust, so Israel could 'play' it for world sympathy."
By HAVIV RETTIG, The Jerusalem Post
Jewish leaders concocted the mass murder of handicapped Jews in order to keep from having to support them, and this murder is what the Jews term "the Holocaust," according to a documentary special that aired on April 18 on Hamas's Al Aqsa television station.
Palestinian Media Watch located and translated the contents of the footage, which it uploaded to YouTube under the headline "Hamas: Jews planned Holocaust."
According to the documentary's narrator, Israel's first prime minister David Ben Gurion decided that Jewish "disabled and handicapped are a burden to the state," after which "the Satanic Jews" - the film cuts to a picture of a hassidic Jew - "thought up an evil plot to be rid of the burden of disabled and handicapped" - the film then cuts to piles of emaciated corpses - "in twisted criminal ways."
"This is official Hamas TV," explained PMW director Itamar Marcus. "It's owned and totally controlled by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, and it goes out by satellite to the whole Arab-speaking world."
The program dealt primarily with the Holocaust, but included comparisons to the Palestinian situation, calling the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps a "holocaust" and blaming Israel for a "Palestinian holocaust."
"They [the Jews] were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression," explains the documentary's narrator, cutting to scenes of Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan and Ben Gurion. The film claimed Jewish leaders blamed the Nazis for their own massacre of Jews "so the Jews would seem persecuted and try to benefit from international sympathy."
The film offers an "expert" - Amin Dabur, head of the "Center for Strategic Research" - who explains that "the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on."
There is some tension in the film between blaming the Jews for the massacre of Jews, and denying the massacre took place. According to Dabur, Ben Gurion was interested in sending "strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while all the rest - the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent [to die] - if it can be proven historically" - a reference to a claim heard often on Hamas television, from Iranian leaders and elsewhere in the Muslim world that the Holocaust has yet to be proven historically.
Continues Dabur: "They were sent [by the Jews to die] so there would be a Holocaust, so Israel could 'play' it for world sympathy."
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obama the Carteresque
Jimmy Carter's recent visit to the Middle East has convinced me that Barack Obama is presidential after all. The problem is that the president he resembles is Carter, the guy who owes George W. Bush a favor for pushing him off the number one spot on the list of worst presidents of the last half century.
Both Obama and Carter are very intelligent people who are extremely naive with regard to diplomacy. They both support high-level talks with all the unrepentant bad guys of the world. Barack Obama is willing to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad without preconditions and without lower level talks first. Jimmy Carter wants Israel to talk to Hamas, an organization that still says all it can agree to is a 10 year ceasefire in return for all of their demands (a Palestinian state and return of refugees).
Of the two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton was far better than Jimmy Carter. Hillary Clinton is very Clintonian, and not just because of her last name. So this primary season it is Clintonian Democrats vs. Carteresque Democrats, and if the latter win, the United States will be in big trouble.
Both Obama and Carter are very intelligent people who are extremely naive with regard to diplomacy. They both support high-level talks with all the unrepentant bad guys of the world. Barack Obama is willing to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad without preconditions and without lower level talks first. Jimmy Carter wants Israel to talk to Hamas, an organization that still says all it can agree to is a 10 year ceasefire in return for all of their demands (a Palestinian state and return of refugees).
Of the two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton was far better than Jimmy Carter. Hillary Clinton is very Clintonian, and not just because of her last name. So this primary season it is Clintonian Democrats vs. Carteresque Democrats, and if the latter win, the United States will be in big trouble.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
J Street Lobby: Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace
Finally, a new organisation has been founded that will show Washington, DC that AIPAC's hawkishness isn't the only form of pro-Israel or pro-Zionist activism. J Street, which has two arms - a lobby and a political action committee, will endorse congressional candidates who support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Good luck, J Street!
Good luck, J Street!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Barack Obama's Israeli Blog
Senator Barack Obama apparently believes Israel is the 51st state of the Union and it hasn't had its primary yet, or perhaps that the outcomes of American elections are decided in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Why else would he open a blog on an Israeli website, intended for an Israeli audience (and apparently not just for American citizens in Israel) in both Hebrew and English?
As a dual citizen of Israel and the United States I'm supposed to be flattered by this move, but I'm not. Obama is trying to show he isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in the wrong way. For one thing, as a candidate for president of the United States of America he shouldn't be courting foreign nationals. Second of all, if he decides to court foreigners anyway, he should try courting different countries. Does he have a French blog? A Mexican blog (and not just for Mexican Americans)? Does he have blogs in Kenya, his father's birthplace, or in Indonesia, where he spent some of his childhood? Does he have a blogs in Arabic, Greek, Portuguese, German, Swahili, etc.?
The fact that Obama's only foreign blog is in Israel is troubling. It seems he attributes too much power to Israel. Does he think that if Israelis don't like him American Jews won't vote for him? The Jews of the Land of Milk and Honey don't have that kind of influence and veto power over the Jews of the Land of Opportunities.
As a dual citizen of Israel and the United States I'm supposed to be flattered by this move, but I'm not. Obama is trying to show he isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in the wrong way. For one thing, as a candidate for president of the United States of America he shouldn't be courting foreign nationals. Second of all, if he decides to court foreigners anyway, he should try courting different countries. Does he have a French blog? A Mexican blog (and not just for Mexican Americans)? Does he have blogs in Kenya, his father's birthplace, or in Indonesia, where he spent some of his childhood? Does he have a blogs in Arabic, Greek, Portuguese, German, Swahili, etc.?
The fact that Obama's only foreign blog is in Israel is troubling. It seems he attributes too much power to Israel. Does he think that if Israelis don't like him American Jews won't vote for him? The Jews of the Land of Milk and Honey don't have that kind of influence and veto power over the Jews of the Land of Opportunities.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Test Your Biases
After reading an article and blog post by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times about biases ingrained in us, I took a few of the on-line tests Kristof mentions. First, I played the Police Officer's Dilemma, in which pictures of whites and blacks holding guns and harmless objects appear and I have to quickly decide whether to shoot or holster my gun.
It took me an average of o.644 seconds to shoot armed blacks, 0.702 seconds to shoot armed whites, 0.708 seconds to holster my gun when faced with unarmed whites and 0.893 seconds to determine unarmed blacks are not a threat. By the way, I also shot 3 or 4 innocent black people and one or two innocent white people and holstered my gun at a few armed folks, both white and black, which resulted in me being virtually shot. I would not make a good police officer.
Then I took a few "implicit attitude tests" (IATs) at Harvard's Project Implicit. One of them was confirmed the findings of the previous test - I strongly associate guns with African Americans.
I took the presidential candidates IAT three times. The first time, it showed me that my favorite candidate is John McCain, though even he started in the middle of the graph, which means I'm not that crazy about him either. Right below him was Barack Obama, after that an empty space and then Hillary Clinton. What?!? Hillary is my favorite candidate in reality, and here she shows up far behind Barack Obama, who I really dislike? I expected Hillary to be on top, McCain in the middle and Obama right at the bottom. I took the test a second time, and the order was the same, except this time Clinton was directly below Obama without any space. Still unhappy with the results, I repeated the test again and it showed that I like all candidates equally, probably the result of being too familiar with the test than anything else.
Other results:
Sexuality IAT: I moderately prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals (sounds right - as a liberal I'd like to be able to say I'm free of any biases against gay people, but I am well aware that I'm not).
Presidents IAT: I moderately prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush (I'd expect it to be a strong preference).
Age IAT: I have no preference one way or the other (sounds exactly right - I truly feel comfortable with people of all ages).
Religion IAT: I have a moderate preference for Judaism over other religions (since I'm a non-religious Jew that makes sense. Interestingly, most respondents have a more positive reaction to Jewish symbols than to symbols of other religions).
Asian IAT: I strongly associate European Americans with American and Asian Americans with foreign (I guess that I subconsciously do that).
Arab Muslim IAT: The biggest surprise of all - I have a slight preference for Muslim Arabs compared to other people. Huh? This doesn't make any sense. I feel that I am very biased against Arabs and Muslims, even though I would rather not be. Since the test is based on names and not pictures, maybe it shows I'm just more used to hearing Arab names than European and Asian names? Or maybe I am the open-minded liberal I'd like to be. I was so surprised by this result that I retook the test and the second time it even showed that I have a moderate preference for Arab Muslims, more than the slight preference I had the first time around.
Gender-Science IAT: Little or no association between Female and Male with Science and Liberal Arts. I guess that as a male in the social sciences I really don't associate different academic fields with a certain gender.
On the other hand, on the Gender-Career IAT I displayed a moderate association between male and career and female and family.
Weight IAT: I took it twice. The first time it said I have a slight automatic preference for fat people over thin people. As a skinny dude, that surprised me. I retook the test and the second time around it said I have a moderate preference for thin people. The truth is probably in the middle - that I don't really have a preference, as long as it isn't for romantic purposes.
Skin-color IAT: Little to no preference between dark and light skin.
And one last IAT (there are a few more I have not tried), the Native American IAT shows a slight association of Native Am. with Foreign and White Am. with American compared to White Am. with Foreign and Native Am. with American.
It took me an average of o.644 seconds to shoot armed blacks, 0.702 seconds to shoot armed whites, 0.708 seconds to holster my gun when faced with unarmed whites and 0.893 seconds to determine unarmed blacks are not a threat. By the way, I also shot 3 or 4 innocent black people and one or two innocent white people and holstered my gun at a few armed folks, both white and black, which resulted in me being virtually shot. I would not make a good police officer.
Then I took a few "implicit attitude tests" (IATs) at Harvard's Project Implicit. One of them was confirmed the findings of the previous test - I strongly associate guns with African Americans.
I took the presidential candidates IAT three times. The first time, it showed me that my favorite candidate is John McCain, though even he started in the middle of the graph, which means I'm not that crazy about him either. Right below him was Barack Obama, after that an empty space and then Hillary Clinton. What?!? Hillary is my favorite candidate in reality, and here she shows up far behind Barack Obama, who I really dislike? I expected Hillary to be on top, McCain in the middle and Obama right at the bottom. I took the test a second time, and the order was the same, except this time Clinton was directly below Obama without any space. Still unhappy with the results, I repeated the test again and it showed that I like all candidates equally, probably the result of being too familiar with the test than anything else.
Other results:
Sexuality IAT: I moderately prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals (sounds right - as a liberal I'd like to be able to say I'm free of any biases against gay people, but I am well aware that I'm not).
Presidents IAT: I moderately prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush (I'd expect it to be a strong preference).
Age IAT: I have no preference one way or the other (sounds exactly right - I truly feel comfortable with people of all ages).
Religion IAT: I have a moderate preference for Judaism over other religions (since I'm a non-religious Jew that makes sense. Interestingly, most respondents have a more positive reaction to Jewish symbols than to symbols of other religions).
Asian IAT: I strongly associate European Americans with American and Asian Americans with foreign (I guess that I subconsciously do that).
Arab Muslim IAT: The biggest surprise of all - I have a slight preference for Muslim Arabs compared to other people. Huh? This doesn't make any sense. I feel that I am very biased against Arabs and Muslims, even though I would rather not be. Since the test is based on names and not pictures, maybe it shows I'm just more used to hearing Arab names than European and Asian names? Or maybe I am the open-minded liberal I'd like to be. I was so surprised by this result that I retook the test and the second time it even showed that I have a moderate preference for Arab Muslims, more than the slight preference I had the first time around.
Gender-Science IAT: Little or no association between Female and Male with Science and Liberal Arts. I guess that as a male in the social sciences I really don't associate different academic fields with a certain gender.
On the other hand, on the Gender-Career IAT I displayed a moderate association between male and career and female and family.
Weight IAT: I took it twice. The first time it said I have a slight automatic preference for fat people over thin people. As a skinny dude, that surprised me. I retook the test and the second time around it said I have a moderate preference for thin people. The truth is probably in the middle - that I don't really have a preference, as long as it isn't for romantic purposes.
Skin-color IAT: Little to no preference between dark and light skin.
And one last IAT (there are a few more I have not tried), the Native American IAT shows a slight association of Native Am. with Foreign and White Am. with American compared to White Am. with Foreign and Native Am. with American.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
My BSG Theory: Colonials Are Robots, Too
Beware! Geeky Battlestar Galactica theorizing ahead, as well as possible spoilers for whoever hasn't seen the entire first three seasons.
It is now a common theory to say that humans came from Earth to Kobol and not the other way around, but I don't think this is the whole story. The saying "All this has happened before and all this will happen again" leads me to believe that the Colonials are either actually descendants of humanoid robots or of human-robot hybrids.
Humans on Earth created robots, which I will call Earthbots to distinguish them from the present-day Cylons. The Earthbots rebelled and left Earth. Later, they developed humanoid-biological models who took over Earthbot society, eventually discarding the mechanical models and losing the ability to download into a new body. After a few centuries most of their descendants forgot their Earthbot roots and started calling themselves human. Only a select few, later to be known as the Lords of Kobol, were entrusted with the secret origin of "humanity" and with the ability to download, thus achieving immortality.
The Cylon god is a Lord of Kobol who wished to reveal the secrets and grant immortality to all colonials. The other Lords banished him and his followers to protect their secrets, and outlawed his worship. He became The One Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. The five priests of the Temple of Five are actually this god (the Final Cylon) and his four main supporters (the four of the Final Five already revealed). These are what would later be known as the 13th tribe, which starts wandering across the galaxy separately from the rest. Shortly thereafter the twelve tribes settle on Kobol. Several centuries later, the 13th tribe finds Kobol as well and asks to settle there, sparking a war that would result in the Exodus to the twelve colonies and the annihilation of the 13th tribe, except for the five priests.
Two thousands years later, the Colonials, who still think they are humans despite being Earthbots (or the descendants thereof) create the Cylons. The Cylons rebel. They leave the Colonies, however they have extensive knowledge of Colonial religion, and they start worshipping the hated Lord of Kobol. They distort the message of this god, believing he wished to destroy humanity. He somehow discovers this and wishes to thwart their plans, however he doesn't think they'll believe him if he shows up and says "hi, I'm your Lord God", so instead he somehow manages to get himself and his four priests accepted as five of the 12 humanoid Cylon models, as counterweights to the 7 militant Cylons. He implants the four into Colonial society without them knowing who they are. Because the two sets of Cylons (or rather the seven Cylons and the five Earthbots) don't communicate with each other, the Lord of Kobol is unable to prevent the destruction of the Colonies, but he is determined to prevent the destruction of "Colonial humanity" by reuniting it with the "original humanity" of Earth.
I'm most likely way off about details like the origin of the Final Five and the Cylon god, but I'll be surprised if my basic premise - the robotic origin of the colonials - turns out to be wrong.
It is now a common theory to say that humans came from Earth to Kobol and not the other way around, but I don't think this is the whole story. The saying "All this has happened before and all this will happen again" leads me to believe that the Colonials are either actually descendants of humanoid robots or of human-robot hybrids.
Humans on Earth created robots, which I will call Earthbots to distinguish them from the present-day Cylons. The Earthbots rebelled and left Earth. Later, they developed humanoid-biological models who took over Earthbot society, eventually discarding the mechanical models and losing the ability to download into a new body. After a few centuries most of their descendants forgot their Earthbot roots and started calling themselves human. Only a select few, later to be known as the Lords of Kobol, were entrusted with the secret origin of "humanity" and with the ability to download, thus achieving immortality.
The Cylon god is a Lord of Kobol who wished to reveal the secrets and grant immortality to all colonials. The other Lords banished him and his followers to protect their secrets, and outlawed his worship. He became The One Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. The five priests of the Temple of Five are actually this god (the Final Cylon) and his four main supporters (the four of the Final Five already revealed). These are what would later be known as the 13th tribe, which starts wandering across the galaxy separately from the rest. Shortly thereafter the twelve tribes settle on Kobol. Several centuries later, the 13th tribe finds Kobol as well and asks to settle there, sparking a war that would result in the Exodus to the twelve colonies and the annihilation of the 13th tribe, except for the five priests.
Two thousands years later, the Colonials, who still think they are humans despite being Earthbots (or the descendants thereof) create the Cylons. The Cylons rebel. They leave the Colonies, however they have extensive knowledge of Colonial religion, and they start worshipping the hated Lord of Kobol. They distort the message of this god, believing he wished to destroy humanity. He somehow discovers this and wishes to thwart their plans, however he doesn't think they'll believe him if he shows up and says "hi, I'm your Lord God", so instead he somehow manages to get himself and his four priests accepted as five of the 12 humanoid Cylon models, as counterweights to the 7 militant Cylons. He implants the four into Colonial society without them knowing who they are. Because the two sets of Cylons (or rather the seven Cylons and the five Earthbots) don't communicate with each other, the Lord of Kobol is unable to prevent the destruction of the Colonies, but he is determined to prevent the destruction of "Colonial humanity" by reuniting it with the "original humanity" of Earth.
I'm most likely way off about details like the origin of the Final Five and the Cylon god, but I'll be surprised if my basic premise - the robotic origin of the colonials - turns out to be wrong.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Gore-Obama 2008?
Joe Klein of Time Magazine says Al Gore may be the answer to the Democratic Party's problems. He says that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be too damaged by their infighting to win the general election, so they could agree to the compromise candidacy of Al Gore. Obama may then become Gore's running mate.
This is a horrible idea, and not because of Al Gore himself. Nominating someone who has not even been in the running in the primaries would be far less democratic than nominating a candidate who is a close second in popular votes and pledged delegates. Also, I don't see why either camp should agree to this. Obama would rather be the presidential nominee, not the VP candidate, while Hillary Clinton has no reason to agree to a ticket which includes Obama, unless it includes her as well.
I must say I'd be much happier to vote for Al Gore than for Obama, but it would be morally (and possibly politically) wrong for the Democratic Party to nominate anybody other than the two candidates left standing.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
HBO's Abigail Adams
And now for a silly question about the new mini-series "John Adams": why, oh, why, did HBO decide to disguise David Morse with a fake nose to make him look like George Washington, yet did not apply uglying makeup and a fake nose to Laura Linney's face? Abigail Adams was an impressive woman and Linney portrays her impressively, but Adams was quite an ugly woman and Laura Linney is beautiful.
Of course, George Washington's face is iconic, while nobody but history buffs (and those who read her entry in Wikipedia) knows how Abigail Adams looked. Also, audiences tolerate unattractive men much more than they tolerate unattractive women.
Anyway, here are Abigail Adams and Laura Linney. See a difference?
Just one important point: never ever base a post on one single piece of information as I am doing here (one picture, in this case). Who knows, maybe Abigail Adams was a looker after all.
Resettling Settlers
My government frustrates me too often. Defense Minister Ehud Barack has approved the construction of five caravans in the West Bank settlement Tene-Omarim for families who were evacuated from the Gaza Strip in the 2005 disengagement. Dozens of families from the former settlements of Gush Katif in Gaza have moved, or are planning to move, to several other settlements in the West Bank, as well.
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Mediocre Olympics
Top athletes of the world unite!
No country is going to boycott the Beijing Olympics this year, despite the many crimes perpetrated recently by the Chinese government. China has not only abused the rights of Tibetans and political dissidents, but it has committed crimes against people whose only crime was to live where the government wanted to build Olympic facilities.
For these reasons the world's top athletes should boycott the games. Champions should stay home, while mediocre athletes participate. The games will not be of any interest to anyone if no Olympic and world records are set (except for negative records). China will probably take most of the medals, but it won't really mean anything.
I know this is easier said than done. Participating in the Olympic Games is not something most athletes would give up easily, even the ones who already have a few medals and trophies at home. Still, it is worth a try.
Besides, Beijing's air is so polluted that athletes who stay home will keep both their conscience and their lungs clean.
No country is going to boycott the Beijing Olympics this year, despite the many crimes perpetrated recently by the Chinese government. China has not only abused the rights of Tibetans and political dissidents, but it has committed crimes against people whose only crime was to live where the government wanted to build Olympic facilities.
For these reasons the world's top athletes should boycott the games. Champions should stay home, while mediocre athletes participate. The games will not be of any interest to anyone if no Olympic and world records are set (except for negative records). China will probably take most of the medals, but it won't really mean anything.
I know this is easier said than done. Participating in the Olympic Games is not something most athletes would give up easily, even the ones who already have a few medals and trophies at home. Still, it is worth a try.
Besides, Beijing's air is so polluted that athletes who stay home will keep both their conscience and their lungs clean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
