Wow! Look at the size of that... deficit

Can somebody remind me again-- which is the party of fiscal discipline?

Geek alert

Apparently, the Playstation 3 is expected out in the next 18 months (and the new X-box and Nintendo consoles).

This sounds cool:

"PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies," said Mr Florin.

But I'm not sure about this:

He said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

"A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.

SpongeBob finds acceptance

Well, thank goodness for the UCC. They have announced that they extend their welcome to SpongeBob:

"Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob," the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, said, only partly in jest. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

For that matter, Thomas explained, the 1.3-million-member church, if given the opportunity, would warmly receive Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, Clifford the Big Red Dog or, for that matter, any who have experienced the Christian message as a harsh word of judgment rather than Jesus' offering of grace.

George W. vs. Clinton-- who would win?

Interesting, Taegan Goddard is reporting that Democrats might support allowing naturalized citizens (such as Schwarzenegger) to be elected president if the Republicans support repealing the 22nd amendment which restricts the presidency to two terms. That would allow Bill Clinton to run for another term. It would also allow George W. to run again. As much as I'm curious to see who would win between the two, I hope that this idea doesn't go anywhere. The only thing keeping me going right now is the fact that W. can't run for another term.

Harvard president and women scientists

There have been several mentions of the Harvard president's remarks in the blogosphere. I'll just link to a couple of them. This one, in particular, is well thought out, though I disagree with him.

The problem is that people (on both sides of the issue) don’t seem to understand the difference between individual abilities and average abilities.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that in 100 years there is a society with no gender discrimination, where each child is given the same opportunities to succeed in whatever field they choose. And let’s say that even then we find that only, say, 30% of physicists are women. At that point we could argue that, on average, women don’t do as well in physics. That is not the same thing as saying women lack the natural ability to do physics. Not at all.

Let me give you an analogy. Men are on average taller than women. Once you average the heights of all the men in the world and compare that to the heights of all women, you find that men are taller. Based on that evidence would you say that women lack the natural ability to achieve tallness?

Or, to take another analogy, if you watch a couple NBA games you’ll soon realize that there are many more African American than Caucasian players. Does this mean white boys lack the natural ability to play basketball?

Of course these conclusions would be ridiculous. Just because men are taller on average doesn’t mean that there aren’t many women who are 6 feet in height and more. Just as there are many white basketball players with the talent to make it to the NBA.

The same is true in math and science. If (and that’s a big if) women are less likely to do well in math and science, given the same encouragement and opportunity, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some women who will excel in those fields. It seems clear to me that the differences within each gender are far greater than the differences between the genders. Therefore, to generalize that women lack “the natural ability” to do science is misleading, insensitive, and just plain ignorant.

Update: I just read an article from Slate.com about this subject. Here's a quote:

“Let's be clear about what this isn't. It isn't a claim about overall intelligence. Nor is it a justification for tolerating discrimination between two people of equal ability or accomplishment. Nor is it a concession that genetic handicaps can't be overcome. Nor is it a statement that girls are inferior at math and science: It doesn't dictate the limits of any individual, and it doesn't entail that men are on average better than women at math or science. It's a claim that the distribution of male scores is more spread out than the distribution of female scores—a greater percentage at both the bottom and the top. Nobody bats an eye at the overrepresentation of men in prison. But suggest that the excess might go both ways, and you're a pig.”

Up until the end, the author is making the same point I am. The difference is made apparent by his example about the overrepresentation of men in prison—Do we use the fact that men are more likely to go to prison to argue that men are "naturally inclined" to violence and crime? We do not. In that case we understand that average inclinations cannot be used to judge individuals. But with women and science we feel free to make broad generalizations. That is what was wrong with the Harvard president's remarks. When talking about this subject, in a fair and intelligent way, we have to be clear in differentiating between the average abilities of each gender and the specific abilities of each individual.