Patrick Cahalan

An old blog post, resurrected and edited slightly for today.

  • Household work is not the sole responsibility of either the male or female partner in a relationship.  Any gender linkage to job roles should be cosmetic or chance, not causal.
  • More generally, it’s not the sole responsibility of either partner in a relationship.  Sorry for the assumed bias in the previous statement, same-sex couples.
  • If someone is a stay-at home person, household work (including child care, if relevant) will often be a major part of your time contribution to your relationship’s underlying logistics.  Because… you’re home… and due to slack time you have a lower opportunity cost to get some household things done that your partner does not.
  • It is commonly the case that people assume the previous statement, but not the ones immediately prior.  This is an injustice.  It is also depressingly commonly the case that the previous statement gets a whole heapin’ helpin’ more weight than it ought to have.
  • There exist gender-linked preferences to certain types of housework.
  • The jury is still out on the correlation vs. causation aspect of the previous statement, however, it is staggeringly likely in my opinion that the relationship is one of nurture, not nature, with the obvious exception of breastfeeding.
  • In other words, two X chromosomes don’t automatically prejudice you to dislike taking out the garbage or mowing the lawn.  An X and a Y chromosome don’t automatically prejudice you to being bad at doing laundry or the dishes.  However, the fact that the male adult saw the previous generation’s male adult mow the lawn while the female adult did the dishes may factor into the current generational male getting some level of satisfaction out of mowing the lawn that he doesn’t get out of doing the dishes.  This is because people (self included) are generally creatures of habit, or they’re stupid, and in either case they’re riddled with biases and self-examination is an ongoing job, no matter how hard you work at it… and really, who’s going to be thinking about self-examination when it’s time to mow the lawn?
  • Maybe your wife enjoyed working in the yard with her Dad, too.  So if she wants to do the lawn and leave you with the bathroom as a tradeoff half the time, deal.
  • If you avoid some household chore out of some belief that you are bad at it or don’t like it, pretend for a few minutes that you’re not a 5 year old and try it with an open mind.  Eat your vegetables, you might like them.  If you still don’t like it, tough.
  • Men ought to change diapers, when they’re full of crap.
  • Men ought to clean a toilet, if it hasn’t been cleaned recently.
  • Men ought to vacuum the house roughly half the time, all other things equal.
  • Oh, and women, by the way, ought to take out the garbage, if it’s full.  Really.  You get a pass if it’s the only chore your dumb husband will do, of course.
  • Women ought to mow the lawn, if it needs to be cut.  Ditto previous qualifier.
  • Unless, of course, you’ve decided to divvy up those chores ahead of time.  Even then, you should be careful the distribution is fair, given your other responsibilities.
  • It’s the responsibility of both members of the partnership to inquire honestly as to the other person’s capabilities on any given day (sometimes, this means you do more than the other person, guys.  Maybe more than sometimes.)
  • Generally, if you’re both working… dividing up the household logistics, from who pays the bills, arranges for service for the cars, does the routine chores, deals with the children’s education and social demands, and so on, is a joint duty.  You’re going to have to work hard at this, since both people probably don’t see all of these duties going on unless you really pay attention to what the other person is doing.
  • Corporations need to stop making advertisements that suggest that men, as a class, are incapable of any of the above, or that women, as a class, have some magical inborn competency, or vice-versa.  You’re part of the problem.  You’re also deeply, gravely insulting.  My wife can use a monkey wrench and isn’t afraid of pool cleaners (she’s spent a lot of time in a chem lab, for crissake, she’s got better material handling skills than I do).  I can mop a freaking floor.  I don’t even use a mop, I do it the old fashioned way, hands and knees and scrub until it’s actually really clean.  All you commercial women with perfect teeth and faux dirty floors that you turn sparkly with one sweep of a mop, I’d kick your ass in a “clean the floor” competition.  Twice on Sunday.
  • Yes, I realize you need to advertise to your market to get the biggest return on your dollar.  I also realize that in a practical sense, many of these gender-linked chores mean that your target market for your cleaning supplies is going to also be gender-linked, suggesting you should market the way you do.  Stop anyway.  You can do it.
  • Seriously, cut it out.  Feel free to trumpet your own horn while you do it.
  • There are men who are like me.  My wife will attest that I do at least a halfway decent job of helping out around the house; while we currently live in a state that we both joke as being little better than squalor, we’re both willing to admit it’s a time-limited problem, not a gender-based one.
  • I delude myself into thinking that my wife spends more time on the school-related functions because she’s currently home and thus knows the kids’ teachers much better than I do.  The truth probably is more along the lines that she does it (at least partially) because she’s facing a lot of societal pressure to be a perfect mother in addition to the previous factor.  Acknowledging that this is at least possibly the case is something that we all need to do.  In any event, “because your partner is better at it” is just a consideration, not the sole measure of who should do what.
  • I freely admit that I have a difficulty with this whole gender-bias thing, and I’ll claim that I actually actively try to deal with it.  My father was a stay-at-home dad for periods of time that exceeded the periods when my mother was a stay-at-home mother.  Dad cooked, Mom baked.  Dad cleaned the house.  Dad did watch sports on Sundays, but both parents were disciplinarians when they needed to be.  I don’t come from the same world from which most of my peers do.  I don’t even recognize some of the pressures that people talk about having to deal with in their lives.
  • Hell, if I was a Stay-at-Home Dad and somebody started giving me a ribbing because my wife brought home the bacon, I’d probably look at them like they grew a second head.  I certainly wouldn’t be feeling any sort of shame, in the slightest (except maybe a little sympathetic shame for the moron with two heads).  It sometimes requires me to stop and think about people who do have to deal with this sort of situation simply because it does bother them.  My family and upbringing isn’t like theirs, I have no right to wave my hands and say, “Well, gee, just get over it.”  Yes, they probably should get over it, just like everybody should get over external validation as a mechanism by which they judge their worth.  That’s a human problem, though, and I’m not thinking it’s going away anytime soon.
  • I have friends who have reversed “traditional” roles, I ought to ask them how they feel about these situations, as they certainly have occurred.
  • Thus, there’s undoubtedly plenty of occasions when my wife does do stuff because of socially-imposed gender roles, or I wind up doing them without noticing it, and since I’m preconditioned not to see those influences, I might miss ‘em.  Yes, we all need to be alert to this sort of thing.

And we probably ought to be careful to preface commentary about gender roles with a nice, solid statement about the way we think things ought to be, before we start talking about how people might cope with things the way they are.  Leastwise, unless we want to come across like some boneheaded advertiser, assuming that the context that is is also the context that should be.

{ 47 comments }

Slate reports:

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

That sounds terrible.

I hereby propose the First Law of The LoOG, herein and forever to be known as the Thompson Non-Troversy Principle, or TNTP: “The greater the sense of personal outrage one feels upon reading a story, the more likely the story is to misrepresent the facts”, I dug a little deeper.

(edited to add) This blogger has made an egregious error.  In my defense, the Virginia.gov web site doesn’t exactly present its data in way that doesn’t encourage just this sort of error.

The link I provide below points to a full text version of the bill that was withdrawn on 02/02/12 by Sentator Northam, who submitted it.  This means the correct current version of the bill is the previous version, which is the one on 01/26/12, which does indeed have the mandate. (/edited)

Current text of the Virginia “Informed Consent” (i.e., “Ultrasound prior to Abortion”) law is here:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+SB484S2+pdf

I quote the relevant passage:

“Except in the case of a medical emergency, before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall offer to perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational
22 age.”

That’s “offer”.  You are not required to accept that offer.  Nor are you required to read all of the literature they may offer you, or look at the pictures of fetal development stages, or anything else.

Which is somewhat… okay, entirely… different from the current reporting.  Now, the current reporting may be based upon earlier versions of the bill, which you can also get from the virginia.gov site, but since the Slate article links to this actual web page, I would have thought reading the current text of the bill would have been a good idea.

Is this medically unnecessary? Sure.

Is the 24 hour waiting period “nanny statism”? You bet (I’m looking at you, Tea Party).

Is this obvious red meat for the culture wars? I’d say “signs point to ‘yes’.”

Should you be hugely offended by this law? I will let those affected by it make their own call, but I would be for lots of reasons.

However… are you going to be forced to have an ultrasound of any sort? Not by my reading of the current law* and I’m hard pressed to imagine a reading that would require it. Yes.

{ 214 comments }

The Art Imbroglio, Cont.

by Patrick Cahalan on February 14, 2012

The League managed to turn a discussion about High vs. Low Art into a discussion about Conservative vs. Liberal Art over the last few days… I wonder if I’m the only one that noticed something there… and I’d like to take a moment to quote Tod, again, from his last post:

Rather, they are penned by writers that succeed in painting with words the human experience.  And we humans and our lives simply are not the black and white cardboard caricatures that political parties wish us to believe.

I think also our characterizations of “conservative” vs. “liberal” art are probably a bit more like those black and white cardboard caricatures than we ourselves wish them to be.  “24″ isn’t a “conservative” show… it’s a contrived conspiracy action thriller.  “The West Wing” is… well, okay, that’s actually a liberal show.  But almost all of the other examples that people were tossing around on various threads had me thinking, “That’s not a (liberal/conservative) show.  It’s just a show.”

It’s difficult to remember that these political inclinations are not polar opposites of each other.  Granted this is something that is made exceedingly more difficult by the fact that the political parties that claim to embody them are so dead set on both leading the charge as to what they mean, but also leading the charge as to what the other side’s label means… and it means “the opposite of things that are good”.  Come to think of it, both parties are much better at telling us why and how the other side is horribly horrid than talking much about how they’re getting passing marks in any way.

Liberal and Conservative are instead just inclinations towards ongoing social change.  Only reactionaries and nuts want everything to stay the same, forever.  The conservative doesn’t seek to *prevent* social change, just preserve the better parts of the past.  The liberal doesn’t seek to change *everything* *right* *now*, but instead try to change the worst parts of the present.  On the face of it, aren’t these both pretty laudable goals?

Both sides are well open to charges that they are imperfect in assessing their respective “bests” and “worsts”, that’s granted.  But there’s actually… nothing inherently wrong with trying to preserve the best parts of the past while simultaneously trying to change the worst parts of the present.

{ 288 comments }

Regulatory Capture

by Patrick Cahalan on February 9, 2012

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

{ 2 comments }

Call Out For Awesome

by Patrick Cahalan on February 3, 2012

I’m going through my old blog commenting haunts and discovered Dr. Free-Ride has put out a call to help a group of high school science students fund their trip to CERN. The group is called BACON, an acronym for “Best All-around Club of Nerds”.  They have a long way to go, yet.  Come on, who doesn’t love bacon?

{ 5 comments }

Since everyone in the League had the good sense to avoid this story all week, I thought I’d ruin our Friday.  (edited to add)  Well, not everybody.  (/edited)

Today, the Komen Foundation retracted its retraction of funds to Planned Parenthood.  Their statement, replicated here.

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer.  Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.  We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.  We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue.  We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work.  We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

(edited to add) I feel the need to clarify the rest of this post.  This is not a post about whether or not Komen is “right” or “wrong” to cut support for Planned Parenthood.  This is not a post about women’s reproductive rights… what they are, or are not.  This is a post about social organizations, and how they interact with the public, and how *not* to embroil your organization in a PR nightmare.  (/edited).

When the topic is public sinning, the American public is Catholic in taste, not Protestant. They will forgive, but admissions of guilt are not enough, you must also do penance.

What the American public does *not* like is half-assed declarations that attempt to shift blame, or insist that something is really just not your fault. Do not tell the American public that you’re sorry someone took offense, tell the American public that you’re sorry for being offensive.  Do not tell people how to feel about what you did.  Whatever you do, don’t imply that really, a bunch of people agree with your “mistake” and you’re just backtracking to assuage an offended minority (really bad way to end your apology letter).  Don’t say that your decision-making criteria needs to be changed to take politics out of the criteria, and backtrack on your decision, and claim that the original decision had nothing to do with politics.  Not in the same letter.

At least, if you want the apology to come across as sincere.

If the Komen foundation wanted to retain its position as THE place to call if you were running a breast cancer event… they should have made a public statement confessing that they made a mistake, and that they were going to not just reinstate their contribution, but double it. Confession, and penance.  Two weeks from now, they could quietly update their policy.  People would regard that as a tacit admission that they were playing politics, and move on.

All over the nation, people who are planning fundraisers for breast cancer are now starting to think that the Komen foundation isn’t the first place to call. Today’s statement is not going to reverse that trend, I’d guess.

If you don’t like Planned Parenthood, that’s certainly your right. If you have ethical or moral qualms about abortion, that’s certainly your right as well.

However, five years from now, when someone writes an article talking about how the Komen foundation was “killed by the pro-abortion secular left” or some other utter complete nonsense, please remember this post.

Komen is killing itself with bad leadership and bad public relations – something that is, after all, supposed to be their core competency.

Nothing more and nothing less.

{ 62 comments }

The FBI guidelines for spotting suspicious activity in an Internet Cafe:

  • Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others

Check!

  • Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)

Usually pay cash, check!

  • Apparently use tradecraft: lookout, blocker or someone to distract employees

Have small children, check!

  • Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities

Someone has found my goateed face nefarious, I’m sure. Check!

  • Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones

Used to have to carry two cell phones, check!

  • Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café

California license plates in Utah, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Nevada. Check!

  • Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)

Okay, not in a decade, but yes!

  • Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address

I have used TOR in a cafe before, check!

  • Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc.

Anyone seen what an open book on set theory looks like to a layman? Check!

  • Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.

Encryption, yes! How a cafe worker would know what I was doing with it, I don’t know. Close enough!

  • Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game

Check!

  • Download content of extreme/radical nature with violent themes

Every video game that’s been released since… well, nearly forever. Check!

  • Gather information about vulnerable infrastructure or obtain photos, maps or diagrams of transportation, sporting venues, or populated locations

I’m writing my neighborhood crisis management plan, check!

  • Purchase chemicals, acids, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, fertilizer, etc.

Yep, done that too!

  • Download or transfer files with “how-to” content such as:
    - Content of extreme/radical nature with violent themes
    - Anarchist Cookbook, explosives or weapons information
    - Military tactics, equipment manuals, chemical or biological information
    - Terrorist/revolutionary literature
    - Preoccupation with press coverage of terrorist attacks
    - Defensive tactics, police or government information
    - Information about timers, electronics, or remote transmitters / receivers

Yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, and yes. And some of the papers I’ve read about Somali piracy might come across as sympathetic to the pirates, so even the no could be considered a yes, to the right audience.

Stay alert!  Trust No One!  Keep Your Laser Handy!

{ 15 comments }

There have been a number of comments on a recent post that have glanced sidelong at a problem domain with which I’m reasonably familiar… and since we have a number of digital gearheads who comment frequently on this blog, I thought I’d use this as an opportunity to start a series of posts about technology.

Not fun technology.

No games or silly gadgets or even really cool evil overlord bases or zombie survival houses – that’s all postworthy material but we’ll keep that to the proper locale. Actual technology that gets stuff done in organizations. Movers. Shakers. Candlestick makers.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts, I’ll offer a bit of a reading list as a first post.  I can’t offer an explicit look at the last 15+ years of my working experience as a base to start this conversation, but I can give a list of things that I’ve read over the years that will start to frame a part of the conversation… for those people that may have read them.

This is not exhaustive, it’s just the books that happened to be on the bookshelf closest to my desk. Neither does it happen that I think all of these are of equal value (for example, I disagree with a bunch of Carr’s conclusions because I think his observations are in a limited context).  But every once in a while I wonder what other people would offer as recommended reading if I was to take up their job… and since this series was kicked off by Jaybird’s comment: “One of my friends recently asked what classes I took to become a system administrator…”

… here’s a beginner’s reading list for “How to be a Systems Administrator”.  If I can ever get my Amazon Affiliateness squared away, links will be added.

Building Stuff

Building Stuff (With Other People, for Actual People) or Managing People (to Build Stuff) or Recognizing When Your Boss Is Bad At Their Job

Building Stuff (that Fails Safe) or Mitigating Horror (by Building Stuff Correctly) or Dealing with People (Who Are Panicked)

Dealing With Stuff (That Other People Built) or Managing Things (That Other People are Building)

How To Speak to the Non-IT (Business-Type, Primarily) Folk

{ 53 comments }

(While discussing Murray’s Quiz, I made the following comment and Will thought it was good enough for a post, so here’s the post version, slightly edited.)

As silly – and limited – of a metric as it is (for various reasons), IQ is interesting because of its distribution. And (at least in my experience), IQ distribution maps to real intelligence distribution, even if the measure itself when applied to an individual doesn’t necessarily place you accurately on the bell.

Here’s the curve:

(In other words, if we could have a real measure of intelligence that accurately mapped the population, you’d still see a distribution that looks a lot like IQ distribution, just different individuals would be in different places on the curve)

When looking at task-oriented skill maps, it’s pretty likely that the distribution is also a bell… about 60% of people are within one standard deviation of “average” for any particular skill set. 20% are above that, and 20% are below.  So the distribution of competencies for skill complexity will look something like the curve above.

[click to continue…]

{ 73 comments }

Grimly Dark Humor Places

by Patrick Cahalan on January 17, 2012

It’s a sign that I am in a godawful weird place that this headline made me laugh hysterically. I think I may need to call this an early night. [click to continue…]

{ 9 comments }

Comment Rescue: Stereotypes

by Patrick Cahalan January 17, 2012

Joey Jo Jo says in two comments: In my opinion, some stereotypes are cheered here (including heroic contortions to portray them not as stereotypes) while others are roundly rejected.  this is fine.  the issue is the unequal application of the rudeness standard. … Sure, any sweeping generalization or stereotype against libertarian(ish) positions are dealt with [...]

53 comments Read the full article →

You’re Missing A Good One

by Patrick Cahalan January 14, 2012

If you’re not watching the 49er/Saints game right now.

8 comments Read the full article →

Montana Dissed Citizens United

by Patrick Cahalan January 4, 2012

Law.com reports (registration required, but it’s free).  FTA: In Citizens United, the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited government from limiting the independent spending of corporations and unions on “electioneering,” or communicating about a particular candidate. The Montana court, reversing a lower state court that struck down Montana’s law as unconstitutional, cited Montana’s unique [...]

130 comments Read the full article →

Hilarious

by Patrick Cahalan December 24, 2011

For the parents in the League.

5 comments Read the full article →

Litmus Test

by Patrick Cahalan December 19, 2011

NYT reports House GOP members likely to reject the Senate’s overwhelming support (89-10) for the short-term extension of the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.

14 comments Read the full article →

Costs on the Books

by Patrick Cahalan December 17, 2011

In Jason’s recent post on Waste and Abuse, Density Duck writes: Ask your husband to explain how SpaceX can build a rocket for half as much as NASA.  Then get back to me on how “waste” is a meaningless term for a nonexistent problem that’s just Republican rhetoric Okay, some background for those who haven’t been [...]

33 comments Read the full article →

Possibly More Potent Signs

by Patrick Cahalan December 1, 2011

Bob Costa’s rant about end zone celebrations being symptomatic of the disintegration of American society is probably a bit overwrought. This is… just sad.

3 comments Read the full article →

Not Snakes on a Plane

by Patrick Cahalan November 30, 2011

Crying babies. The Economist weighs in, Megan McArdle responds via Twitter. Three things:

47 comments Read the full article →

Visualizations

by Patrick Cahalan November 21, 2011

Today’s XKCD puts the infographic magic on Money. Since people are really bad, generally, at wrapping their heads around really big numbers, I recommend.

Read the full article →

Cussed cussedness

by Patrick Cahalan November 14, 2011

On “fishing“, with various interesting links to discussions.

27 comments Read the full article →

Epidemiological Politics

by Patrick Cahalan November 14, 2011

MSNBC reports “Pelosi fires back at report on ‘insider trading’”. A television report that questioned whether members of Congress are making investment decisions based on insider information drew a heated response from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of those highlighted. A report on CBS’ “60 minutes” on Sunday said Pelosi was among several lawmakers [...]

93 comments Read the full article →

Veterans Day

by Patrick Cahalan November 10, 2011

On January 23rd, 1941, Ory and Ethel (Lettie) Freeland signed the following: “We the undersigned, being the father and mother of Maurice H. Freeland, a minor, an applicant for enlistment in the United States Army, do hereby give our consent to his Enlistment therein.  We further certify that we are not dependent upon him for [...]

29 comments Read the full article →

There’s Nothing Wrong With Being A Damn Hippie

by Patrick Cahalan November 9, 2011

The last few days have seen a number of posts (most of ‘em here, one external) on education, employment, STEM vs. Other Fields of Study, and the like, where various members of the League have been working out a number of different issues all at once. I recommend all those linked posts and almost all [...]

16 comments Read the full article →

For Greginak

by Patrick Cahalan November 3, 2011

Greg asks, “How many people get here from Milf-o-rama.com?” (cheekily) Our referrers for the last week:

16 comments Read the full article →

Sound Off

by Patrick Cahalan November 3, 2011

Koz has made an assertion that the League is overwhelmingly in favor of PPACA. I found this odd, since it seemed to me that the members who most frequently comment were at best “not fans”, with the exception of Erik. So, a poll. Regardless of whether or not you believe that PPACA is Constitutional or [...]

257 comments Read the full article →

Digging in the Dirt

by Patrick Cahalan November 1, 2011

Todd recently asked where everyone came from and how they wound up being part of the League. My first comment is apparently this one. I admit I didn’t remember precisely when I started reading the League, but if the back-end database is accurate, I have 53 comments as “Patrick Cahalan”, and 2,058 as “Pat Cahalan”. [...]

85 comments Read the full article →

Comment Rescue: Mike & The Police

by Patrick Cahalan October 27, 2011

Mike asks: > Absolute power corrupts absolutely – > or is it more complicated than that? It’s more complicated than that. Social organizations of any type represent aggregated power. This is true whether you’re talking about a tribe in pre-history Europe, a community organization in the modern first world, a government, or an international corporation. [...]

22 comments Read the full article →

Is This A Thing?

by Patrick Cahalan October 24, 2011

Is this a case of someone blowing something out of proportion, or is this an actual thing? Louisiana bans using cash in sales of second-hand goods?

21 comments Read the full article →

Pop Quiz

by Patrick Cahalan October 19, 2011

Article Five: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

50 comments Read the full article →

All Things Nuclear, Part I

by Patrick Cahalan October 17, 2011

This is the first post in a series. This took a significant amount of time to write (most of the research had been done previously), so don’t expect these to come with a low delta between posts. We’re going to start with The Bomb, we’ll get to Nuclear Power in subsequent posts. First, an important [...]

104 comments Read the full article →

24,887 To Go

by Patrick Cahalan October 11, 2011

Members of the League occasionally ask about nuclear power (or muse as to why the U.S. doesn’t seem to have a well thought out energy policy including nuclear power). Go here and “sign” (registration required):

33 comments Read the full article →

Using a Phone

by Patrick Cahalan October 7, 2011

Dear Everyone in the First World: Since many of you seem to have a small difficulty with the use of telecommunications devices in spite of their ubiquity, I’m going to offer two pieces of advice that will greatly enable your ability to use these devices in a manner that does not infuriate the rest of [...]

35 comments Read the full article →

Coercion (again) and Power

by Patrick Cahalan October 6, 2011

On the recent coercion follow-up thread to an earlier thread that was itself a response to two earlier threads (I’m now officially going to make you backtrack on that if you want more context)…62 across said, in response to the question “How does one determine what is private coercion?” I’d really appreciate the League diving [...]

90 comments Read the full article →

Not-So Free Speech: The UK Version

by Patrick Cahalan September 14, 2011

Headline: “Sean Duffy case highlights murky world of trolling”

3 comments Read the full article →

For the families

by Patrick Cahalan September 12, 2011

In July of 2001, I was in New York working on decommissioning a regional office.  Shutting down the phone switch, helping pack up the expensive network gear, bemoaning the fact that the UPS at this facility would never be removed, things like that. Like anyone else who takes their first trip to New York City [...]

1 comment Read the full article →

Ben & Jerry’s

by Patrick Cahalan September 8, 2011

Will be producing Schweddy Balls ice cream.  I personally checked the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. Still one of the better parodies of NPR: SNL’s Schweddy Balls sketch.

Read the full article →

Neuroscience and Party

by Patrick Cahalan September 7, 2011

A literature review and summary of the state of research by Andrea Kuszewski.

2 comments Read the full article →

For Bob

by Patrick Cahalan September 1, 2011

Georgia

115 comments Read the full article →

NPR’s Recent Top 100 List

by Patrick Cahalan August 18, 2011

This isn’t quite important enough to front-page center, but it’s good enough for the sidebar.

19 comments Read the full article →

Self-Referential Post

by Patrick Cahalan August 8, 2011

I confess: I’ve been engaged here at the League for this long only so that I can get my hands on the behind-the-scenes interface. Now that Erik has fallen for my long-laid plan, I’m going to let the rest of the community see some of the site behind the curtain. I’m a data nut, so [...]

13 comments Read the full article →
1 pages