Elsewhere, flu — Stephen on 12 November 2008 @ 9:00 AM — 0 comments
The New York Times this morning has a fascinating article on Google using location information from search queries to help scientists track flu outbreaks. It is really quite ingenious.
In early February, for example, the C.D.C. reported that the flu cases had recently spiked in the mid-Atlantic states. But Google says its search data show a spike in queries about flu symptoms two weeks before that report was released. Its new service at google.org/flutrends analyzes those searches as they come in, creating graphs and maps of the country that, ideally, will show where the flu is spreading.
Great article in the New York Times sums up the anxiety:
Many liberal Democrats watch MSNBC, but some say it sounds too much like comfort food. CNN serves its election coverage with a stiff little chaser of doubt for Democrats, and many liberals say that CNN and NPR are their regular evening companions. If they really want to rub the sore tooth of worry, they dial over to the “Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers” channel, otherwise known as Fox.
“Mostly I flip between CNN and MSNBC, but I go to Fox if I want to get enraged,” Mr. Downs said.
In the coming week, expect to see more disgusting vote suppression tactics like this one from the integrity filled right wing. The Lord helps those who help themselves…
Elsewhere, Stephen on 27 October 2008 @ 10:42 AM — 0 comments
Excellent questions posed by Scott Horten in Harper’s.
Bet you didn’t know you needed this:
Steelcase - Walkstation.
In all the vitriol and brouhaha over the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, I never could quite understand (if it wouldn’t affect the outcome) why it mattered at all whether the delegates were seated none, half or full. Then I read a piece in the NY Times (I know, I read them a lot) a few minutes ago, which made it clear why the states care:
It’s about having enough votes to do other things — and if you are, say, Michigan, that includes pursuit of your long-time goal of toppling New Hampshire and Iowa from their perches of primacy in the nominating calendar.
So at least I get it now. Still, I think it is important that they be punished in some way for disobeying party rules, that part makes sense. If there were no adverse consequences from breaking the rules, everyone would break them with impunity.
Fascinating article by Stanley Fish in this morning’s NY Times.
All we can be sure of is that the struggle between the impulse to normalize — to specify a center and then police deviations from it — and the impulse to repel the normalizing gaze and live securely in a community of one’s own will never be resolved.
I agree with his central theme, but I suppose I also agree that (in law at least) there must be some way to protect each other from (real, as opposed to imagined) harm. Although these definitions can be slippery, I feel comfortable (for the most part) arguing that consent is the key. As long as individuals are capable of consent, they should pretty much have free reign to live their lives as they see fit. Of course defining consent is where we have a bit of a problem. There are always exceptions in individual cases (for example, at what age is a child capabale of consent? Some 16 year olds will be more mature than some 30 year olds), but as a society we need to imperfectly set a boundary (say 18).
This is terrifying. But it may explain a lot about the past 8 years.