Danica McKellar Teaches Female Stereotypes

Girls Get Curves

Back in the 3 January birthday post, Ever Since Marion Davies, I wrote, “The great film director Sergio Leone was born in 1929. Interestingly, he isn’t even listed on the front page birthdays of IMDB. Who is? Danica McKellar who I’ve never heard of…” This does not mean much. It is common that I won’t know a single one of the film celebrities who IMDB lists. This caused longtime reader and insightful commenter Rick Fane to write:

FYI – Danica McKellar played Winnie Cooper, the girl next door on The Wonder Years. She took some time off from her acting career to study Mathematics at UCLA where she graduated summa cum laude.

She has written several books which encourage girls to resist hiding their intelligence and to sing the praises of math and science.

I have never seen The Wonder Years, which is not exactly shocking. But I had heard of this series of books—most likely on NPR: math books for girls by Hollywood actress… You know the drill. Although I’m not keen on actors writing books, I liked the idea. I truly think that the reason people in general don’t like or “get” math is because math teachers are, with few exceptions, dreadful.

So I went to the library and picked up Girls Get Curves, a book on high school geometry. I provided a really big picture of the cover of the book so you could get a good idea of what’s in store. Don’t misunderstand, I get it: it’s like a magazine cover with enticing articles like “How do you attract guys?” and “8 self-esteem boosters.” But given the playfully seductive picture of Ms. McKellar, I have a really big problem with, “inside: body image quiz!” Hey girls, does this cover make you feel inferior? Does it make you feel like you’re an ugly cow? Well, then you’re normal. But that doesn’t mean I’m not gonna rub it in your face! (To be fair, the earlier books by McKellar have far more acceptable covers.)

I want to be clear: I didn’t read this book. I read parts of it. I skimmed it. Actually, I think that Danica McKellar should get third author status on this book. First, the book is more designed than written. There is no indication of who designed it, but it is well done in the sense of looking good. In terms of being distracting, it’s terrible. But I’ve been in the publishing biz for a long time now, I know that its all about getting people to buy books not read them. Second, the book is filled with compelling if stereotypical images by Mary Lynn Blasutta, who gets credit only on the copyright page.

I am at a distinct disadvantage in discussing this book, however. I know the subject rather well. I am a male. And I am long past my wonder years. So it is probably meaningless that I hate this book. But I think if I were a young female, I would also hate it. This is not to say that all young females would hate it. But given that when I was a boy, I didn’t want to be a stereotypical boy, I assume if I had been a girl, I wouldn’t have wanted to be a stereotypical girl. And this book screams, “OMG! You can be a bubble headed girl and still be good at math!”

Except, you know, you really can’t. It’s long been know that girls turn off to math at exactly the time they turn on to boys. Now there is still some question as to whether this is a hormone thing or a social thing. The evidence (that I’ve seen and I am certainly no expert) is that it is a social thing. And this book does not encourage girls to be themselves. It pushes them to be a very stereotypical image of a 15-year-old girl. Consider:

If Taylor wears pink, then Lizzie wears pink.
If Lizzie wears pink, then Jessica wears pink.
If jessica wears pink, then Brittany wears pink.

And then we’re given this new info:

OMG, Taylor is wearing pink.

Without that last line, we just have a bunch of conditional “rules.” But when we find out that Taylor actually does wear pink, it sets off a chain reaction that causes not only Lizzie to wear pink but also Jessica and Brittany!

OM-fucking-G! I can forgive everything but “pink.” And that it is about dressing up. And… Oh fuck it: it’s all horrible.

It is also no surprise that every image of a girl or woman in the book is slender. In fact, in one of the “testimonials” in the book, we have “Jessica Keramas.” Before, she was, “Overweight and shy.” It doesn’t matter what she is now, except, of course that she is slender and extroverted. It is very clear that both overweight and shy are pejoratives. And given the rest of the imagines of females in the book, I can only geuss that Keramas was not anything close to, say, Chris Christie. But Keramas is quoted saying, “Math skills helped me get in shape.” Yeah, all you tubbos, learn a little math and maybe a boy won’t be so disgusted with you!

I may not have ever seen The Wonder Years, but I know what it is. It’s that show with a kid from The Princess Bride. See, I’m not that out of it. It wasn’t a sit-com, but it was still more or less the 1990s equivalent to Leave It to Beaver. It presents an idealized kind of reality with stereotypes galore. And that’s fine with entertainment. But in the case of Girls Get Curves, I doubt very seriously that much education is getting done. I think books could be written that do what this one claims to do. But I suspect this is a book that parents buy their daughters, who just let the book collect dust.

The problem is that the book is part of the problem of telling girls to be a certain way. On top of that is the message, “And it’s okay to be good at math!” But the first lesson is so much stronger than the second. It drips from every page. In fact, the cover is the perfect example. If you look closely, you can see some lines and numbers. But the take away from the cover is, “Ain’t Danica McKellar hot?!” So instead of “it’s okay to be good at math” it is “it’s okay to be a certain kind of girl and be good at math.” If the book was only purchased by those kinds of girls (Sorry: the parents of those kinds of girls!) it wouldn’t have been a bestseller.

It’s Raining, But Not for Long

Irma ThomasWe have had basically no rain this season and it isn’t looking like there will be much rain in the near future. But today, and today only, it is raining!

This is, folks, my biggest worry about global warming. Rising temperatures should cause more rain. And indeed, the models all predict more rain. It is just that it mostly falls over the ocean where it doesn’t really help us. In graduate school, I worked with a guy who did great (really meticulous) work correlating temperature and rainfall for the United States. The results were that the United States is going to become a much drier place. As a result, food production (especially things like wheat and corn) will be pushed north. And if you really think that this couldn’t one day end up in a war between the United States and Canada, then you are naive and probably don’t read this blog anyway.

In general, I don’t talk about this issue to people because what’s happening this year doesn’t necessarily mean anything. But I am definitely worried. And what all this means to the natural environment is totally unknown. Animals can migrate. So can plants, but they do it really slowly—far too slowly to deal with what we have going on. The earth will muddle through the whole thing, but it could still be a catastrophe. Meanwhile, conservatives are unwilling to do any kind of a risk analysis. Two years ago this month, I wrote, A Really Big Problem. I asked a question:

Let’s suppose there is only a one percent chance that global warming is actually happening. If it does happen, it is going to have a profound effect on future generations, and certainly for the next five generations, it is going to be worse for the next than it was for the last. If this has only a 1% chance of happening, isn’t it a good idea to be truly conservative and try to stop it from happening, rather than continuing on as we have for the sake of the fossil fuel industry?

That’s what I just don’t get. Conservatives act like it is absolutely impossible that this is happening. Clearly there is enough evidence that it deserves that we invest some resources into countering it. But actually, there are three stages of global warming denial:

  1. There is no global warming!
  2. There is global warming, but humans aren’t the cause!
  3. Humans are causing global warming, but there is nothing we can do about it!

There are people in all of the categories. I get really annoyed at the people at stage one. These are the people who claim that it is all a hoax. And why is it a hoax? Why would all those scientists lie? Because of all the money! ExxonMobile made $41 billion in 2011, but it is some climate scientist with his $50,000 a year job who is lying because of the money. And note: if a climate scientist found results that countered the prevailing theories, he would not only get a lot of money, he would become famous. That’s how science works!

The people at stage two are making a better argument. The climate system is complicated and correlation is not causation. Of course, the case for anthropogenic global warming is a lot more than that. But mostly people at stage two talk about the sunspot cycle and wave their hands around a lot. The terrible thing is that solar forcing is the first thing that goes into the models. And a complete accounting of solar changes has been included in the models for the last two decades. So these people really have nothing to back up their claims other than their desire to believe.

The stage three people anger me the most. These are the exact same people who claim that we must balance the federal government budget today because we are destroying our children’s future. Well, economically, that turns out not to even be true. But they make that inter-generational argument. However, we can’t do anything to hurt profits today even though it will have negative effects on future generations and it may well have catastrophic effects. It is simply untrue that we can’t do anything about global warming. It is true that doing something about it may be expensive. But that’s very different from having no options. These are the worst kind of people: they don’t give a damn about the kids but they are more than willing to use them to further their political agendas.

But like I said, it is raining today. And I love the rain. So here is one of my favorite singers Irma Thomas singing the hell out of “It’s Raining” by another Louisiana legend Allen Toussaint:

Rhino Horror Story

RhinosThis is the horror story, but it takes me a while to get to it…

In general, I’m not a Twitter fan. At first, it was great because I followed people I normally read, so it kept me up to date on what was going on. But it got to be too much. I wasn’t getting anything done other than reading. The main thing I use Twitter for is to publicize this blog, and it does about as good a job at that as I can expect given the small number of followers I have. On the other hand, when I piss off someone with a large following, literally thousands of people will come and read me. I have tried to avoid allowing this to make me write any differently than I normally do. And I think I’ve succeeded, because the truth is, as much as I like the traffic, I don’t like it when people yell at me and call me stupid. (Not that I’m thinking of anyone in particular, Josh Barro.)

Anyway, when Andrea got on Twitter, she took to it like a fish to exactly the kind of water that it prefers. As she has become something of a prominent atheist, she quickly gained a following. This resulted in my getting some atheist followers. It also resulted in my getting into some discussions with theists and atheists alike. And I have to say: both groups are in general made up of awful human beings. They both prove that if God exists, he is not a loving god. Slowly, and delicately, I untangled myself from this group.

Soon, I came into contact with another group. A much better group! Film geeks! Well, these are my people! This very evening we geeked out over filmmaker Walter Hill. On another occasion, I was not ridiculed for making the nerdiest of film geek tweets, “Neo would say “00100000 00100001″ Nanook would say ” !” And Mork would say, “Nanu!” Get it? Of course you don’t! Neo from The Matrix is saying in ascii binary ” !” Nannook of the North was a silent film, so he is saying ” !” And the Mork comment is just silliness because “Nanu” sounds like “Nannook.” Ah, my people.

After this, I became involved with a number of wildlife people—not just people who love wildlife, but people who work to save and protect wildlife. The connection was that I had just seen the film Blackfish and it had a profound effect on me and I think I started tweeting things out. This introduced me to Ms.OpRoar, who kept tweeting out these absolutely beautiful wildlife photos. In fact, I got an article out of one of her photos, Orcas In the Wild—Free! She has a great love of and concern for rhinos.

I guess this is the great thing about Twitter, because I don’t know this woman. In fact, I only assume she is a woman based upon her account name. I know she likes wildlife and I know that rhinos are a special thing for her. So this evening, as I made dinner, I was watching Al Jazeera America (because I don’t watch MSNBC anymore) and they had a segment on rhino poaching. So I ran to my computer and tweeted to Mr.OpRoar, “Rhino discussion right now on @ajam.” Sadly, by that time, it was over. But I promised to see if I could find it online. Most likely, I will be able to find it tomorrow.

Tonight, however, and this is where the horror story starts, I found a video “Al Jazeera Correspondent – The Last Rhino.” It is less than an hour and I really think you should watch it. It shows humans are their worst and at their best. And a whole lot in between. My regular readers know: I do not think death is the worst thing; pain is. I was prepared for a lot of senseless killing. I was not prepared for the senseless cruelty. After ten minutes, I had to turn it off. I was writing my birthday post and sobbing while I watched the video. I couldn’t work. The worst of it is at the beginning. The rest is about people who are trying to stop the poaching.

The story is very similar to that of the drug trade. The people who do the actual work of poaching, are incredibly poor. They are well compensated, of course. But I have a hard time seeing them as the true villains, even though I don’t especially mourn their deaths. But the true culpability is further up the chain. As a young poacher says, “They make a lot of money and we don’t get much. We get almost nothing out of poaching.” These are the words of the desperate. Compare him with John Hume who has a ranch of 700 rhinos. He “harvests” their horns, and I will admit that it all seems to be done properly. But as a rich man, he has that luxury. I think he’s vile. I don’t want to go into it in detail here, but in addition to everything else, Hume is wrong about what would happen if they allowed a legal rhino horn trade. Buyers would soon conclude that the wild rhino horns were more powerful for whatever the use. I know that a legal trade would not reduce the killing of wild rhinos, but it very well might increase it.

It is the oldest story in the world: the rich getting the poor to do their dirty work so that the rich can get even richer. Or at least feel richer. But here it is causing the extinction of a wonderful animal species in the most cruel way imaginable. I highly recommend watching the video.

Afterword

Also: three cheers for Al Jazeera. They do really good work, and you should check out Al Jazeera America!

Evolution and Elvis

Alfred Russel WallaceOn this day in 1935, Elvis Presley was born. I know what you’re thinking, “How could he not win the day?” After all, in that scene from Pulp Fiction where Mia Wallace asks, “Elvis or the Beatles?” Of course: Elvis. As she points out, I like the Beatles. But if I had to pick the collected works of one or the other, there is no question. I even wrote very fondly on the Elvis impersonator industry: Transubstantiation of Elvis.

So you will just have to forgive me for not picking Elvis today. For one thing, the competition was extreme. And the guy who won is really, really important. One song will never do it, but here he is doing “Viva Las Vegas”:

Singer Shirley Bassey is 77 today. Here she is doing “Goldfinger” live:

And David Bowie is 67. Here he is doing “Five Years” live:

Other birthdays: playwright Wilkie Collins (1824); landscape painter Albert Bierstadt (1830); Dutch academic painter Lawrence Alma-Tadema (1836); publisher Frank Nelson Doubleday (1862); Russian avant-garde painter Pavel Filonov (1883); humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers (1902); actor Jose Ferrer (1912); comedian Soupy Sales (1926); concert promoter Bill Graham (1931); character actor Roy Kinnear (1934); creepy game show host Bob Eubanks (76); physicist Stephen Hawking (72); and professional racist Charles Murray (71).

The day, however, belongs to the great biologist Alfred Russel Wallace who was born on this day in 1823. He is my go-to man when talking about how the brilliant aren’t all that brilliant. Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection. And at the same time, so did Wallace. Actually, it would seem that Darwin came up with it first, but he didn’t publish and it was only when Wallace wrote to him about the same idea that he had come up with independently that the two of them published a joint paper explaining the idea.

This goes along with my idea that if any “great man” had not be around, someone else would have. If Newton had not come up with universal gravitation, someone else would have soon enough. In the case of Darwin, we know that’s the case: Wallace was right there. This is not to take away from the accomplishments of people like Darwin and Newton. Nor is it to put people like Wallace at a lower level. Basically, I think universal gravitation or natural selection require great minds and lots of luck—especially timing. We tend to think of Darwin as a somewhat greater biologist than we do Wallace. But had Wallace been born 15 years earlier and Darwin 15 years later, maybe we would think the opposite. Regardless, Wallace is one of the greatest biologists ever.

Happy birthday Alfred Russel Wallace!

Stopping Kaleidoscopic Optical Illusions

Moving Optical Illusion

This is a common optical illusion that I have seen in any number of books. It was tweeted out this morning by Brain Games. Normally, I wouldn’t present it to you because it really isn’t that interesting. I mean, some optical illusions are more interesting to certain kinds of people than others. Personally, I most like optical issues that look different depending upon how you approach them (eg two faces and a vase). So in the past, I’ve passed it (and similar ones) off as, “Oh, it disorients the eye.” But I noticed something different this morning.

For the record, this is not an animated gif or anything like that. It is one stagnant image. How it seems to work (and I have done no research whatsoever) is by confusing our binocular vision. Try this. Don’t look at the image generally. Stare are one spot in the image. It will stop moving. It is quite interesting to see what happens when you move your focus to another spot on the image. It starts to move and then again stops. This also happens if you focus on a spot outside the image. The same thing happens if you focus your gaze at infinity, the image stops moving. But that is effectively doing the same thing: you are focusing on a single place.

What is most interesting to me is how my perception of the image has changed. When I first looked it, the image moved so much that it was dizzying—and annoying in the extreme. But now, I have a real hard time getting the image to move at all. About the only way I can get it to move is by focusing on a spot in one corner and then moving my focus to another corner. And even then, it moves in fits and starts. It has lost all of its kaleidoscopic charm.

It will be interesting to see if I stop looking at it for a day or so, if the original dizzying quality will come back. Or even more interesting, if other types of these optical illusions would now have the same problems for me. My guess is that they are all ruined for me right now, but that within a day or even an hour my brain will be back to normal.

Quantity Over Quality

Isaac AsimovOn this day in 1822, the great physicist Rudolf Clausius was born. He basically put the Carnot cycle into the formulation that we now use. But more important he introduced the idea of entropy into thermodynamics. Entropy is kind of like the disorder of a system and it is the reason that systems are not reversible. Think of Humpty Dumpty: it takes a lot more energy to put him back together than you got from breaking him in the first place. Anyway, Clausius is extremely important to the field of thermodynamics and thermodynamics is a really cool (no pun intended) field of study.

The great Croatian painter Slava Raskaj was born in 1877. She is best known for her water colors, which are magnificent. In her early 20s, she began to suffer from depression. So, as they did in those days, they shipped her off to an “institution” where she caught tuberculosis and died shortly after her 29th birthday.

Lotus - Slava Raskaj

The great Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov was born in 1896. When sound came into film, it almost destroyed the American film industry. All of the visual brilliance that came from people like D W Griffith was forgotten to make way for sound. It’s understandable, but sad. In other countries they didn’t make this mistake. I watched L’Atalante the other night, and although it is a sound picture, the visual story is not sacrificed for the sake of dialog. Vertov was very much part of that, but he didn’t even make narrative films. He was an experimenter, and his film Man with a Movie Camera is still a really interesting film to watch. It was a collaboration with his wife Elizaveta Svilova. Vertov went out and shot interesting things and Svilova tried to edit it into something that made some kind of sense. And it works. It was also hugely influential while American filmmakers were trying to figure out how to hide microphones in flower vases. Here is the whole thing:

The singer-songwriter Roger Miller was born in 1936. He wrote fun and funny song. I love this song:

And finally, someone I really don’t like: “journalist” Judith Miller. More than any other single media person, she sold the Iraq War. And we cannot say that she was deceived. Dick Cheney’s office would feed her information, she would report it, Dick Cheney would then go on the PBS Newshour and say, “It’s not just me who’s saying this; the New York Times reported the same thing!” And then, once she had destroyed all of her credibility, she went on to work for Fox News and other conservative media outlets and “think tanks.” So she was always a conservative, pushing a war that the conservatives wanted, and did it while claiming to be an “objective” journalist. Certainly, she is nowhere near as bad as Bush the Younger or Dick Cheney. But I think she is a traitor, both to her profession and to this country. Instead, I’m sure she’s living the good life, making lots of money, widely applauded in the conservative circles she now finds herself. I guess that’s the new American Dream: betray your country and then get paid huge amounts of money for it. Go team!

Other birthdays: composer Mily Balakirev (1837); sculptor Ernst Barlach (1870); a man who now looks like George Washington compared to what his party has become, Barry Goldwater (1909); and actor Cuba Gooding Jr (46).

The day, however, belongs to Isaac Asimov who was born on this day in 1920. He is mostly known as a science fiction writer. I don’t care for his science fiction. He also wrote books about just about anything you can think of. I’m not too fond of those either. But I do like that he was interested in a lot of different stuff. The problem with his work is that he went for quantity over quality and it showed. Or at least it showed whenever I read him. He wrote or edited over 500 books. I haven’t read more than ten of his books. But I could definitely see how he managed to write so many books: he didn’t put a lot of work into them. He also tended to write short books. Now, I’m all for that; I think there is far too much padding in most books today. But his popular science books were always just good enough, you know? Regardless, he was totally my kind of guy and he was very impressive. So…

Happy birthday Isaac Asimov!

Otters Beat All Attackers Except Humans

Smooth-Coated OtterLast week, I was watching the great television series Planet Earth, which is the only nature documentary series that I own. As far as I’m concerned, it is the best nature documentary yet made, and I think the producers knew that when they were making it. For one thing, they paid one nature photographer for three years to get footage of the extremely rare snow leopard. And that’s just one example. A lot of money was spent on the series and got amazing video of things like a rare lion attack on an elephant, and an out-of-water great white shark attack on a seal, and a desperate polar bear attack on a walrus that left the bear mortally wounded.

What’s perhaps most amazing about the whole Planet Earth series is that the viewer doesn’t get the idea that it is good versus evil. I often found myself feeling bad for the predators as much as for the prey. For example, that polar bear only attacks the walrus because it is starving and desperate. The more you watch animals, the clearer it is just how smart they are. The bear is making a rational choice. It knows that it has little hope of success, but it has no better hand to play. And it is a tragedy, because not only does the bear die, it is very possible that the walrus’ wounds are such that it too dies.

Since I was a kid, I have been really interested in otters. They are amazing animals. And their obvious playful habits make me think of them as self-actualizing in their own way. One thing about them, though, is that most of them are solitary creatures as adults. But that’s not true of all of them. As I learned from Planet Earth, the smooth-coated otters from southern Asia live and hunt in groups. And as such, they are effectively the top predators in their environment. In the Planet Earth episode “Fresh Water” they are shown harassing a mugger crocodile away. One is even seen biting the crocodile on its tail. One of the producers talks about how they do this kind of thing all the time. Otters are seen riding on the backs of crocodiles; the otters know what the crocodiles can and can’t do. But above all, they know they are a threat that needs to be chased away. Here is some of the sequence:

That’s a triumphant bit of video: the otters chase the crocodile away; it can hunt elsewhere. The following video is rather sad. It isn’t from Planet Earth, but from another BBC series, Nature World. When the video starts, there is a problem. A caiman is blocking the entrance to a bunch of giant otters’ den. In case you don’t know, a caiman is very much like a crocodile. The big differences are that caiman are smaller, but more aggressive. Regardless: very similar and very dangerous. Here the otter children are out in the water and the adults want to get them back into the den before the caiman eats one or more of them. So just like the smooth-coated otters with the crocodile, the giant otters try to chase the caiman away. But it isn’t going anywhere. So an attack ensues that lasts over an hour, ending with a death: of the caiman. You can’t help but feel sorry for the creature. It undoubtedly felt trapped. The following video isn’t graphic, but it certainly shows the bravery and intelligence of the otters:

Clearly, otters rule! Or at least they should.

There are 13 species of otter, although one (Japanese otter) seems to be extinct. Most of the rest of threatened to one extent or another. It’s amazing that an animal that can chase away crocodiles and even kill caimans should be endangered and even extinct. But the reasons for the threats on them are all the same: humans are destroying their habitats. My sister Kim sent me an article in The Guardian, What a Population of 7 Billion People Means for the Planet. It was published two years ago with the subtitle, “With global population expected to surpass 7 billion people this year, the staggering impact on the environment is hard to ignore.” I will have more to say about how that affects humans later on today. But the effects we are having on the other beautiful creatures we live with—the only ones we know that we share this vast universe with—are just horrible. There is more than enough room and resources for all of us: human, otter, and caiman alike. But we humans insist on acting stupidly. When otters work together, they are better. But when humans work together, too often, they behave worse than they would alone. It is so sad.

John von Nsoferatu

John von NeumannThe day is almost over and I am finally getting to the birthday post. As you will see, the main person today is difficult. And it isn’t much of a day for birthdays. That’s fine. My perfect day is one where there are two or three people who I have something interesting to talk about. The worst days are the ones where I have ten or more people like that, because most of them are just going to get piled in with the “other birthdays.” If all I did was the birthday post each day, I could make it really interesting. As it is, I think what I do is better than what most people do. At least this is personalized.

On this day in 1888, the great silent film director F W Murnau was born. He died very young, in a car accident while he was at the peak of his career. He will always be remembered, however, for his filmed version of Dracula, Nosferatu. Of course, he made the film without getting the rights and by a court ruling, all the prints of the film were supposed to be destroyed. All but one was. Here is a little taste of it:

Other birthdays: composer Johann Krieger (1651); astronomer Thomas Henderson (1798); chemist Carl Remigius Fresenius (1818); science writer Arthur Eddington (1882); the most over-rated man in comic book history Stan Lee (91); actor Martin Milner (82); actor Maggie Smith (79); musician Edgar Winter (67); humorist Charlie Pierce (60); and actor Denzel Washington (59).

The day, however, belongs to the great mathematician John von Neumann who was born on this day in 1903. It is hard to classify him because he did such varied work: pure math, applied math, and even physics. I know him especially because of his work with fluid dynamics. But his work has also had applications in economics and computer science. You really need to read a biography of him to get a good idea of the breadth of his importance. You may remember how Neil deGrasse Tyson went on about all the different things that Newton did. Well, Neumann makes Newton seem like a slacker. And Neumann only lived to be 53. He died of some kind of cancer. But what Godel was in his very narrow field of interest, Neumann was in his broad fields of interest.

Happy birthday John von Neumann!

Orcas In the Wild—Free!

Flying Orca

I just found this photo from Ms.OpRoar on Twitter. It led me to an amazing article in The Daily Mail, Look Out, He’s Behind You! Eight-Ton Orca Leaps 15ft Into the Air to Finally Capture Dolphin He Wanted for Dinner After Two-Hour Chase. Given the attack is on a dolphin, this must be a pod of transient whales; residents don’t prey on dolphins. But the main thing is that I had no idea that Orcas could jump that far out of the water. It’s an amazing counter example to the captive animals we keep at places like SeaWorld.

For more, see my article on the great documentary Blackflish. You really should see the documentary if you haven’t already. We need to get SeaWorld and the similar parks closed down. What we are doing to these animals is nothing short of torture. In the future, we will see this captivity for what it is: slavery. I am so disgusted. The least any of us can do is to boycott these parks.

Let me just quote one bit from my article:

There is a lot of emotional content in Blackfish. I jumped out of my seat a couple of times. But there is also a lot of information. For example, despite the claims of SeaWorld, Orca in the wild live to be about 50 on average. But they can live to be 90 years old. In captivity, they usually die by the age of 25. The film put me through the wringer, but I can’t recommend it more highly.

It is so beautiful and heartening to see these beautiful, intelligent creatures living free the way they were born to. I still feel sorry for that poor bottlenose dolphin, but at least it was allowed to live its life free, and not as a trained circus freak. I fear I am becoming radicalized. But how can you not when you see great pictures like this one that show how wild Ocras live. Click over to see a lot more.

Mathematics in a Vacuum

Srinivasa RamanujanOn this day in 1915, actor Barbara Billingsley was born. She only died a couple of years ago at the age of 94. Best remembered as the mother on Leave It to Beaver, she is the ultimate symbol of 1950s domesticity. Never exactly a hottie (she only started acting at the age of 30), she exuded what we all wanted mothers to be. And I don’t mean that in an entirely neutral way. She was meant to be sexy. She was 42 when she started the series. The original MILF.

The British broadcaster James Burke is 77 today. He is best known for his BBC science series Connections and then the later (and better) The Day the Universe Changed. They were basically science history. I think he was pretty loose with his causality. But it was always fun. The following video is from the very end of the latter series. At the time, I didn’t really believe this specific bit. He makes the case for religious belief—at least non-dogmatic religious belief. This goes entirely against what he’d been saying throughout the rest of the series. But I’ve come to be far more agnostic on that topic. But there’s no way I’m giving up indoor plumbing and center heating. And neither is Burke! “If the universe is what you say it is, then say!” (BTW: that was in 1985—two years before I got on the internet.)

Other birthdays: composer Carl Friedrich Abel (1723); mathematician Pierre Ossian Bonnet (1819); baseball manager Connie Mack (1862); mathematician Dmitri Egorov (1869); American poet Edwin Arlington Robinson (1869); tragic (I really don’t think he was a Nazi) composer Franz Schmidt (1874); actor Hector Elizondo (77); American traitor Paul Wolfowitz (70); mediocre journalist Diane Sawyer (68); and actor Ralph Fiennes (51).

The day, however, belongs to… Wait. In India, it is National Mathematics Day. This is in recognition of today’s birthday winner, Srinivasa Ramanujan who was born on this day in 1887. He was born into the Indian middle class—basically a caste of teachers. And so he was educated, but poor. He showed amazing mathematical ability at a very young age. And he mostly taught himself. But because he was isolated from Europe, he worked independently. He rediscovered many theorems and developed entirely new areas of mathematical research. Unfortunately, he died at the age of 32, at least partially as a result of malnutrition. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest mathematical minds ever, on the order of Gauss. But it just shows what nonsense are ideas of “equality of opportunity.” Ramanujan is not a household name because he was born in the wrong place. Still, his influence is felt to this day and will continue as long as humans continue the study of mathematics.

Happy birthday Srinivasa Ramanujan!

The Best Birthday Post Ever

Ada LovelaceThis is a really great and varied day for birthdays. Really some days have a lot of the same kind of people. But as I think you will see, there are some really fascinating people today.

On this day in 1787, educator Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet was born. He was a pioneer in the education of the deaf in the United States. As you can well imagine, deaf children at the beginning of the 19th century were largely ignored (and abused). He began teaching a neighborhood deaf child and this eventually resulted in him studying in France where the education of the deaf was far advanced. When he came back to the United States, he founded the American School for the Deaf, which is still in operation with 200 students. It will turn 200 years old in 2017.

The mathematician Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi was born in 1804. Now he actually did work that I understand: elliptic functions and differential equations. He has the distinction of being the first Jewish mathematics professor at a German university. It’s kind of creepy to think about that given what happened there just a hundred years later. But it wasn’t just Germany. Throughout Europe, Jews were seen as some kind of horrible creatures. Remember what Martin Luther thought of them just 200 years earlier. As much as I have my problems with the Israeli government, their paranoia is about a lot more than just the Nazis. And there is a sad irony that I’ve seen with other races. Jacobi basically worked himself to death. I think that is part of trying to prove to the majority that they ought to accept you. But instead, it is used as yet another reason for the majority to hate you.

The great Romantic composer Cesar Franck was born in 1822. Over time, I’ve had to reevaluate my distaste for the Romantic period. What I don’t like about it is the average material. Mediocre Baroque or Classical music is generally quite listenable. Mediocre Romantic music is annoying in the extreme. It tends toward sentimentality and when a composer doesn’t know what else to do, he simply adds unnecessary harmonic complexity. To be fair, the situation gets even worse in the Modern period. But I don’t rant about mediocre Modern composition, because it is rarely played. Anyway, Franck is no mediocrity. I’m sure he had his bad work, just like everyone. But I’ve never heard anything of his that I didn’t quite like. Here is his Sonata in A major for Violin and Piano, which is one of the greatest works of the 19th century. The whole piece is about a half hour long, but I highly recommend listening to it all. You can’t fully appreciate it by listening to just one movement. Unfortunately, I can only locate one live performance of it, which is good, but it is recorded at such a low volume that you miss much of its subtlety. Here is Joshua Bell & Jeremy Denk performing it brilliantly:

Emily DickinsonIt was hard not to give this day to Emily Dickinson who was born on this day in 1830. I feel a great kinship with her because of her agoraphobia. I would rather conduct my relationships through letters. (I’m not saying this is a good thing.) But Dickinson was also interested in a lot of the same things that I am and her thinking of metaphysics certainly parallels mine. Regardless, I thought I would present “The Mystery of Pain.” I found a version online for teachers where it comments, “This poem is suitable to be taught for Junior High School students because it has a great moral value of life. It notices to be patient when we are in a pain, and we have to realize that everything will change, there is no everlasting pain. Since the language used is quite hard to understand, the teacher should assist students to find the correct interpretation of the poem.” All I can say is that I hope the teachers understand the poem better than whomever wrote that! Let me give you my interpretation. We tend to not be able to imagine that we will always feel the way we now do and that’s a drag when we are feeling pain. But the enlightened mind will know that the pain will go away, only to be replaced by another pain. I would find that a depressing thought if it were not exactly what I know to be true.

Pain has an element of blank;
It cannot recollect
When it began, or if there were
A day when it was not.

It has no future but itself,
Its infinite realms contain
Its past, enlightened to perceive
New periods of pain.

Melvil Dewey was born in 1851. He was my kind of guy. I really like coming up with structures for things. Of course, I’m the worst person in the world to implement those structures. He is, of course, the inventor of the Dewey Decimal System. In my opinion, the Dewey Decimal System is better than the Library of Congress System. This is nothing especially against the LCS, but it is designed for a particular purpose and is focused on making libraries useful for specialists. For the generalist (and that’s most people), the DDS is more consistent. The way that “religion” (100s) is subdivided is the same way that “technology” (600s) is. No attempts at all are made to make different categories of knowledge consistent. Intellectuals tend to prefer the LCS, because that is what college libraries use. But that’s not a good reason. What’s more, ethnocentric and sexist aspects of both systems have been demonstrated, but only the DDS has made major improvements in this regard. Melvil Dewey was also a big proponent of the metric system. Like I said: he was my kind of guy!

And the great Shakespearean actor (and much more), Kenneth Branagh is 53 today. I don’t have a lot to say about him, except that I’m a huge fan. Here he is as Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, the film I use to introduce Shakespeare to those who do not like him. Here is a very funny part:

And then a more serious scene:

Unfortunately, I can’t find the scene after that where Benedick challenges Claudio. But don’t just think of Branagh with regard to this film. His Hamlet is excellent. And he turns the awful Love’s Labour’s Lost into a fine little film. He was also excellent as Iago in Othello. I’m also quite fond of him in How to Kill Your Neighbor’s Dog. Why he has taken to directing things like Thor and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, I cannot say.

Other birthdays: astronomer Johannes Stoffler (1452); botanist George Shaw (1751); composer Olivier Messiaen (1908); comedy writer Douglas Kenney (1946); Indian sculptor Jasuben Shilpi (1948); and actor Susan Dey (61).

The day, however, belongs to Ada Lovelace who was born in 1815. She worked on Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine. She developed the first algorithm for the machine. This makes her the first computer programmer in history. The programming language Ada is named after her. She was, incidentally, the only legitimate child of Lord Byron (hey, the man got around).

It is interesting (Profoundly so!) how much sexism still exists in academia. This first program was created to compute Bernoulli numbers. A number of (male) scholars have tried to claim that Lovelace did not really write the program because Babbage provided her with the mathematics for the calculations. There is all kinds of stupid and bigoted in that contention. First, Babbage himself notes that he provided Lovelace with the mathematics to save her the trouble. It wasn’t as though the mathematics had never been worked out. And when Lovelace got his notes, she found and corrected a major mistake he had made. (None of this should be taken as a slight against Babbage who was brilliant and extremely generous in giving Lovelace credit.) Second, computer programmers use the work of mathematicians all the time. It is not a trivial matter to convert even simple equations (which is not the case with the Bernoulli numbers) into modern computer languages on modern computers, much less on the Analytical Engine.

I think the wish to disregard Lovelace’s contributions comes not just from her sex but also because she was manic-depressive. That is not the picture of the Romantic scientific hero that many (men) want to accept. One scholar claimed that Ada’s correspondence indicated that it was “obvious once again that Ada was as mad as a hatter.” I would note that many mathematicians were pretty far out. Kurt Godel could certainly be described as “mad as a hatter.” The same could be said of that other great computer pioneer, Alan Turing, whose fascination with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs caused him to kill himself by eating an apple he had poisoned with cyanide. There is no doubt of the importance of Ada Lovelace, and the attacks on her are typical of just how small the minds of big brained people can be.

Happy birthday Ada Lovelace!

The Stupidest Fucking Sentence Ever

Usain BoltPerhaps the stupidest sentence in the English language is this:

I didn’t come here to lose!

The last time I heard it was when I was over at a friend’s house and we were watching one of those cooking shows. The sentence is stupid on so many levels. To begin with, are we to believe that some people do show up to competitions to lose? Is there a runner who wins the Boston Marathon and is pissed off? “Fuck, I came here to lose!”

The sentence doesn’t say much either. Okay, so he didn’t come here to lose. Did he come here to enjoy the weather? Did he come here because it was a free trip? Did he come here to embarrass himself? I’m sure everyone really wants to know. But we all figure what he means is that he came here to win. He just wants to say it in a clever way. So why not, “I didn’t not come here to not lose”? That one sounds good. Instead of one double negative, it has two. And as an added bonus, it is almost impossible to figure out what it means!

Geoffrey MutaiBut what makes the sentence so terrible is the testosterone fueled subtext that the speaker can simply will his victory. That’s just bullshit.

Consider Geoffrey Mutai, one of the best marathon racers in the world. He holds the title for the fastest unofficial marathon time, 2:03:02. That’s an average of 4:42 per mile. For 26 miles. He’s an amazing man. He is also quite small. He is 5’7″ and weighs 119 pounds. I’m sure he is not dumb enough to ever say (in whatever language), “I didn’t come here to lose!” But I’m equally sure he comes to every event intent on winning.

Now consider Usain Bolt, one of the best sprinters in the world. He holds the title for the fastest 100 m and 200 m (and the unofficial fastest 150 m). That 100 m race amounts to 25.7 mph. He’s an amazing man. He is also quite big. He is 6’5″ and weighs 207 pounds. In other words, he’s about twice the size of Geoffrey Mutai. And I am equally sure that he is not dumb enough to ever say (in whatever language), “I didn’t come here to lose!” But as with Mutai, I’m sure he comes to competitions to win.

So both men come to whatever competition they enter to win. Now if they competed in a marathon, Mutai would win. If they competed in a sprint, Bolt would win. No amount of will would change the results of either of these races.

It could be that a good mental attitude helps a little, but it is swamped by other factors like Usain Bolt’s enormous stride or Geoffrey Mutai’s low weight or a half percentage point change in humidity. It’s like with cancer: despite what people say, having a good mental attitude doesn’t have any effect on cancer outcomes.

So please, stop saying, “I didn’t come here to lose!” You aren’t going to will yourself to victory, and saying this just means that you’re a dick.