http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603997.html?hpid=topnews
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana) apparently isn't in trouble even though he got caught.
Although an investigation found evidence that campaign contributions were linked to earmarks of federal funds for the donors, the House Ethics Committee decided not to bother even asking him any questions.
So... what's the point of having an Ethics Committee?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
APhiO
Here's to Alpha Phi Omega
Lonely brothers we
Far from college, far from chapter
Seeking memory
Distant friends and long-lost littles
Nights spent sleeplessly
Men of Alpha Phi Omega
Where on Earth are we?
Lonely brothers we
Far from college, far from chapter
Seeking memory
Distant friends and long-lost littles
Nights spent sleeplessly
Men of Alpha Phi Omega
Where on Earth are we?
First Aid
Yesterday I recertified for Red Cross Standard First Aid, CPR, and AED.
The only thing I learned was that the current recommended compression/respiration cycle for single-rescuer CPR is 30:2. Since I was really only taking the class for the card anyway, this isn't really surprising. What was surprising is that the ARC CPR class has dispensed with landmarks for hand placement for chest compressions; something that I discovered is built into my muscle memory at this point. According to the instructor they did so in '06. I had no trouble adjusting to the compression ratio, possibly because that seems to change every few years (I've learned 15:2, 10:2, and 10:1 in addition to the current 30:2).
The class did serve to hammer home just how little understood paramedic training and capabilities are, even by the ARC instructors. Specifically, paramedics are underestimated almost across the board. I also had a LOT more real-world experience than the instructor; she'd never even done CPR for real and wasn't sure how to answer some of the class questions (including the classic "will this break ribs?").
I also automatically and immediately answered the question of "What is shock?" with "inadequate tissue perfusion," which resulted in a short silence, and then "perhaps a less technical answer?"
None of this is to say that the ARC doesn't teach a fine First Aid/CPR/AED class; I recommend it highly for people with no training. If I'm going to join the SCA Chiurgeonate I need to know and limit myself to that level... which clearly is going to be a challenge. :-(
The only thing I learned was that the current recommended compression/respiration cycle for single-rescuer CPR is 30:2. Since I was really only taking the class for the card anyway, this isn't really surprising. What was surprising is that the ARC CPR class has dispensed with landmarks for hand placement for chest compressions; something that I discovered is built into my muscle memory at this point. According to the instructor they did so in '06. I had no trouble adjusting to the compression ratio, possibly because that seems to change every few years (I've learned 15:2, 10:2, and 10:1 in addition to the current 30:2).
The class did serve to hammer home just how little understood paramedic training and capabilities are, even by the ARC instructors. Specifically, paramedics are underestimated almost across the board. I also had a LOT more real-world experience than the instructor; she'd never even done CPR for real and wasn't sure how to answer some of the class questions (including the classic "will this break ribs?").
I also automatically and immediately answered the question of "What is shock?" with "inadequate tissue perfusion," which resulted in a short silence, and then "perhaps a less technical answer?"
None of this is to say that the ARC doesn't teach a fine First Aid/CPR/AED class; I recommend it highly for people with no training. If I'm going to join the SCA Chiurgeonate I need to know and limit myself to that level... which clearly is going to be a challenge. :-(
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Why I don't watch the Olympics anymore
I taped two hours of Olympic coverage last night.
It contained about 50% commercials and talking heads.
It contained about 40% sports I have no interest in.
It contained about 10% of non-medalists from the sport I was interested in.
Coverage of medalists from sports I was interested in: ~0%.
It contained about 50% commercials and talking heads.
It contained about 40% sports I have no interest in.
It contained about 10% of non-medalists from the sport I was interested in.
Coverage of medalists from sports I was interested in: ~0%.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
When wrong is better than half right
I noted this article today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/22/movie.tv.science/index.html?hpt=Sbin
It discusses the 'new' interest that TV and movie producers have in getting the science more believable in their productions.
Perhaps oddly, this worries me.
The article mentions two movies I think of when considering hollywood physics (and biology, chemistry, civil engineering...): The Core and The Day After Tomorrow.
The article regards the former as bad, and implicitly the latter as less so; The Core is less 'realistic', therefore The Day After Tomorrow is a better 'science' movie.
I think the reverse is true. The Core explicitly features Unobtanium as a plot element: if that isn't a giant flag saying "Hello! This is an action-comedy! Check your reality at the door and enjoy the ride!" I don't know what is. The 'errors' in the movie are probably eclipsed only by the plot holes... and who cares? The movie isn't trying to be taken seriously.
The Day After Tomorrow is a different beast. I never got the impression that the movie was intended to be a comedy, but it was guilty of both larger failures of 'reality' and of larger plot holes than The Core. The real problem, for me, is that it cloacked its failures of reality along lines that the public doesn't think about. It will thus tend to reinforce false beliefs of how the world works; IMO this is different from The Core - because no one will take that seriously enough to think about it.
Perhaps this is just my perception, or the number of times I've heard someone say "but I saw it on TV/in that movie" as if that were an authoritative source. They'll back it up by pointing out the 'scientists' that were 'advisors' on the media in question. Its much worse for me when the 'scientists' in question would be laughed out of a freshman thermodynamics class, but yet are somehow untouchable because of their pristine environmental (read: political) credentials.
The bottom line? I think that emphasising the 'scientific' or 'technical' accuracy of something which is NOT, in fact, completely accurate tends to further errode the already limited amount of correct knowledge the general public has.
Striving for consistancy and breaking reality as few times as possible is something I appreciate, provided at least as much time is spent acknowledging the remaining faults as praising the tiny bits they got right.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/22/movie.tv.science/index.html?hpt=Sbin
It discusses the 'new' interest that TV and movie producers have in getting the science more believable in their productions.
Perhaps oddly, this worries me.
The article mentions two movies I think of when considering hollywood physics (and biology, chemistry, civil engineering...): The Core and The Day After Tomorrow.
The article regards the former as bad, and implicitly the latter as less so; The Core is less 'realistic', therefore The Day After Tomorrow is a better 'science' movie.
I think the reverse is true. The Core explicitly features Unobtanium as a plot element: if that isn't a giant flag saying "Hello! This is an action-comedy! Check your reality at the door and enjoy the ride!" I don't know what is. The 'errors' in the movie are probably eclipsed only by the plot holes... and who cares? The movie isn't trying to be taken seriously.
The Day After Tomorrow is a different beast. I never got the impression that the movie was intended to be a comedy, but it was guilty of both larger failures of 'reality' and of larger plot holes than The Core. The real problem, for me, is that it cloacked its failures of reality along lines that the public doesn't think about. It will thus tend to reinforce false beliefs of how the world works; IMO this is different from The Core - because no one will take that seriously enough to think about it.
Perhaps this is just my perception, or the number of times I've heard someone say "but I saw it on TV/in that movie" as if that were an authoritative source. They'll back it up by pointing out the 'scientists' that were 'advisors' on the media in question. Its much worse for me when the 'scientists' in question would be laughed out of a freshman thermodynamics class, but yet are somehow untouchable because of their pristine environmental (read: political) credentials.
The bottom line? I think that emphasising the 'scientific' or 'technical' accuracy of something which is NOT, in fact, completely accurate tends to further errode the already limited amount of correct knowledge the general public has.
Striving for consistancy and breaking reality as few times as possible is something I appreciate, provided at least as much time is spent acknowledging the remaining faults as praising the tiny bits they got right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
