Thursday, August 30, 2012

Why Scott Brown Will Defeat Elizabeth Warren

Politically, I definitely lean to the left, and I live in a state bluer than Frank Sinatra's eyes.  In this heavily democratic state, we've got a race for Senate going on.  By all rights, Scott Brown shouldn't have a chance:
  • Elizabeth Warren is a great representative of democratic party ideals: fighting big business and standing up for the little guy.
  • Elizabeth Warren supports the new Health Care Law, and Scott Brown doesn't.
  • Elizabeth Warren supports gay marriage, and Scott Brown doesn't.
  • On immigration, taxes, gun control, and unions, Elizabeth Warren is squarely to the left of Scott Brown and more closely aligned to most people's views in Massachusetts.
And Elizabeth Warren is going to lose.  Why? Because Scott Brown beats Warren hands-down on one critical issue: he is the poster boy for independent-minded politics.  People across the country are so sick of partisan politics that Scott Brown's willingness to publicly rebuke his own party on even a few issues is incredibly refreshing and attractive.

Most notably, Scott Brown has taken major lumps from his own party for rebuking the Republican stance on abortion: not only pointing out to Massachusetts voters that he is squarely pro-choice, but highlighting his independent-minded politics.  In the past he voted against his party for the Dodd-Frank bill to overhaul Wall Street, and with democrats to attempt to end a Republican fillibuster on the Bring-Jobs-Home bill.

In this divisive age of partisan politics, a candidate that has proven his willingness to think, vote, and speak-out independently is so unique that he will win Massachusetts on this "soft" issue alone.  While Elizabeth Warren will win every vote from the democratic base, Scott Brown will get the republican base and most of the independent voters as well.  This is because they value independent thinking and a willingness to cross party lines more than they value alignment on individual issues.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Legitimately Ignorant

I actually think this whole controversy of Congressman Todd Akin using the term "legitimate rape" is overblown.  Granted, there should be no such thing as an illegitimate rape, and rape must be horrific for a woman no matter how it occurs; but this argument is nothing new.  People have been making attempts to distinguish violent, forcible rape by strangers from statutory rape for years.  To be fair to Mr. Akin his intent (as much as I find it ridiculous) was no different than arguments that have been made many times before.

All this discussion of the word legitimate is completely missing the point!  Instead, we should be looking at what he said next:
"...the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Holy moley!  Now that is scary!  Akin is implying that if you are forcibly raped you won't get pregnant.  In fact, if you parse his apology carefully, he never disavows the implication.  I'm no expert, but every Internet search I just did for the past two hours came up with nothing but evidence to the contrary.  So where did this crazy idea come from?

The only reference I could find is from a mathematically and logically flawed piece written back in 1999 (apparently there was also a previous book with these ideas in it).  Here is the quote:
"Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more."
So the author (Dr. John C. Willke, M.D.) admits that "no one knows," then immediately makes up a number of 50% based on no evidence whatsoever.  The funny thing here is that even if you believe Dr. Willke, he still would imply that half of the pregnancies that result from violent rape cannot be avoided.  So even the probable source of the idea doesn't think all violent rape pregnancies can be avoided.  (Note: The mathematically flawed conclusion of Dr. Willke's paper is that forcible rape pregnancies are incredibly rare; the implication being that it affects so few women as to not really be a concern compared to the number of abortions that occur.  Refuting the paper's obvious logical flaws are left as an exercise to the reader, or may be the subject of a future blog post.)

My concern, and the reason not to spread lies like this, is because it encourages and allows some people to believe that women just don't get pregnant from forcible rapes, and therefore there is no need to protect women or provide any exceptions in those situations.  Worse yet, it may encourage others to think women who do get pregnant after rape somehow weren't "really raped."

That a candidate for the United States Senate could be so foolish as to spread a clearly false concept just to make a specious argument is dangerous, and only undermines every well-meaning argument pro-lifers may want to make.  To rush to this man's defense when he continues to stand by this kind of misguided thinking makes all pro-lifers look bad and appear to be legitimately ignorant.  Toss this guy out, do not continue to rally to his defense.

UPDATE 1 8/22/12: Anderson Cooper did a great piece debunking Dr. Willke's claims, basically echoing the sentiments of this blog post.

UPDATE 2 8/23/12: Congressman Akin called into a TV news show last night and finally disavowed the comments and admitted he was misinformed.  Unfortunately, he may have missed the media coverage opportunity and may not even care to highlight it: I can find almost no coverage of his disavowal this morning, and no mention of disavowing the medical issue on his website as of today.  His initial comments on the Today show about being "medically wrong" don't cut it, because he accompanied it with the statement that "pregnancy can happen as a result of rape" which doesn't clarify his previous distinction that he himself made between forcible and statutory rape.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Across Lite for iPad - Rebus Not in Free Version

Short Answer: Across Lite for iPad has a free and a paid version.  The free version does not include rebus solves or timing.  The paid version includes both.  As of this writing, the paid version was $4.99 and is available only as an in-app upgrade over the free version.  In other words, to get it, install the free version on your iPad, then choose the upgrade option within the app to pay for and get the additional features.

Long Answer:

I'm a crossword fan/nut/snob/enthusiast.  Either on my own or with my wife I do an average of three or so crossword puzzles a week.  To demonstrate my snobiness, I'll be sure to mention to you that the puzzles are almost always from the New York Times, and are almost always Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday puzzles.  [Harumph].

Until recently I've always done them on paper, for the past several years printed from nytimes.com (annual subscription required).  The Across-Lite software that I use to print from a computer also allows solving (filling in) the crossword on the computer; but I rarely did this.  It just was more comfortable to sit back in a chair or in bed when doing the crossword.

My iPad changed all that.  The tablet form factor lets me do an electronic version of the crossword in my preferred reclined positions.  There are a couple of iPad apps that let you do the puzzles, but Across Lite was free and I'd been using the desktop version for years, so I'm using that and have been happy with it.

Still, I got very frustrated this morning when I was solving a puzzle that included a rebus.  For those of you that aren't crossword geeks, a rebus is a single square in the puzzle whose answer is not just a letter.  Typically, it is a word or phrase, or sometimes a symbol.

The desktop version of Across Lite includes a way to solve puzzles with a rebus, but I couldn't find it anywhere in the iPad version.  So I googled "across lite ipad rebus" and similar terms.  Nowhere could I find a mention of whether or not Across Lite would allow you solve rebus squares.  I checked the LitSoft (makers of Across Lite) website, FAQ and help sections: still no mention either way.  In a flash of brilliance that didn't immediately pay off, I even searched for "premium" versions of the Across Lite in the app store on the iPad.  I saw no mention of a paid / premium app.

The answer turned out to be an in-app upgrade.  Hidden within the app was an upgrade option.  For $4.99 I could upgrade the software and the little dialog box told me it would enable rebus solving.  I paid for the upgrade and it unlocked my "rebus" button (and a few other convenience functions) and I was able to finish the puzzle.  Yay.

I don't mind that they charge for the feature, I just wish I'd not wasted 30 minutes searching for it, with no mention of how to get it (I still haven't found any mention - besides what I'm writing now - of this upgrade online).  I knew that the program must have it somewhere, but nearly gave up!  So I thought I'd post this so that the next person searching for "how do I enter a rebus into across lite" will get a result that may actually help them.  Happy solving.