Sunday, August 28, 2005


claptrap on men being smarter than women

There is lately a buzz on the latest scientific evidence for the men being smarter women. You get conservatives saying "we told you so" and of liberals and feminists going on about sexism. People fail to realise that intelligence is a cultural ideal in America. Once you make supposed scientific evidence showing men are smarter females, you are denigrating a section of the population. Research like this matters. It was not long ago that women were refused from studying in universities or studying science. It was generally thought that women had the mental acuity of a child, they had the legal status of children. And I am sure there were lots of scientific research during those times supporting the status quo.
Men are probably smarter than women on average, sorry women. One cannot discount the fact that thinking like this does prevent women from excelling in science and math. And why not, if women are expected to be dumber than men and the people who are in positions of real influence are men. "Scientific evidence" does lead to cultural expectations, scientists should not pretend to be in a cultural vacuum. Controversy over topics like these do show that intelligence has greater cultural currency than nuturing or maintaining social networks or supposed feminine skills. So maybe the answer to this problem is for society to value more feminine assets. That isn't going to happen if the so called liberal feminists keep denigrating the more feminine assets and want to achieve equality by claiming the more masculine assets. Women should be able to be housewives without being looked down upon. Women should be able to be scientists without being thought of as unwomanly. In short women are not all the same. Alas human beings find it easier to deal with generalities and women have the short end of the stick in terms of stereotypes.
The important problem seems to be that how can we as a society both encourage women to study science and math and still think that men are more likely to be genuises than women? We have never been able to do it; there is 1000 years of western history to prove it.
To all you women out there, you should do whatever the fuck you want to do. If you want to stay home and raise kids that is your perogative. If you want to study math and learn all about the measure theory and lie groups, that is your choice. One simply cannot let cultural expectations dictate one's place in life.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

I do not get it. For all our tolerance of homosexuality it seems to me that heterosexual males are deathly terrified of being seen or even remotely perceived as gay.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Summarises my views perfectly

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


spending spree

It seems Bush has decided to sign into budget the new highway bill . And the Alaska the third least populated state according to msn gets the fourth largest share of the bill thanks to their representative Don Young. Apparently he is going to have a highway built in his honor in Alaska. The bill seems to be a whole lot of pork. Bush should have vetoed the bill, but of course he is spineless and he isn't going to veto it, so much for being a fiscal conservative. Somehow he thinks that it will be provide more jobs and stimulate the economy. Oh yeah last I heard, the economy needs more highways. And of course, having the public sector provide more jobs in transportation will stimulate the economy. Oh wait, he has not vetoed a single since he came in office, if I am correct. Well I hope at least some of the money goes to building an efficient railway system like in Europe but that is just wishful thinking. But we will get more useless highways to comfortably pad our growing number of vehicles and increasing urban sprawl. I can't believe how much our taxes pay for so much bullshit.

Sunday, August 07, 2005


grand plan to eliminate world poverty

I was thinking, the only thing that keeps world moving is the profit motive. Every time people complain about world poverty and the massive amount of aid needed to deal with it, the american government would always claim in response that despotic governments are responsible for poverty. Even with the massive amount of aid being poured into Africa, corrupt officials manage to siphon off the aid to off shore bank accounts or to reward sympathisers of their governments.
Here is an idea, many countries in Africa need basic infrastructure. Rather than the aid money going through the local governments, the money only flows through the foreign government and the foreign company that builds the infrastructure. No one then complains about corruption. The only corruption to deal with is within the foreign governments. One would have to be careful that the contracts to build the infrastructure are competitive. In addition, one has to make sure that one large private company does not have the monolopy on the government contracts like the case of Haliburton in Iraq. The contents of the contracts would have to be open to the public, the progress on the construction would have to be open to the public especially to all these private interests group that are keen on monitoring progress in Africa. One bypasses the World bank. Of course you do not want a situation in which the construction is done but there are no skilled native workers to maintain or no funds with the state governments to pay skilled native workers to maintain the infrastructure.
This is complicated, already one sees the need to develop a plan that both builds the economy and build the framework needed to sustain the economy. One can start small, with the construction of water treatment plans, roads and the like.
I guess the idea is that the American government gives their aid money to its companies, allow competitive bidding on the contracts and so the profit motive.

Friday, August 05, 2005


QFT in a nutshell

Not had much time to read QFT lately, I have been too caught up in the research I am doing. We'll see.


a veritable mess

I was reading arts and letters daily earlier this morning. They have a link to an article on Saudi Arabia and terrorism in The Atlantic. It is a very depressing article to read. It certainly shakes your faith in the american government. There are too many interests to protect, and it seems that Bush government or that matter any elected official are too interested in protecting their special interests rather deal effectively with terrrorism.
We were cajoled into Iraq under shady reasons. And it turns out we have created yet another unstable country which was otherwise stable before we went it. We are stuck there, we can't leave because that would leave Iraq in chaos. But with our charactheristic short attention span, we have to leave. Then we realise our armed forces stretched way too thin. There is China and North Korea to contend with, the mess that we have allowed to fallow in Saudi Arabia is still breeding all the terrorists that Osama wants. And surprise, surprise after the government lying to us, nobody in their right mind wants to join the military, the recruiters are having a hard time filling their quotas. This is a veritable mess, we can't deal with the real terrorists, we are stuck in Iraq in what really is a diversion, a smoke screen.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?