Milkshake Blood

not the same

I’m happy that the marriage equality thing passed last night in New York. Laws that limit people’s rights (as opposed to delimiting government powers) tend to be bad. Legislation such as that which passed last night is, in my mind, superfluous (gay citizens already are citizens just) but unfortunately necessary to positively ensure LGBT rights.

Something I’ve noticed through incidental reading over the last few months (maybe longer) is that almost all anti-gay statements, expressions, and what-have-you are condemned as homophobic.

Is “homophobic” always accurate?

There is, I’m guessing, the argument that hate is rooted in fear (and then the further contention that fear is always rooted in ignorance), which is fine in an abstract, pondering way, but I’m not convinced that every manifestation of opposition to homosexuality is necessarily due to fear of homosexuality, as suggested by the popular label. 

Was Tracy Morgan’s recent commentary specifically homophobic? Or did his anti-gayness come from some other motivation? I don’t know, but uniform, blanket branding, while probably effective and more “sticky” in the popular conversation, is also probably not accurate.

For the sake of making a greatly belittling analogy (but one that helps me think through)- take brussel sprouts. Or broccoli. Or squash. My dad doesn’t like squash. But it’s not due to fear (at least I don’t think). He understands squash; he simply does not like it. And salmon. I detest most iterations of salmon. But I do not fear salmon. Nor am I ignorant of it.

Some people don’t like squash. Some people don’t like salmon. Some people don’t like gay. Obviously these examples are different not only in degree but in kind, but nonetheless, I feel like there’s enough overlap for the purpose at hand. These distastes don’t require phobias. 

Just thinking out loud.  

Horses’ Mouths

Since getting to New York, I’ve encountered periodic updates on this rape case against two NY cops. They were acquitted a week or so ago, although there were a some discrepancies/ambiguities in the case (mostly in the form of one person’s word against another’s). In the moment of the trial, those ambiguities were key because, depending on how one scratches that lotto ticket, the resulting conclusions pushed the necessary body of proof above the burden limit or not.

According to a few post-acquittal write-ups, usually of the feminist persuasion, the trial was a big example of anti-women bias along the lines of “blame-the-victim” ethos and the flawed societal approach of “don’t get raped” instead of “don’t rape”. Many called the system broken and in need of reform.

But if reform is truly needed, one needs to pinpoint the specific problem. Was there corruption in the proceedings? A bad judge? Biased evidence disallowances? Where is the break?

But now some of the jurors are discussing the case (according to DNAinfo.com). They are saying that they believed that the defendants were totally guilty, but because there was no available DNA evidence, they found the cops not guilty.

Personally, I like DNA. It’s doing a good job of overturning wrongful convictions in an increasing number of murder cases (like via The Innocence Project). But my Bayesian statistical training reminds me to consider and trust my own “rational degree of belief”. All of the available evidence-factual, testimonial, character, circumstantial, et cetera- is aggregated into a personal, subjective belief about the defendant’s guilt. That’s the way the burden of proof system currently works. A randomly selected group of peer jurors with various backgrounds come together and churn all the evidence through their respective internal decision-making machines, and then voting gathers their individual conclusions into an overall decision. 

If DNA were really the silver bullet piece of evidence, the judicial system could (theoretically) simply change the standards of proof criteria to explicitly require DNA evidence for convictions. This hasn’t happened. Maybe it will sometime in the future. I don’t know, and I don’t read law journals so I don’t know what the pressing proof issues currently are. For now, we retain the subjective voting process of the jury system.

This discrepancy- between some of the jurors’ beliefs and their oppositely leaning votes- could be a pinpoint to a possible systematic problem- jury education. It’s one thing to systematically allow each juror to subjectively interpret the available evidence, it’s another thing entirely to permit each juror to subjectively interpret the standard of proof itself.

Or is it? The standards of proof, according to Wikipedia, are “preponderance of evidence”, “clear and convincing evidence”, and “beyond a reasonable doubt”, none of which scream unambiguous. It is easy to imagine the same pile of evidence being clear and convincing to one juror and not to another. But it’s also easy to imagine that, sans evidence, each juror has a preconceived notion, explicitly or otherwise, about just what constitutes “clear and convincing”. 

As I’m presenting it, the system allows for these multiple levels of subjective interpretation- one at the proof level, and another meta-interpretation at the standards level. Does this constitute a systematic flaw? Even if it does, is there a better available option? The Ordinary Least Squares procedure is known to be BLUE- Best Linear Unbiased Estimator. It’s the best in its class because, compared to other available estimators, it is most unbiased and efficient as long as certain conditions (the Gauss-Markov assumptions) are met. This does not mean that it is perfect- OLS doesn’t achieve 100% “correct” results (if such results are even possible). But, among all options, OLS does the best job most of the time.

I guess the above analogy could be reframed to where the G-M assumptions are like the standards of proof, and the OLS process is like the jury weighing the evidence. As long as the G-M assumptions are satisfied- as long as the jury all understand and interpret the standards “correctly”- we can rely on the subsequent OLS calculation- the jury’s evidence weighing and voting calculation- to give the best outcome.

I don’t have a conclusion, I’m just spinning out. To me, it seems that the blanket statements that commentators have made are emotional, which is understandable, but now should be refined into specific critiques so that better, more meaningful, and possibly more effective, analysis can be done. 

Two cents. 

Cave of Forgotten I Don’t Know What

Last weekend, I went down to DC to attend a party and hang out with some friends. It was good. Since it was rapture weekend, there were two bands out on the National Mall preaching to the masses. One classic hard-rock themed group in front of the Air & Space Museum, launching twenty minute shred-jams as the portly lead singer (wearing shorts and sitting in a chair btw, un-rock-and-roll) threw in interjections - “resistthedevil!”, “followJesus!”. Another troupe directly across from the first, composed of soft nostalgic baby boomer jesus hippies, played 50’s/60’s rock and roll to backing drum tracks with changed lyrics (unless Chuck Berry meant it to be “go Jesus go! go!”). Needless to say, you can hear the cheap chorus pedal can’t you?

In the afternoon, I met up with my friend Beth and her girlfriend Shira to see Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”. I had heard really good things about it, especially from Ebert via his Twitter feed. AND I’d heard that this is one of the few movies that benefits from being in 3-D. Unfortunately, the AFI theatre was showing it in 2-D. Nonetheless, I expected goodness.

I was wrong. What began as an interesting look into a cool prehistoric cave turned into one of the stranger movies I’ve seen in a while. It goes from descriptive to philosophical to anthropological to musical to just plain weird. All of which would have been fine if I didn’t get the sneaking, maybe quasi-paranoid feeling that there was something up Herzog’s sleeve.

What could have been an enjoyable, simple, informative, beautiful movie became a traffic jam of crazy. But calculated crazy I think. Thus, I am prepared to argue that Cave of Forgotten Dreams is one huge tongue-in-cheek joke poking fun at the self-serious tone of the documentary genre. I am imagining Herzog giggling his odd-cadenced way in the editing room as he sees just how far he can extend the joke before the audience calls his bluff.

I’m making this argument without any supplementary evidence. None of the reviews I’ve read (not many) have questioned the sincerity of the movie, and I haven’t seen any interviews with Herzog himself about the movie. This is all purely from one viewing of the movie. And admittedly, not in 3-D, but then, my feelings have nothing to do with the image quality, so…

I first suppressed a laugh when the Scientist told us to be quiet, so that we could hear the spirits of the cave (or something) [dramatic pause, turn to the camera], “and perhaps, our own heartbeats.”

Can a documentary be hammy?

Then there follows various interviews and different angles, none of which persuaded me to take the movie seriously. The cast of characters (and yes, I’m calling them characters) is goofy and suspect:

1) French anthropologist/circus performer: WHAT?! Why is that in the movie?! Of all the conversation they must have taped, why put that factoid in? Does it establish him as an expert? To the circus anthropologist’s credit, he is the only one among the interviewees who doesn’t lap up the leading questions that Herzog provides;

2) The mustachio’d anthroplayboyologist who demonstrates how to use an atlatl. He is so willing to answer every leading question in the affirmative, showing no sign of an academically rigorous backbone or healthy skepticism anywhere;

3) The master perfumer, walking around sniffing the ground for cave entrances, and then later, sniffing the interiors of the cave as if that somehow validates his “process”;

4) The skin-wearing experimental bone flautist, who stares so earnestly into the camera when it’s his turn that I got uncomfortable, and who then played the Star-Bangled Banner on his flute made from a vulture bone and acted like there was some obvious connection (?!).

After Woodwind Caveman, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Dr. Raleigh St. Clair had shown up next, in all of his postured, pretentious, self-serious glory. The movie was that contrived. Alas, Werner Herzog didn’t go that far.

The movie lost me long before the post-script, so I wasn’t all that shocked to see some albino alligator as a metaphor for…somethingidon’tknowwhat. That being said, the overwrought, faux-thought-provoking line about the alligator “becoming its own doppelganger” made me laugh.

It’s to Herzog’s credit that he keeps a straight face through the whole movie. I didn’t question Grizzly Man, it didn’t seem to need to be. Despite some of Herzog’s heavy handed editorializing, the content was undeniably good- at times beautiful, at times sad, at times amazingly frustrating (c’mon Tim, get a grip!)- and the movie didn’t lose sight of that. Ironic then that Cave of Forgotten Dreams, ostensibly so dependent on vision to communicate these paintings, is just so damn screwy.

Maybe this is a totally sincere movie in which Herzog let his creativity wander freely. If so, fine; then it’s just a bad framing of a pretty nifty cave. But I have my suspicions. I don’t think Herzog’s laughing all the way to the bank. On the contrary, it feels like he’s the kind of guy who’d pay for the chance to mess with an audience. And I think that’s what he’s doing.

I like this bread. and this cheese.

Yesterday I stumbled across two things that later on made my day. I was at the grocery store and got a loaf of herbed bread - pain de provence to be exact.

No reason, but why not. Then I walked by the cheese area and there were samples of two cheddars and a gouda. I bought a small rectangle of one of the cheddars- Grafton Village 2 Year cheddar. It’s good.

I didn’t have plans for either item.

But later on, I got bored at the house after sending some job applications, so I hung out in the kitchen and eventually made some bruschetta with the bread and cheese, and a tomato and shallot, and salt and pepper and olive oil, and italian seasoning, and honey mustard. I know it’s not classic bruschetta, but classic bruschetta can be boring, and i didn’t have classic ingredients on hand. So there.

I chopped up the tomato and shallot, and mixed them up with some salt and pepper, some of that off-the-shelf italian seasoning mix of dried herbs, and oil. Letting it sit lets the oil and tomato liquid hydrate the dried herbs, so no worry there.

I toasted bread slices in the broiler, put just a dab of honey mustard on each slice to glue down the cheddar, then a spoon’s worth of chopped tomato/shallot/s&p/olive oil/italian seasoning mixture.

It was really good.

But why am I writing about bruschetta, which is not really worth mentioning? I want to give a shout-out to the bread and the cheese. The bread has plenty of flavor on its own, with all those baked-in herbs, and this sharp cheddar offers a punch that run-of-the-mill cheddar doesn’t and is a nice change from standard-issue mozzarella, which would be more expected for an Italian appetizer. This Grafton Village cheese added a substantial, very discernable umame feeling to each bite. Maybe this is too tricked-out for purists, but I liked it a lot, and will make it again. 

emilyslc asked: Failing miserably at "staying on top of this tumblr thing!" How's the job hunt?

dang! well, at least I’m holding on to the reading part of my self-commitment. I knocked out an economics book last week. Yes!

Job-hunting is like having an out-of-body experience in which the out-of-body you watches your in-body you sink slowly into quicksand. The in-body you thinks that a step this way or that is helping and that you’re making progress, while the out-of-body you just shakes your head, defeated. But then you (not sure which one) meets a person or two who says they can do something for you, and so a vine comes along for a little momentary momentum-giving swing. So today was a swing day. We’ll see what happens. At least this week I’ve managed to talk directly to people, instead of the resume-into-the-void game I’ve been playing.

Positive outlook!

DC and Peanut Sauce

Alright. I’m trying to stay on top of this Tumblr thing. I don’t feel obligated to do it, but I want to write more. I feel I need to get in the habit of ‘output’. Or maybe I just feel a little starved since school ended. So I’m loosely setting a goal of 50 pages or the decimal equivalent of reading every day and writing more. And thus…

I went down to Washington DC on Thursday for my old roommate Bill’s birthday. He turned 28. He is doing great from what I can tell. I hadn’t seen him since he and my other mega friend Laura left Austin in August. It was really, really good to see them and Beth and James. Et cetera.

I have never spent significant time in Washington apart from the regular tourist stuff. I figured that such novelty had worn off for my friends, so they collectively gave me a tour of “their” DC- rowhouses, diners, fridays off, post offices, the minutiae. The mundane is often the most revealing, and I had a great time indulging in the mundane throughout the weekend. Also got to see Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears for the second time and Those Darlings for the first. Both good bands. THe Honeybears play so damn good.

One of the most surprising things in Washington was the prevalence of obviously cared-for house facades. I saw so, so many neat paint jobs on the row houses. Tons. of. color. I meant to take a bunch of photos of all of them, but I left my camera at Bill’s house in the morning. Next time for sure though. Nonetheless, there was a great balance between variety and harmony. So refreshingly different from the standard issue drab of most New York buildings, even if they are those toffee-nosed brownstones. Snore.

Cooking recap- last Wednesday, I tried David Lebovitz’ lemon bars again. I think I got the process better this time, but I managed to get ahold of the bitterest, grossest lemon ever, which made the topping basically inedible. It was insane: there’s a shitload of sugar in there and still, that gross lemon destroyed it all. So I still can’t chalk up a victory on this one, but I’m getting closer.

Tonight I took a stab at his peanut sauce. It’s a slightly involved recipe (not really), and I get impatient when staring down a lot of ingredients. So I rushed through it, it tasted bad, then I started to backfill in the missing ingredients. Eventually it started to taste like actual peanut sauce! So again, not a complete win, but I’m satisfied for now. The positive externality of something like peanut sauce is that now I have a bunch of oils and other ingredients that I wouldn’t normally stock in the kitchen. So hopefully it will encourage more experimenting (from my viewpoint).

Still jobless, but another positive spillover- finding more and more quality coffee shops around Brooklyn! 

emilyslc asked: Is this how I respond to your message? Don't worry--you're not the only one having trouble figuring out a few things on here. Anyway, they're the regression lines on an ordered logit model. I'm getting my hands dirty playing with the open source stats software called R. Are you familiar with it? It's pretty neat. Hope NYC is treating you well!

yeah, I don’t know. I can’t figure Tumblr out. anyway, i love logit models. once I ran a probit procedure and bootstrap-estimated the standard errors, which caused the computer to calculate for the next six hours. that was a mistake.

I downloaded R two weeks ago! I am a fan of Stata, but with no access to it, I was jonesing for anything to practice stats on. I haven’t been very diligent, but I did download a few free datasets just to figure out the R syntax. So far so good.