Saturday, August 14, 2004

The Role of Contrast in a Political Campaign

This morning I was making coffee, and the cat, Squeaker, was trying to get my attention.  Squeaker is called Squeaker because she does not meow; she squeaks.  Early morning sunshine was coming through the east window in the kitchen, casting a spot of bright sunlight on the maple floorboards.  Squeaker, being a black cat, went to the sunny spot.  Squeaker, wanting to get petted, started writhing in the sunlight, squeaking. 

I looked at Squeaker. 

Last night, I spent some time uploading pictures from my son's recent trip to China.  I had used Photoshop Elements to adjust some of the pictures.  As the coffee was brewing, I thought about photography; looking a the cat, I had a memory.   Kevin's mother once looked at a picture I had taken, of one of her black cats, Jeffrey.  She commented that the picture showed detail in the black fur.   Most of her pictures of the cat were snapshots, taken with a cheap camera, that did not resolve such detail.  The black fur was rendered as a patch of complete black.  No detail.  If you want to get detail in the black, you have to get the exposure just right.

Jeffrey was named after a professor we knew, Jeffrey Parsons, and is memorialized in a poem:

For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry.
For he is servant of the Living God duly and daily serving him.
For at the first glance of the glory of God in the East he worships in his way.
For is this done by wreathing his body seven times round with elegant quickness.

Squeaker is a lot like Jeffrey was.  She wreathes round with elegant quickness, in the early morning sunlight.  I thought about taking a picture of her, but decided against it.  It would not have been possible to get a good picture, because the specular reflections on the maple floorboards, combined with the black fur, presented too much contrast.  If the floor were exposed properly, the cat would be all black; no detail would be visible.  If the fur were exposed properly, the floor would be too bright; again, the details would be lost.

The point is this: in situations of high contrast, it is difficult to discern fine details.  Likewise, in situations of low contrast, it is difficult to see details.

Some of you might recall something about the 2000 presidential campaign in the United States of America.  It is hard to believe, now, that there was a popular perception that there was not a huge difference between the candidates.  There was so little contrast, that it was difficult for some people to see the details.  This is described in a post-election analysis written in December 2000:

Lessons for Next Time
The American Prospect
By  Ruy  Teixeira
Issue Date: 12.18.00

[...] The Institute for America's Future poll shows just how successful Bush's issue-blurring strategy was. While voters who could make a distinction tended to favor Gore's approach in the areas of education, a patients' bill of rights, and prescription drugs, about half could not see enough difference between Gore and Bush to form a judgment. Similarly, over two-fifths of voters could not see enough difference between the candidates' plans to form a judgment on the Social Security issue. This pattern is consistent with a variety of pre-election polls that showed Bush narrowing Gore's issue advantage over the last two months of the campaign as he rolled out his own versions of Democratic programs and emphasized the broad themes of trust, values, and big government. [...]

The campaign in 2000 was a low-contrast campaign.  This is not the case in 2004.  Now that Mr. Bush has been seen in the bright morning light, it will not be possible for him to campaign as a chameleon.  Instead, he is trying to campaign as a Komodo Dragon, casting Mr. Kerry as the chameleon.  Entirely opposite of the situation in 2000, voters now are faced with a different problem.  It is not a low-contrast situation, in which it is difficult to discern meaningful differences between the candidates; rather, we see a stark, blinding contrast. 

Komodo DragonChameleon

The outcome is still the same, in one way.  It is hard to see the details. 

Interested persons might like to read this article, by David J. Sirota, also from The American Prospect.   Mr. Sirota does a nice job of capturing the details, despite the blinding contrast.  He gets the exposure just right.

(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Comments (0)

Friday, August 13, 2004

An Activist Congressman Blocks Hearing...
But At Least We Have Moral Clarity

Here at The Corpus Callosum, I've written previously about the various compliants voiced by scientists about the current Administration's abuses, distortions, and misuses of science, as well as the political obstacles to research.  Much of what has been written about the subject lately has been a rehash of old news.  Today, though, I ran across something I had not known before. 

Volume 18 | Issue 15 | 50 | Aug. 2, 2004
Bush and Science at Loggerheads
Barriers to research and claims of suppressed data sully interactions between researchers and the administration
By Dana Wilkie

[...] There is little sign of détente breaking out. In April, a report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that the federal government could give better direction to federal agencies on creating panels that would be "perceived as balanced."5 Democrats demanded a congressional hearing on this report, but committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), refused to hold one. "What we're dealing with here is whether open, balanced, and objective scientific information is being made available to policymakers and to the public," said Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.) who may write legislation to enact some of the GAO's suggestions.

5. "Additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance," US General Accounting Office, April 2004, available online at www.gao.gov/new.items/d04328.pdf

Defenders of President Bush have a fallback position.  Even if you don't agree with everything that Bush does, at least he has moral clarity.  As is evident from his position on embryonic stem cell research:

Stem-cell research decision: Some funding, many questions
Bush's approach to limit research is viewed by many as a workable compromise, though some scientists wonder if progress will also be limited.

By Stephanie Stapleton,
AMNews staff.
Aug. 27, 2001.

[...] Though the president's compromise has been described as workable and reasonable, it has also been criticized -- because it went too far or did not go far enough.

"It's a fine line the president is walking," Dr. Schaffner said. The whole question of stem-cell research is "a very complicated area ethically and politically."

Groups such as the Christian Medical Assn. expressed disappointment. "I am concerned that by funding research on stem cells taken from embryos who were previously destroyed, we are breaking down a vital moral barrier," said David Stevens, MD, the group's executive director.

Many researchers, though, breathed sighs of relief.

"We would say the president's decision is a step in the right direction," said Elaine Fuchs, PhD, president of the American Society for Cell Biology and a professor at the University of Chicago. "I think that opens the door to the nation's brightest scientists."

[...] Others worry that working with a finite number of lines will create racial, ethnic and gender diversity issues.

[...] More concerns focus on the proprietary nature of the existing lines and what kinds of strings will be attached to them for researchers to gain access.

[...] NIH will negotiate material transfer agreements with holders of stem-cell lines. MTAs "are a problem when only academic institutions are involved but get even more complicated when companies are involved," Dr. Goldstein said.

"...went too far or did not go far enough", "...breaking down a moral barrier", "...a step in the right direction", "...racial, ethnic and gender diversity issues", "... get even more complicated when companies are involved."   That's moral clarity?

(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Comments (0)

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Sleep Disorder References

A site called Insomniasecrets linked to The Rest of the Story, citing it as an "additional resource" for information about EUPF. I have posted exactly once about Extended Uvulopalatal Flap surgery. Therefore, this is not a good resource. However, because people interested in EUPF probably ought to read up on sleep disorders in general, and because I have a few posts that might be of interest in this regard, I have compiled a list of relevant posts. Visitors not familiar with the navigation of blogs should note that The Rest of the Story is a companion blog to the main blog, The Corpus Callosum. The sidebar on the Corpus Callosum has a search function, which can be used to find whatever you are looking for. The last one is the article about EUPF surgery. Also, here are some other sleep-related links:

(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Comments (0)