This article is about Tom Daschle and the long-term problems that could result if Obama's health plan passes. I don't agree with a lot of it and unfortunately it is largely written from the doomsday perspective of a post-election Republican, but one point that stood out to me was that if the government picks up a program that doesn't work, it'll be like social security - we won't be able to get the people to let it go even if better solutions arise.
This article is about what closing Guantanamo would mean for US foreign/counterterrorism policy, as well as the very relevant question of what exactly we'll be doing with the detainees there.
I'd like to have a conversation going at some point about this sort of stuff, as well as torture. I'm not on the hardcore side, but in my experience, my views on torture lie to the right of most of my friends.
November 21, 2008
Healthcare and Wellness
Basically I'm asking if any of you knows any articles or research off the top of your head about incentives to change health behavior and how successful they've been. I'm asking this for this afternoon.
Now, in general, anything about making health care more efficient is appreciated because it's helpful to my job. This afternoon, however, I am supposed to give some sort of report on this stuff.
Basically, Wellness (formerly known as preventative health care) is big in the health industry. It pretty much means any lifestyle changes that can help reduce future costs. This includes everything from making sure you go to the doctor to employers beautifying their stairwells to encourage exercise.
Personally, I think it's a bit early for these ideas, but a couple of things I'm thinking about, because I definitely think they're part of the future of health plans, is:
1) Getting people to eat healthier, but specifically, in a way that would make Michael Pollan proud. I guess ideally it would be something like being able to get an employer-funded 20% discount at Trader Joe's or something like that. I know it's a bit early for the industry, but it's an idea.
2) Something even more in gestation would be an idea like Wii Fit. Now, you kind of have to get beyond the present and think about where exercise video games can be in 10 years. If employers are still footing the bill for health care down the road, I don't think it would be surprising at all to see them show up in more offices. We've got 66 people in our office, so paying $250 for a Wii plus $90 for Wii Fit isn't too expensive if it provides any returns at all ...
Now, in general, anything about making health care more efficient is appreciated because it's helpful to my job. This afternoon, however, I am supposed to give some sort of report on this stuff.
Basically, Wellness (formerly known as preventative health care) is big in the health industry. It pretty much means any lifestyle changes that can help reduce future costs. This includes everything from making sure you go to the doctor to employers beautifying their stairwells to encourage exercise.
Personally, I think it's a bit early for these ideas, but a couple of things I'm thinking about, because I definitely think they're part of the future of health plans, is:
1) Getting people to eat healthier, but specifically, in a way that would make Michael Pollan proud. I guess ideally it would be something like being able to get an employer-funded 20% discount at Trader Joe's or something like that. I know it's a bit early for the industry, but it's an idea.
2) Something even more in gestation would be an idea like Wii Fit. Now, you kind of have to get beyond the present and think about where exercise video games can be in 10 years. If employers are still footing the bill for health care down the road, I don't think it would be surprising at all to see them show up in more offices. We've got 66 people in our office, so paying $250 for a Wii plus $90 for Wii Fit isn't too expensive if it provides any returns at all ...
good article about good TV
Lots of talk about the awesomeness of Arrested, 30 Rock, and Lost here.
Did you guys see last night's 30 Rock? It's amazing how Liz Lemon takes the words right out of my mouth...Carly, I think you especially have heard me give that "why can't I just start a relationship about twelve years in?" diatribe more than once.
Did you guys see last night's 30 Rock? It's amazing how Liz Lemon takes the words right out of my mouth...Carly, I think you especially have heard me give that "why can't I just start a relationship about twelve years in?" diatribe more than once.
Now that's some good JCVD!
Yes! JCVD is doing his best to promote this movie. It turns out that his best includes, among other tactics, hitting on a reporter mid-interview. I love this man. Frankly I cannot wait until Double Team II: Quadruple Team gets the green light. (For those of you out of the mid-1990s-action-film loop, Double Team was unleashed in 1997 and starred JCVD, Dennis Rodman, and Mickey Rourke (Seriously.). Hilarious honors the film has received include "[...] three Golden Raspberry Awards: Worst Supporting Actor (Rodman), Worst New Star (also Rodman) and Worst Screen Couple (Rodman and Van Damme).")
Arrested Development movie
The movie is a little closer to reality, with Ron Howard and Mitchell Hurwitz signing deals.
Competitiveness and Blueness
OK, so I still haven't read the report that Warren posted about state competitiveness. Nonetheless, I opened it, saw the data, and instantly new what my question was.
I've been saying that this whole idea about big shifts in the red-blue map is generally overblown, but when it comes to economic success, there may be some real change (like Colorado and Virginia going blue, and Missouri going red).
So I did a very simple regression on the Overall Index value by Dem margin of victory per state in '08 minus that in '04. (So losing a state by 20 in '04 and by 16 in '08 comes out to be the same as losing a state by 1 in '04 and winning it by 3 in '08, etc.) I first did all the states; then I did it again omitting AK, AR, DE, HI, IL, MA, and TX to eliminate home-state effects (I believe Hillary's one-time candidacy did significantly hurt Obama in Arkansas).
The results are astounding! r^2 of 60%! P-value of 0.000038. There is no doubt that more competitive states saw bigger blue shifts in 2008. A score of 0 in the report corresponds to a red shift of 6.74%. Then, for each add'l point in the index, the state shifts blue by a whopping 3.36%. So all else equal, if Kerry lost a state by 10 points in 2004 but it has a competitiveness index of 5.00 - right at the median, then Barack Obama would have been ever-so-slightly favored to win the state in 2008.
I'll do more with this in the coming weeks.
Oh, and yet another complaint about the electoral college - when the EVs are redistributed following the 2010 census, it's likely that only blue states will lose EVs and only red states will gain them. This happened in 2000 as well - John Kerry played on a tougher map than Al Gore by about 5 EVs.
I've been saying that this whole idea about big shifts in the red-blue map is generally overblown, but when it comes to economic success, there may be some real change (like Colorado and Virginia going blue, and Missouri going red).
So I did a very simple regression on the Overall Index value by Dem margin of victory per state in '08 minus that in '04. (So losing a state by 20 in '04 and by 16 in '08 comes out to be the same as losing a state by 1 in '04 and winning it by 3 in '08, etc.) I first did all the states; then I did it again omitting AK, AR, DE, HI, IL, MA, and TX to eliminate home-state effects (I believe Hillary's one-time candidacy did significantly hurt Obama in Arkansas).
The results are astounding! r^2 of 60%! P-value of 0.000038. There is no doubt that more competitive states saw bigger blue shifts in 2008. A score of 0 in the report corresponds to a red shift of 6.74%. Then, for each add'l point in the index, the state shifts blue by a whopping 3.36%. So all else equal, if Kerry lost a state by 10 points in 2004 but it has a competitiveness index of 5.00 - right at the median, then Barack Obama would have been ever-so-slightly favored to win the state in 2008.
I'll do more with this in the coming weeks.
Oh, and yet another complaint about the electoral college - when the EVs are redistributed following the 2010 census, it's likely that only blue states will lose EVs and only red states will gain them. This happened in 2000 as well - John Kerry played on a tougher map than Al Gore by about 5 EVs.
November 20, 2008
The blog has been assigned a task: find a job!
A warning before I begin: this post will be long-winded, biased, irrelevant to most of your lives, and, frankly, not particularly interesting.
Background:
I am currently a Mathematics Fellow in the NYC Teaching Fellows program. Fellows are required to, among other tasks, find their own full-time teaching position in their subject area. The job search is supposed to be completed over the summer, but those who do not find a full time position before the beginning of the school year are not tossed out of the program, but rather assigned to “help-out” (yes, that phrasing is used in actual Fellows documents) at a school until they are able to find a full-time job. At this point the clock begins ticking, and if a Fellow has not gotten a job by the fifth of December then he/she is no longer a certified teacher and is booted from the program.
I was one of the many who did not find a job over the summer. After moving math books around for three weeks at the school to which I was assigned, I was given a full-time health schedule to teach. Needless to say teaching health is not nearly as appealing to me as teaching math, and that is without even considering the personal costs imposed on me by the knowledge that every day I entered the classroom I was hypocritically preaching healthy decisions to small children.
Today I confirmed what I had long suspected—that my school’s budget has no room to hire me (and in fact must cut approximately $300,000 in already committed funds). My goals in writing this post: 1. Organize my own thoughts and opinions (feelings, I suppose, but I have a strong aversion to the connotations of that word); 2. Outline the limitations I face in moving forward; and 3. Seek suggestions concerning how to proceed.
My thoughts:
Here’s where I now stand: I am very happy that I will not be teaching health for a year, and I am fairly confident that I will not be disappointed when I leave my classroom for the last time. As it turns out I am capable of managing a boatload of rowdy children, but I don’t like it. My time at FIT spent tutoring relatively calm and level (though not normal) people made me forget that I would soon be facing middle-school students. I enjoy the feeling of passing information on to a child, knowing that the home environment will never be able to educate the child in the same way that I could, but that is such a tiny portion of the job that I am quite happy to be handed what I consider to be a form of a Get Out of Jail Free card.
To that end, I am no longer actively looking for a math position and assume that as of December fifth I will be free of all obligations to the Fellows, the Department of Education (DOE), and Brooklyn College (where I will no longer be enrolled as of 5:00pm on that date). For those of you about to argue that I am tossing myself into unemployment during one of the great modern downturns I ask, “What math teacher with a full-time position and any concept of the state of the economy would willingly vacate a position?” As proof I submit: 1. HR people at the Fellows and the DOE nearly laughed when I asked about openings; 2. My principal has heard of only two openings of any kind in the last few weeks; and, 3. The DOE has blocked access to the Open Market Hiring System, supposedly the last resort of a certified, unemployed teacher.
Where to go from here:
I do not know how to proceed from unemployed to happily employed. Happily employed in the sense that not only am I being paid, but I also do not want to die when I wake up and realize I have to go to work (this is how I feel about being a health teacher, which is not a healthy attitude. Har de har har.).
I do not even know in what fields to look for jobs, not because of relative unemployment rates in different industries, but rather because I am unsure of the direction in which I hope to progress in my career. I know that I like mathematics and economics, but I do not know how to turn that into some form of career path.
Any suggestions, input, and/or guidance would be appreciated, but please refrain from the standard chorus of, “Sorry you are losing your job”; remember that I am not upset about that (and that I have coworkers and classmates who will not stop offering false condolences along the lines of “That’s fucked up, man. Really fucked up.” Not helpful.). The people reading this blog know me better than just about any group in the world, so I am relying on all of you to be my career counselors, though I will likely stop by the NYU Office of Career Services sometime very soon.
Background:
I am currently a Mathematics Fellow in the NYC Teaching Fellows program. Fellows are required to, among other tasks, find their own full-time teaching position in their subject area. The job search is supposed to be completed over the summer, but those who do not find a full time position before the beginning of the school year are not tossed out of the program, but rather assigned to “help-out” (yes, that phrasing is used in actual Fellows documents) at a school until they are able to find a full-time job. At this point the clock begins ticking, and if a Fellow has not gotten a job by the fifth of December then he/she is no longer a certified teacher and is booted from the program.
I was one of the many who did not find a job over the summer. After moving math books around for three weeks at the school to which I was assigned, I was given a full-time health schedule to teach. Needless to say teaching health is not nearly as appealing to me as teaching math, and that is without even considering the personal costs imposed on me by the knowledge that every day I entered the classroom I was hypocritically preaching healthy decisions to small children.
Today I confirmed what I had long suspected—that my school’s budget has no room to hire me (and in fact must cut approximately $300,000 in already committed funds). My goals in writing this post: 1. Organize my own thoughts and opinions (feelings, I suppose, but I have a strong aversion to the connotations of that word); 2. Outline the limitations I face in moving forward; and 3. Seek suggestions concerning how to proceed.
My thoughts:
Here’s where I now stand: I am very happy that I will not be teaching health for a year, and I am fairly confident that I will not be disappointed when I leave my classroom for the last time. As it turns out I am capable of managing a boatload of rowdy children, but I don’t like it. My time at FIT spent tutoring relatively calm and level (though not normal) people made me forget that I would soon be facing middle-school students. I enjoy the feeling of passing information on to a child, knowing that the home environment will never be able to educate the child in the same way that I could, but that is such a tiny portion of the job that I am quite happy to be handed what I consider to be a form of a Get Out of Jail Free card.
To that end, I am no longer actively looking for a math position and assume that as of December fifth I will be free of all obligations to the Fellows, the Department of Education (DOE), and Brooklyn College (where I will no longer be enrolled as of 5:00pm on that date). For those of you about to argue that I am tossing myself into unemployment during one of the great modern downturns I ask, “What math teacher with a full-time position and any concept of the state of the economy would willingly vacate a position?” As proof I submit: 1. HR people at the Fellows and the DOE nearly laughed when I asked about openings; 2. My principal has heard of only two openings of any kind in the last few weeks; and, 3. The DOE has blocked access to the Open Market Hiring System, supposedly the last resort of a certified, unemployed teacher.
Where to go from here:
I do not know how to proceed from unemployed to happily employed. Happily employed in the sense that not only am I being paid, but I also do not want to die when I wake up and realize I have to go to work (this is how I feel about being a health teacher, which is not a healthy attitude. Har de har har.).
I do not even know in what fields to look for jobs, not because of relative unemployment rates in different industries, but rather because I am unsure of the direction in which I hope to progress in my career. I know that I like mathematics and economics, but I do not know how to turn that into some form of career path.
Any suggestions, input, and/or guidance would be appreciated, but please refrain from the standard chorus of, “Sorry you are losing your job”; remember that I am not upset about that (and that I have coworkers and classmates who will not stop offering false condolences along the lines of “That’s fucked up, man. Really fucked up.” Not helpful.). The people reading this blog know me better than just about any group in the world, so I am relying on all of you to be my career counselors, though I will likely stop by the NYU Office of Career Services sometime very soon.
Watching the Dow
2000 pt drop from 13,000 to 11,000
May 16 to July 14 (59 days)
2000 pt drop from 11,000 to 9,000
September 26 to October 28 (32 days)
2000 pt drop from 9,600 to 7,600
November 4 to November 20 (16 days)
Of course, there's wiggle room on the dates, but the idea is clear.
(PS: Here's another indicator: I was about to create a new label for the current recession, until I realized that it's likely to be synonymous with the current label "economy" for the life of this blog.)
And here's a link.
May 16 to July 14 (59 days)
2000 pt drop from 11,000 to 9,000
September 26 to October 28 (32 days)
2000 pt drop from 9,600 to 7,600
November 4 to November 20 (16 days)
Of course, there's wiggle room on the dates, but the idea is clear.
(PS: Here's another indicator: I was about to create a new label for the current recession, until I realized that it's likely to be synonymous with the current label "economy" for the life of this blog.)
And here's a link.
Being a Minnesota Electoral Judge
I found this to be a really interesting exercise. When does a vote count?
Electoral College
Today's Times editorial claims that,
The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it.
I'm inclined to agree.
But what do you guys think? I'm really interested, I don't know nearly enough about it, but I've yet to hear an especially convincing argument for the E.C. ...
The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it.
I'm inclined to agree.
But what do you guys think? I'm really interested, I don't know nearly enough about it, but I've yet to hear an especially convincing argument for the E.C. ...
State Competitiveness Report
Thought everyone might find this interesting. I think we would all agree more or less with their methodology, or at least find it interesting. It was put together by a free-market think tank and uses metrics that one would expect from such an organization. Bart and Carly, I'm sure you will not object considering Massachusetts came in first.
The Report
The Report
Very Interesting Article
I received this article in a listserv email from my department - the 2 doctors involved were residents in the department for which I work.
I realize some may find it depressing or hard to read/swallow, but it is worth reading all the way through, even just to understand the US' stance on torture under the Bush administration.
I realize some may find it depressing or hard to read/swallow, but it is worth reading all the way through, even just to understand the US' stance on torture under the Bush administration.
November 19, 2008
Let's make the best of the bailout...
...by letting China do it for us!. The author goes on to point out that any offer from a Chinese firm could put US legislators in a tough spot where they must decide between: 1. Denying China something it really wants while at the same time ignoring a legitimate bid for a company in a capitalist market in favor of either bankrupting the company or financing it with taxpayer money; and 2. Allowing the Chinese to acquire some of the American Brand. Tough spot for them. It should be interesting to see how ideology holds up with the Chinese making a play along these lines.
McCain wins Missouri
(Update: Here's a newer story)
At least one website is saying that McCain's lead in Missouri is now larger than the number of remaining ballots.
The article was posted yesterday and listed McCain ahead by 4355 votes with 3159 remaining.
Currently, the MO SoS page lists McCain ahead by 3602 votes. By subtraction, there are 1458 ballots remaining, though it could be fewer if more ballots have been thrown out.
As much as I would love a recount, I would consider the chances of Obama requesting one to be near zero, even if he wouldn't have to pay for it (not sure if he would or not).
Side notes: Turnout is up 7% from 2.73M in 2004 to 2.93M in 2008. Bush won the Show-Me-State 53.3 to 46.1 in 2004, a margin of 7.20%. McCain has won the state by approximately 49.4 to 49.3, a margin of 0.12%.
At least one website is saying that McCain's lead in Missouri is now larger than the number of remaining ballots.
The article was posted yesterday and listed McCain ahead by 4355 votes with 3159 remaining.
Currently, the MO SoS page lists McCain ahead by 3602 votes. By subtraction, there are 1458 ballots remaining, though it could be fewer if more ballots have been thrown out.
As much as I would love a recount, I would consider the chances of Obama requesting one to be near zero, even if he wouldn't have to pay for it (not sure if he would or not).
Side notes: Turnout is up 7% from 2.73M in 2004 to 2.93M in 2008. Bush won the Show-Me-State 53.3 to 46.1 in 2004, a margin of 7.20%. McCain has won the state by approximately 49.4 to 49.3, a margin of 0.12%.
Fun With Numbers
I know two more of these, but I came across this one today for the first time:
Prove: 1+1=0
Assume: sqrt(-1) = i and that sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)
Proof:
1 + 1 = 1 + 1
1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1)
1+ sqrt(1) = 1 + sqrt[(-1)*(-1)]
1 + sqrt[(-1)*(-1)] = 1 + sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)
1 + sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = 1 + (i)*(i)
1 + (i)*(i) = 1 + (i)^2
1 + (i)^2 = 1 + (-1)
1 + (-1) = 1 - 1
1 - 1 = 0
So:
1+1 = 0
Prove: 1+1=0
Assume: sqrt(-1) = i and that sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)
Proof:
1 + 1 = 1 + 1
1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1)
1+ sqrt(1) = 1 + sqrt[(-1)*(-1)]
1 + sqrt[(-1)*(-1)] = 1 + sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)
1 + sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = 1 + (i)*(i)
1 + (i)*(i) = 1 + (i)^2
1 + (i)^2 = 1 + (-1)
1 + (-1) = 1 - 1
1 - 1 = 0
So:
1+1 = 0
God, space is awesome - UPDATED
I found this article really interesting, even though it's kind of not. I just really like descriptions of what it's like to be an astronaut, since my childhood dream will never be realized.
UPDATE: Also awesome! The below photo is the first of our planet framed by the surface of the Moon, taken in '66 and just recently digitized. Read about it here.
UPDATE: Also awesome! The below photo is the first of our planet framed by the surface of the Moon, taken in '66 and just recently digitized. Read about it here.
Romney cedes 2012?
I guess you NYT people saw this, but Mitt Romney, who idiot pundits liked to say could have carried Michigan because he graduated high school there in 1965, has an article out today in which he says that the automakers should be allowed to fail.
As a politician who currently holds no office and one assumes is still aspiring towards one, why on earth would you say something like that? What if it happens? Thousands of jobs will be lost, even if the greater long-term interest is actually served. You alienate blue-collar workers, who are becoming more important to the Republican party in the new economy (young white-collar workers did mean that Colorado, Virginia, and to a lesser extent North Carolina were actual shifts in the map this year, just as older, less-educated Missouri also shifted to the right). You certainly aren't gaining any votes by making this proclamation. I could go on, but I guess you guys get the point. Right or wrong, I don't see how coming out with this helps you at all. I suppose there's a chance the majority of Americans favor letting them fail (only with some sort of line about how they've been digging their own grave, which I suppose is fair) but they won't be too happy about it if they get what they want and unemployment spikes. It just seems like a no-win statement.
As a politician who currently holds no office and one assumes is still aspiring towards one, why on earth would you say something like that? What if it happens? Thousands of jobs will be lost, even if the greater long-term interest is actually served. You alienate blue-collar workers, who are becoming more important to the Republican party in the new economy (young white-collar workers did mean that Colorado, Virginia, and to a lesser extent North Carolina were actual shifts in the map this year, just as older, less-educated Missouri also shifted to the right). You certainly aren't gaining any votes by making this proclamation. I could go on, but I guess you guys get the point. Right or wrong, I don't see how coming out with this helps you at all. I suppose there's a chance the majority of Americans favor letting them fail (only with some sort of line about how they've been digging their own grave, which I suppose is fair) but they won't be too happy about it if they get what they want and unemployment spikes. It just seems like a no-win statement.
Obama's Increasing Influence
Ha! I go over to RCP and who's praising one of Obama's most recent policy proposals? ESPN blowhard Michael Wilbon. Turns out that after a solid decade of annual debate over the validity of the BCS, the current college football postseason system, Obama is turning the college football world upside with what amounts to a single sentence, uttered twice. Wow.
Bush, Kennedy, or Other! (Follow-Up)
In an earlier post I asked the following question:
"In which family did a member kill a significant other in a car accident?"
While I was clearly trying to invoke Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, if you'll give me some wiggle room, the answer is actually Laura Bush. Technically she wasn't a Bush yet and technically it's only a rumor that she and the other guy were dating, but like 23/6, I like to go with the rumor. She ran a stop sign but was not charged.
"In which family did a member kill a significant other in a car accident?"
While I was clearly trying to invoke Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, if you'll give me some wiggle room, the answer is actually Laura Bush. Technically she wasn't a Bush yet and technically it's only a rumor that she and the other guy were dating, but like 23/6, I like to go with the rumor. She ran a stop sign but was not charged.
(Still) I hate Huckabee
With the inept John McCain having won the Republican nomination, then Huckabee charismatically appearing on the Colbert Report, and even with his own show, it becomes easy to sort of like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
But let's not forget he's nuts. He suggested of the Bible and the Constitution that we use the perfect text to fix the imperfect one. I could go on, but he was on the View and, well, I'll leave it to you.
But let's not forget he's nuts. He suggested of the Bible and the Constitution that we use the perfect text to fix the imperfect one. I could go on, but he was on the View and, well, I'll leave it to you.
Pirates!
This video answers a question Carly had about the reasons for the high piracy rate around Somalia.
Obama uses sentences
I liked this article because it was funny, but also because it reminded me that Obama actually is the President-elect.
Quantum of Solace unacceptable deviation (Updated)
I don't want to ruin anything for anyone, but I just want to say that I saw Quantum of Solace and was quite disappointed.
Let me say first, it's not a terrible movie. The fact that the plot is darn near impossible to follow is its main problem. The action scenes are awesome, and Daniel Craig delivers as the new James Bond.
The problem is that, even though this is quickly becoming cliché, the new James Bond is entirely too similar to his initial-sake, Jason Bourne. Because that's exactly what this movie felt like (even a lot of the Bourne crew worked on Quantum).
The cheap puns, the light wit, the shoot-at-the-camera opening - all gone. Hardly any stealth involved. No gadgetry. Even to say that there was a love scene in the movie is being more generous than I'm willing to go.
Now, I'm a little biased because I've been going through a bunch of the old Bond movies recently, but this movie abandons nearly all the themes that unite the previous installments. It abandons everything Bond, better or worse, and makes it into just another action movie, albeit a decent one. All I'm saying is, when I go to the movies to see a Bond movie, that's what I want. I could have stayed at home and watched Mission: Impossible or a Bourne movie.
Finally, the one element I will sort of defend them on is the title. The title Quantum of Solace is awful, obviously, but it is the name of an old Bond story, not merely something they pulled out of their butts to sound cool in the 21st century.
Update: trivia note: director Marc Foster also directed Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, and the Kite Runner.
Let me say first, it's not a terrible movie. The fact that the plot is darn near impossible to follow is its main problem. The action scenes are awesome, and Daniel Craig delivers as the new James Bond.
The problem is that, even though this is quickly becoming cliché, the new James Bond is entirely too similar to his initial-sake, Jason Bourne. Because that's exactly what this movie felt like (even a lot of the Bourne crew worked on Quantum).
The cheap puns, the light wit, the shoot-at-the-camera opening - all gone. Hardly any stealth involved. No gadgetry. Even to say that there was a love scene in the movie is being more generous than I'm willing to go.
Now, I'm a little biased because I've been going through a bunch of the old Bond movies recently, but this movie abandons nearly all the themes that unite the previous installments. It abandons everything Bond, better or worse, and makes it into just another action movie, albeit a decent one. All I'm saying is, when I go to the movies to see a Bond movie, that's what I want. I could have stayed at home and watched Mission: Impossible or a Bourne movie.
Finally, the one element I will sort of defend them on is the title. The title Quantum of Solace is awful, obviously, but it is the name of an old Bond story, not merely something they pulled out of their butts to sound cool in the 21st century.
Update: trivia note: director Marc Foster also directed Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, and the Kite Runner.
Cheney, Gonzo indicted in TX
This sounds to me like the sort of thing that will go away quickly; nonetheless, the vice president and former attorney general have nonetheless been indicted in a south Texas county.
The charges against the vice president relate to a conflict of interest stemming from a group of privately owned prisons he is invested in, and allegedly visited for the purpose of assaulting inmates. Gonzoles is essentially charged with using his post at the DoJ to stop investigation into the matter.
The charges against the vice president relate to a conflict of interest stemming from a group of privately owned prisons he is invested in, and allegedly visited for the purpose of assaulting inmates. Gonzoles is essentially charged with using his post at the DoJ to stop investigation into the matter.
Science finally lives up to expectations!
I just read about a team of European doctors who recently completed a successful windpipe transplant surgery. The important part is that the donor windpipe "[...] was stripped of its donor’s cells [...]" and coated in the recipient's stem cells. Since the surgery the patient has had to take no immunosuppressant drugs and her body has had no immune-system reaction to the transplant other than the healing of the surgical wounds.
Is it just me or has anyone else been waiting for this since Dolly was cloned? (I would like to note that at the time of Dolly's birth I still lived in Las Vegas and was ten years old.) When I first heard about Dolly I assumed we would be cloning humans and body parts inside of the decade basing this on a vague assumption along the lines of: the process of cloning a sheep has to overlap at least 99% with the process of cloning a person. Aside from eventually being told of the various ethical reasons for the ban on the cloning of humans I do not today know all that much more about the science of procedures like this. I took the obligatory high-school classes, but did not enjoy them much and didn't really learn too much.
Today I simply do not know enough about the science behind this work to comprehend why progress is so slow, and that leads me to frustration over what I perceive to be the relatively slow pace of development. I suppose that in this way my ignorance usually forces me to underestimate and subsequently ignore the value of achievements like this, so I am posting this as part of an effort to slowly educate myself a bit.
Is it just me or has anyone else been waiting for this since Dolly was cloned? (I would like to note that at the time of Dolly's birth I still lived in Las Vegas and was ten years old.) When I first heard about Dolly I assumed we would be cloning humans and body parts inside of the decade basing this on a vague assumption along the lines of: the process of cloning a sheep has to overlap at least 99% with the process of cloning a person. Aside from eventually being told of the various ethical reasons for the ban on the cloning of humans I do not today know all that much more about the science of procedures like this. I took the obligatory high-school classes, but did not enjoy them much and didn't really learn too much.
Today I simply do not know enough about the science behind this work to comprehend why progress is so slow, and that leads me to frustration over what I perceive to be the relatively slow pace of development. I suppose that in this way my ignorance usually forces me to underestimate and subsequently ignore the value of achievements like this, so I am posting this as part of an effort to slowly educate myself a bit.
November 18, 2008
Guess who said it, Part II
I liked what Katie did, so here's another:
If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
I'll put the answer in the comments.
If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
I'll put the answer in the comments.
Guess who said it
...then see if you can make any sense of it. I'm not having much luck.
"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."
"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."
Lieberman retains committee chair
I'll be brief, but let me just say I may be the only left-leaning sorta-pundit in the country who thinks this is a good idea. The basics of my argument (I'm so tired of typing) would be:
(1) why usher in an era of bipartisanship and unity by kicking someone out for insufficient loyalty
(2) it's certainly not beyond possibility (though it is beyond probability) that the Dems can get 60
(3) even if they don't get 60, the Republicans will not be able to keep the team together well so every vote counts
(4) the guy really is not a Republican. He really isn't. Get over it.
(With regard to point 3, I was trying to find an excellent article I read yesterday about Republican infighting in the Senate - not over philosophy, but over committee assignments, especially with powerful Republican Ted Stevens on the outs one way or the other. If the Democrats ended up with 59 seats to the Republicans' 41, any one of those Republicans can say to Majority Leader McConnell "you best give me that committee assignment or I'll make the next two years as tough as possible for you.")
(Also, despite my phrasing, I don't mean to say that I think you're dumb if you disagree so don't be discouraged, but this the way I see it.)
(1) why usher in an era of bipartisanship and unity by kicking someone out for insufficient loyalty
(2) it's certainly not beyond possibility (though it is beyond probability) that the Dems can get 60
(3) even if they don't get 60, the Republicans will not be able to keep the team together well so every vote counts
(4) the guy really is not a Republican. He really isn't. Get over it.
(With regard to point 3, I was trying to find an excellent article I read yesterday about Republican infighting in the Senate - not over philosophy, but over committee assignments, especially with powerful Republican Ted Stevens on the outs one way or the other. If the Democrats ended up with 59 seats to the Republicans' 41, any one of those Republicans can say to Majority Leader McConnell "you best give me that committee assignment or I'll make the next two years as tough as possible for you.")
(Also, despite my phrasing, I don't mean to say that I think you're dumb if you disagree so don't be discouraged, but this the way I see it.)
Serious question: anyone want to go see Star Trek in May?
I never thought I would be at all interested in seeing the new Star Trek movie, but after seeing a trailer and looking at the cast list I changed my opinion. Seriously, check out this trailer. The cast includes Zacary Quinto (Sylar/Gabriel from Heroes) as Spock, Simon Pegg (the skinnier British guy from Hot Fuzz and Shawn of the Dead) as Scotty, Eric Bana (star of Munich) as the villain Nero, and John Cho (Harold of Harold and Kumar) as Sulu. The main drawback of the casting: Tyler Perry makes a cameo appearance.
Warren and Katie may yet get me into Battlestar Gallactica.
Warren and Katie may yet get me into Battlestar Gallactica.
November 17, 2008
Rebuilding the Republican Brand
Oh, what I would do to not hear that phrase anymore!
First, the Republicans lost one election. They're 0-for-1 in the last one, but 2-for-the-last-3, 5-for-8, 7-for-11, and 9-for-15. In a two-team sport, that ain't bad.
Second, they weren't going to win this one no matter what they did. America arbitrarily decided in early 2006 that they were tired of the war, which cost them the 2006 elections. Epic presidential incompetence and an also-epic financial collapse doomed the GOP in 2008.
But liberals beware. When Republicans say that America is still a center-right nation, they're right. The only thing they need to do any differently is make sure they have an intelligent-sounding candidate at the wheel.
In easy times, it's not difficult to turn gay marriage into an end-of-the-world issue, because everything else is going OK. With somebody like Mitt Romney in charge the last four years (to erase the competency problem) and particularly the last four months (for the sake of the economy) Democrats would not have waltzed to the White House. They didn't win because people suddenly demand an end to the death penalty or harsher CAFE standards. They won largely as a referendum on the current government.
So the Republicans' return is a two-step program. (1) Choose somebody smart, like people who aren't named W. or Palin. (2) Dust off the 2004 playbook. John McCain didn't really talk about gay marriage or abortion. He didn't make us believe that electing Barack Obama meant we'd get hit by terrorists again. Those things wouldn't have won him the election, but they would have helped. And if the Republicans want to come back in 2010, or 2012, or 2016, they better have the right game plan.
(And they're not bad strategists, so for God's sake don't count them out.)
First, the Republicans lost one election. They're 0-for-1 in the last one, but 2-for-the-last-3, 5-for-8, 7-for-11, and 9-for-15. In a two-team sport, that ain't bad.
Second, they weren't going to win this one no matter what they did. America arbitrarily decided in early 2006 that they were tired of the war, which cost them the 2006 elections. Epic presidential incompetence and an also-epic financial collapse doomed the GOP in 2008.
But liberals beware. When Republicans say that America is still a center-right nation, they're right. The only thing they need to do any differently is make sure they have an intelligent-sounding candidate at the wheel.
In easy times, it's not difficult to turn gay marriage into an end-of-the-world issue, because everything else is going OK. With somebody like Mitt Romney in charge the last four years (to erase the competency problem) and particularly the last four months (for the sake of the economy) Democrats would not have waltzed to the White House. They didn't win because people suddenly demand an end to the death penalty or harsher CAFE standards. They won largely as a referendum on the current government.
So the Republicans' return is a two-step program. (1) Choose somebody smart, like people who aren't named W. or Palin. (2) Dust off the 2004 playbook. John McCain didn't really talk about gay marriage or abortion. He didn't make us believe that electing Barack Obama meant we'd get hit by terrorists again. Those things wouldn't have won him the election, but they would have helped. And if the Republicans want to come back in 2010, or 2012, or 2016, they better have the right game plan.
(And they're not bad strategists, so for God's sake don't count them out.)
Win Differential and Overtime Losses
Sorry ladies, this probably won't be too interesting. Go read this instead.
I was checking on the NHL standings this morning. Now, the Blues weren't expected to have a great year, so when they started 4-1-0 everyone got excited. Now we're 6-8-2 and only 1 pt ahead of Florida for the worst record in the league.
Anyway, as I was looking at the standings I got curious about overtime losses and how frequently they occur.
Background: in the NHL tied games would go to a five minute overtime. If anyone scored, they instantly won the game. Otherwise, it ended in a tie. Since a win gets you 2 pts, a loss 0 pts, and a tie is worth 1 pt, essentially both teams would hedge their bets and more-or-less run out the clock so as to keep their hard-earned point. Among its many initiatives to make the game more interesting, the NHL now gives 2 pts to a team that wins in OT but 1 pt to a team that loses in OT to facilitate "trying" to win, and has also added a post-OT shootout so that no game can end in a tie.
So I was looking at the standings, wondering if anything made some teams more likely to rack up OTL's than others, and if I could find it without looking very hard for data. I thought it was reasonable that teams with about the same number of wins as losses would simply go to OT more often, and thus lose in OT more often. So I took all the data from the three years this rule has been in effect and regressed OTL against the absolute value of (W-L).
Nothing says it more clearly than this picture. There is no correlation. The p-value is 0.954. R-sq, the measure of how much of the variability in one variable is explained by the other, is 0.00003. So teams around .500 have the same number of OTLs as teams at the bottom or top of the standings.
Now here's where I got perplexed. Just for kicks I ran the same regression, just without the absolute value. So now the question is whether better teams have more OTLs or fewer OTLs.
Clearly, there is a strong relationship here. It turns out that the p-value is 0.04, though the r-sq is still only 0.05. The equation is OTL = 9.65 - 0.04*(W-L). So better teams have fewer OTLs.
Unfortunately, it took me until I was preparing this last graph to realize that of course they do! Because W means wins but L means regulation losses. Or put another way, "OTWs" are included in W.
So say every team played 100 games with 45 wins, 45 losses, and 10 going to OT. Half the teams go 7-3 for the year in OT and half the teams go 3-7. So half the teams have a record of 52-45-3 and half the teams have a record of 48-45-7.
So the two data points are {(7,3) and (3,7)}. In other words, even when I cooked the data to come out even it didn't, so my model can't be used.
So I screwed up and put a confounding variable in my model. Oh well. If I figure out an easy fix I'll update, but at this point I'm not scrapping the whole post.
I was checking on the NHL standings this morning. Now, the Blues weren't expected to have a great year, so when they started 4-1-0 everyone got excited. Now we're 6-8-2 and only 1 pt ahead of Florida for the worst record in the league.
Anyway, as I was looking at the standings I got curious about overtime losses and how frequently they occur.
Background: in the NHL tied games would go to a five minute overtime. If anyone scored, they instantly won the game. Otherwise, it ended in a tie. Since a win gets you 2 pts, a loss 0 pts, and a tie is worth 1 pt, essentially both teams would hedge their bets and more-or-less run out the clock so as to keep their hard-earned point. Among its many initiatives to make the game more interesting, the NHL now gives 2 pts to a team that wins in OT but 1 pt to a team that loses in OT to facilitate "trying" to win, and has also added a post-OT shootout so that no game can end in a tie.
So I was looking at the standings, wondering if anything made some teams more likely to rack up OTL's than others, and if I could find it without looking very hard for data. I thought it was reasonable that teams with about the same number of wins as losses would simply go to OT more often, and thus lose in OT more often. So I took all the data from the three years this rule has been in effect and regressed OTL against the absolute value of (W-L).
Nothing says it more clearly than this picture. There is no correlation. The p-value is 0.954. R-sq, the measure of how much of the variability in one variable is explained by the other, is 0.00003. So teams around .500 have the same number of OTLs as teams at the bottom or top of the standings.
Now here's where I got perplexed. Just for kicks I ran the same regression, just without the absolute value. So now the question is whether better teams have more OTLs or fewer OTLs.
Clearly, there is a strong relationship here. It turns out that the p-value is 0.04, though the r-sq is still only 0.05. The equation is OTL = 9.65 - 0.04*(W-L). So better teams have fewer OTLs.
Unfortunately, it took me until I was preparing this last graph to realize that of course they do! Because W means wins but L means regulation losses. Or put another way, "OTWs" are included in W.
So say every team played 100 games with 45 wins, 45 losses, and 10 going to OT. Half the teams go 7-3 for the year in OT and half the teams go 3-7. So half the teams have a record of 52-45-3 and half the teams have a record of 48-45-7.
So the two data points are {(7,3) and (3,7)}. In other words, even when I cooked the data to come out even it didn't, so my model can't be used.
So I screwed up and put a confounding variable in my model. Oh well. If I figure out an easy fix I'll update, but at this point I'm not scrapping the whole post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
