Continuing my series on "Hey, the Republicans aren't going to lose forever," I present this WSJ article about the last time the Democrats won over 360 EVs, 58 Senate seats, and 257 House seats.
Two years afterward the Republicans took the Congress for the first time in 50 years.
December 26, 2008
December 24, 2008
Teams of the Decade
Continuing an earlier post on NFL history, I wanted to comment on the teams of this decade.
First the best:
It's actually unbelievably close. The New England Patriots thus far have the best record of this decade, at 101-42. However, the Indianapolis Colts are close behind at 100-43. At distant third is the Pittsburgh Steelers with a record of 93-49-1. Philadelphia is also over 60% for the decade.
The race for the bottom is not nearly as close. At 40-103, the Detroit Lions need to have a perfect season next year to have even the slightest hope of catching the Houston Texans (39-72) for the bottom. Put it another way: Houston didn't enter the league until 2002. So their records indicate that Detroit could have lost every game in 2000 and 2001, and then essentially tied the Texans thereafter. Arizona, Cleveland, and Oakland are also below 40% for the decade.
First the best:
It's actually unbelievably close. The New England Patriots thus far have the best record of this decade, at 101-42. However, the Indianapolis Colts are close behind at 100-43. At distant third is the Pittsburgh Steelers with a record of 93-49-1. Philadelphia is also over 60% for the decade.
The race for the bottom is not nearly as close. At 40-103, the Detroit Lions need to have a perfect season next year to have even the slightest hope of catching the Houston Texans (39-72) for the bottom. Put it another way: Houston didn't enter the league until 2002. So their records indicate that Detroit could have lost every game in 2000 and 2001, and then essentially tied the Texans thereafter. Arizona, Cleveland, and Oakland are also below 40% for the decade.
Damn You Boston
So the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl a few years back. The Red Sox followed it up with a World Series victory over the Cardinals. No worry, I thought. At least the Bruins and the Celtics are terrible.
Well these days the Bruins are 2nd in the NHL in pts. They have scored more goals than any other team, and they've allowed fewer goals than any other team.
But as all Bostonians (?) know, the Bruins are the second best Boston team in session right now. The Celtics are 27-2 after winning their 19th consecutive game. (Who'd have thought the Patriots would be third, not to mention they're behind Miami via tiebreaker for the division lead!)
So I figured I'd do the work, and I found that the feat ties them with none other than the Los Angeles Lakers for 4th all time. The Celtics play the Lakers in their next game.
Upping the ante, the Lakers also hold the record for the most consecutive games won. In the 1971-72 season, the Chamberlain-led team won on November 5 and didn't lose until January 9, for a total of 33 games and good for a 50% longer streak than the second place team, 2007-08's Houston Rockets with 22. To beat the Lakers' record, the Celtics will have to win every game up through their home-and-home with Toronto on January 11 and 12.
Finally, their one-way magic number against the Nets (currently 2nd in their division) is 41 out of a total of 107 games. So if 38.3% of those games result in a Celtics win or a Nets loss, Boston wins the division. Wow.
Well these days the Bruins are 2nd in the NHL in pts. They have scored more goals than any other team, and they've allowed fewer goals than any other team.
But as all Bostonians (?) know, the Bruins are the second best Boston team in session right now. The Celtics are 27-2 after winning their 19th consecutive game. (Who'd have thought the Patriots would be third, not to mention they're behind Miami via tiebreaker for the division lead!)
So I figured I'd do the work, and I found that the feat ties them with none other than the Los Angeles Lakers for 4th all time. The Celtics play the Lakers in their next game.
Upping the ante, the Lakers also hold the record for the most consecutive games won. In the 1971-72 season, the Chamberlain-led team won on November 5 and didn't lose until January 9, for a total of 33 games and good for a 50% longer streak than the second place team, 2007-08's Houston Rockets with 22. To beat the Lakers' record, the Celtics will have to win every game up through their home-and-home with Toronto on January 11 and 12.
Finally, their one-way magic number against the Nets (currently 2nd in their division) is 41 out of a total of 107 games. So if 38.3% of those games result in a Celtics win or a Nets loss, Boston wins the division. Wow.
Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety
At the risk of seeming somewhat critical of Obama on something, I must say I pretty much liked this article.
Screw you, Drudge
I've got to say - the right wing media largely deserves credit for being nicer to Obama than I was expecting (except you, Sean.)
Well, add Matt Drudge to the list. Don't know how long it'll still look like this, but despite it being increasingly apparent that Obama had nothing to do with the Blagojevich scandal in any way, Drudge Report has a black-and-white (read: menacing) photo of Obama and Blagojevich (possibly whispering?) with the headline PRESIDENT-ELECT INTERVIEWED BY PROSECUTORS.
That's not helping this country, dude.
Well, add Matt Drudge to the list. Don't know how long it'll still look like this, but despite it being increasingly apparent that Obama had nothing to do with the Blagojevich scandal in any way, Drudge Report has a black-and-white (read: menacing) photo of Obama and Blagojevich (possibly whispering?) with the headline PRESIDENT-ELECT INTERVIEWED BY PROSECUTORS.
That's not helping this country, dude.
To punt or not to punt?
When I read that some whacko high school football coach in Arkansas decided to stop punting for the year, I was a taken back a little.
As I read down the article, however, I came to find he's got a mind for probability and a Class 5A State Championship.
As I read down the article, however, I came to find he's got a mind for probability and a Class 5A State Championship.
A new sin tax
To begin: "A study by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest showed that soft drinks were the single biggest contributor to calories in the American diet [...]"
That's right, soda beat out meat, starches, grains, fruits, and vegetables; it beat candy, cookies, and cakes. That quotation makes me feel uncomfortable drinking a soda, even if I am able to ignore the various environmental reasons for avoiding the drinks (e.g. creation of plastic bottles and draining of aquifers near bottling plants, particularly in impoverished areas in other countries (e.g. India)).
Now it seems as if Gov. Patterson is trying to change this frustrating/disgusting consumption pattern. Under Patterson's new budget plan for 2009, "[...] consumers will have to pay an 18% tax on non-diet sodas and sugary drinks." Obviously this faces resistance from drink companies and the American Beverage Association, but I am all for this policy. Sin taxes are (or at least should be) designed to discourage behavior that has a demonstrable negative effect on the person or a negative spillover effect on the community as a whole (e.g. soda leads to obesity which raises all health care costs). I think that taxing what largely amounts to a luxury good as a manner of both improving the overall level of health in the community and as a budget deficit filler is a fantastic idea. I would love to see the price of soda skyrocket to the point where it becomes as unappealing to consumers as its lasting effects are to those who actually study these effects.
Also, I have no qualms about the fact that this policy is regressive. Poverty is highly correlated with (and sometimes causally linked to) obesity, which is also causally related to soda consumption. At this point soda needs to be made a less appealing option so that money spent on calories is directed at the (slightly) healthier available alternatives as economic pressures force people to buy cheaper foods. I know that the healthy foods are the expensive foods, so it is all the more important that we push people toward the healthier end of their available consumption spectrum as their available spectrum shifts to a lower dollar level. We can take this recession and use it as a tool to shift preferences so that they take into account the true cost of the decision to drink soda. Basically, if we can get poor people to make healthy decisions we will be taking a lot of the burden off our health care system, which helps everyone and will hopefully create a positive-feedback loop that leads to lower levels of poverty (as, say, total time out of work due to poor medical treatment declines).
In the end I am actually also just happy to have another, better excuse to quit drinking soda. I hope that was coherent; I am very cold and it is pretty early.
That's right, soda beat out meat, starches, grains, fruits, and vegetables; it beat candy, cookies, and cakes. That quotation makes me feel uncomfortable drinking a soda, even if I am able to ignore the various environmental reasons for avoiding the drinks (e.g. creation of plastic bottles and draining of aquifers near bottling plants, particularly in impoverished areas in other countries (e.g. India)).
Now it seems as if Gov. Patterson is trying to change this frustrating/disgusting consumption pattern. Under Patterson's new budget plan for 2009, "[...] consumers will have to pay an 18% tax on non-diet sodas and sugary drinks." Obviously this faces resistance from drink companies and the American Beverage Association, but I am all for this policy. Sin taxes are (or at least should be) designed to discourage behavior that has a demonstrable negative effect on the person or a negative spillover effect on the community as a whole (e.g. soda leads to obesity which raises all health care costs). I think that taxing what largely amounts to a luxury good as a manner of both improving the overall level of health in the community and as a budget deficit filler is a fantastic idea. I would love to see the price of soda skyrocket to the point where it becomes as unappealing to consumers as its lasting effects are to those who actually study these effects.
Also, I have no qualms about the fact that this policy is regressive. Poverty is highly correlated with (and sometimes causally linked to) obesity, which is also causally related to soda consumption. At this point soda needs to be made a less appealing option so that money spent on calories is directed at the (slightly) healthier available alternatives as economic pressures force people to buy cheaper foods. I know that the healthy foods are the expensive foods, so it is all the more important that we push people toward the healthier end of their available consumption spectrum as their available spectrum shifts to a lower dollar level. We can take this recession and use it as a tool to shift preferences so that they take into account the true cost of the decision to drink soda. Basically, if we can get poor people to make healthy decisions we will be taking a lot of the burden off our health care system, which helps everyone and will hopefully create a positive-feedback loop that leads to lower levels of poverty (as, say, total time out of work due to poor medical treatment declines).
In the end I am actually also just happy to have another, better excuse to quit drinking soda. I hope that was coherent; I am very cold and it is pretty early.
December 23, 2008
Dangling Modifiers
I'll keep it short: I read this blurb in NYT about dangling modifiers ("As the Blues forward tried to deflect the puck past the goalie, he snatched it with his glove.").
Hardly any time at all later, I read this article at HuffPo, which began with this sentence:
"A friend of French money manager Thierry de la Villehuchet told a paper that he committed suicide in his New York office early Tuesday morning."
Wow. I've never heard anyone report their suicide to a newspaper before.
Hardly any time at all later, I read this article at HuffPo, which began with this sentence:
"A friend of French money manager Thierry de la Villehuchet told a paper that he committed suicide in his New York office early Tuesday morning."
Wow. I've never heard anyone report their suicide to a newspaper before.
Topless presidents
Huffington Post has a pretty funny slideshow of presidents without shirts on. Now, most of these pictures are fine, but I have to ask two questions: 1. Why is Nancy Reagan's top sooo low. No one wants to imagine, let alone see, what dwells under her clothing; 2. Is the former Chinese president being helped out of the water or kidnapped? In either case, what is the explanation?
Somehow Obama's and Clinton's pictures are the only ones that do not creep me out. Perhaps that is a product of my own familiarity (I can test this hypothesis by finding a topless Bush 43 picture and gauging my level of revulsion, though it would be hard to discern the basis of my disgust); perhaps they are not the physical monsters that many presidents have been (Taft, I am looking in your direction). Whatever the reason, I am glad that we do not have to see Reagan without a shirt ever again.
Somehow Obama's and Clinton's pictures are the only ones that do not creep me out. Perhaps that is a product of my own familiarity (I can test this hypothesis by finding a topless Bush 43 picture and gauging my level of revulsion, though it would be hard to discern the basis of my disgust); perhaps they are not the physical monsters that many presidents have been (Taft, I am looking in your direction). Whatever the reason, I am glad that we do not have to see Reagan without a shirt ever again.
Notes on Congress
CQ politics has a really cool tool that for each Congressman shows the proportion of the time they (1) voted with the president, (2) voted with their party, (3) voted at all.
No senator voted with the president less often than Ted Kennedy. Interestingly, no senator voted with the president more often than John McCain. The two senators from Maine, both Republicans, were the least loyal senators to their party.
Of those not campaigning (or cancerous), Senate artifacts Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye (71 combined years in the Senate) missed the most votes.
********************************
In other news, it's already been a big deal that Vietnamese Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao brought down uber-corrupt William Jefferson (try as you want, you can't add "Clinton", nor can you make a "movin' on down" joke) in Louisiana. Well, as if that wasn't enough, when a reporter asked, Cao (Anh?) said he would be interested in being a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (One Two Three). Just for reference, though others have tried, there has never been a non-black member of the CBC. There have been two black Republicans in congressional history, one was a member of the caucus (and generated frequent controversy) and the other declined to join.
And if that's still not enough for you, just enjoy what my current Congressman is bringing to race relations.
No senator voted with the president less often than Ted Kennedy. Interestingly, no senator voted with the president more often than John McCain. The two senators from Maine, both Republicans, were the least loyal senators to their party.
Of those not campaigning (or cancerous), Senate artifacts Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye (71 combined years in the Senate) missed the most votes.
********************************
In other news, it's already been a big deal that Vietnamese Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao brought down uber-corrupt William Jefferson (try as you want, you can't add "Clinton", nor can you make a "movin' on down" joke) in Louisiana. Well, as if that wasn't enough, when a reporter asked, Cao (Anh?) said he would be interested in being a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (One Two Three). Just for reference, though others have tried, there has never been a non-black member of the CBC. There have been two black Republicans in congressional history, one was a member of the caucus (and generated frequent controversy) and the other declined to join.
And if that's still not enough for you, just enjoy what my current Congressman is bringing to race relations.
December 22, 2008
Wow, outsourcing is unpopular
A group of my coworkers just gathered around one of the cubes to give our AA a Christmas gift. When we found out that one of the people they all know (financial industries seem to be rather incestuous) had just gotten laid off, the conversation eventually ended up on outsourcing.
Now, I understand that, to a greater degree than anything I can think of, outsourcing typifies the NIMBY problem. So it's not surprising that economists love it and the people hate it.
(Let me say quickly that my underestimating the unpopularity of outsourcing in the first place is why I'm writing this. I'm writing it assuming the audience is pro-outsourcing, but as I've guessed incorrectly before, speak up if you are opposed.)
Boy, was I surprised to hear them talk about it. These are all people in a consulting industry, all of whom make more money than I'm going to for a long time, and yet they could not have felt much more strongly about it. They went so far as to say that the government should not be allowed to send a single government job overseas, nor should it be allowed to do business with companies that outsource.
(My company, Buck Consultants, is owned by ACS, which does many other things but is largely an outsourcing company. As a side note to this side note, it also administers student loans, so you may actually get mail from them for that. I do, and it really confused me the first time, since I'm also an employee.)
Again, I was just really surprised by this. I wish that whenever a job got outsourced we could magically bestow the unlucky American with all the skills he needed to get a new job. Still though, there are benefits to it, and its the inevitable wave of the near-to-medium future, and not one of them showed even the slightest hesitation about their opposition.
(I was interrupted a number of times while writing this. Also, today's been one of those extra-caffeine days. If either of those things is overly apparent/distracting in my writing I apologize.)
Now, I understand that, to a greater degree than anything I can think of, outsourcing typifies the NIMBY problem. So it's not surprising that economists love it and the people hate it.
(Let me say quickly that my underestimating the unpopularity of outsourcing in the first place is why I'm writing this. I'm writing it assuming the audience is pro-outsourcing, but as I've guessed incorrectly before, speak up if you are opposed.)
Boy, was I surprised to hear them talk about it. These are all people in a consulting industry, all of whom make more money than I'm going to for a long time, and yet they could not have felt much more strongly about it. They went so far as to say that the government should not be allowed to send a single government job overseas, nor should it be allowed to do business with companies that outsource.
(My company, Buck Consultants, is owned by ACS, which does many other things but is largely an outsourcing company. As a side note to this side note, it also administers student loans, so you may actually get mail from them for that. I do, and it really confused me the first time, since I'm also an employee.)
Again, I was just really surprised by this. I wish that whenever a job got outsourced we could magically bestow the unlucky American with all the skills he needed to get a new job. Still though, there are benefits to it, and its the inevitable wave of the near-to-medium future, and not one of them showed even the slightest hesitation about their opposition.
(I was interrupted a number of times while writing this. Also, today's been one of those extra-caffeine days. If either of those things is overly apparent/distracting in my writing I apologize.)
The more things change, the more they stay the same
As always, I really liked this Christopher Buckley article in The Daily Beast. My favorite line was "the fugitive." I stared at that French phrase at the beginning for a long time trying to translate it ... once I was quite satisfied with myself I read the line that follows, only to have one of those Homer "doh" moments.
December 21, 2008
Slavery
Here's an interesting article on modern slavery and its prevalence around the world. Apparently there are now more slaves on the planet than at any time in history (though I have no idea if that is adjusted for population size/growth).
Last week was a busy week for me, but I should be back to posting regularly this week.
Last week was a busy week for me, but I should be back to posting regularly this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
