Top 10 Signs of Evolution in Modern Man

This article fooled me because, by discussing useless human features that evolution has not yet rid us of, it was basically the exact opposite of what I was expecting. It's interesting, nonetheless.

One More Reason the Republicans Need to Shift to the Center

Demographic trends are really not in their favor.

It always warms my heart when one of my home-state representatives refers to the governor as a "freak show"

Blago impeached, duh


UPDATE: this photo, for obvious reasons.

Sorry, I just really needed to share

You '30 Rock' fans remember Jason Sudeikis, aka "flower guy" Floyd, right?



Well I totally have a crush on him so I was REALLY excited to pass him on the corner of 6th Ave. and 8th St. yesterday. A couple seconds after passing him I dorkishly turned around to look again, and HE WAS TURNED AROUND LOOKING AT ME.

Obviously, we're in love.

Yes, I'm still stumbling

From Poo Poo Platter.

Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and
announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys
for $10 each.

The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys
around, went out to the forest and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply
started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort.

He next announced that he would now buy monkeys
at $20 each. This renewed the efforts of the villagers
and they started catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people
started going back to their farms. The offer increased
to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so
scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone
catch it!

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys
at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city
on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf.

In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers:
‘Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man
has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and
when the man returns from the city, you can sell them
to him for $50 each.’

The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought
all the monkeys for 700 billion dollars.

They never saw the man or his assistant again, only
lots and lots of monkeys!

Now you have a better understanding of how the
WALL STREET BAILOUT PLAN WILL WORK !!!!

Catholics vs. Protestants, 21st Century Style

Stumbling at work is not recommended.

How are none of us in this group?

So unemployment has hit a sixteen-year high of 7.2%. How in the hell are none of us among the unemployed? We are all smart, but I know that at least Katie, Chris, and I have all made comments along the lines of, "Well, I guess I'll be fired soon. Damn." Good work staying employed so far everyone. Let's hope the 2009 unemployment peak doesn't hit this blog too hard.

25 Most Anticipated Movies of 2009

The article's title is over-the-top, but it's worth a look.

I'd watch anything with Ricky Gervais, Jason Bateman, and Tina Fey in it, and I could stare at that Brad Pitt picture for hours trying to think of various scenarios that could result in that image.

Obama/Senate honeymoon over?

I saw this paragraph in an NYT article (as in, the paper version) this morning and thought the phrasing was hilarious:

"President-elect Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan ran into crossfire from his own party in Congress on Thursday, suggesting that quick passage of spending programs and tax cuts could require more time and negotiation than Democrats once hoped."

Don't you hate it when quick passage requires more time?

I could add some analysis of the stimulus, but 538's is more interesting. Apparently public perception of the "stimulus" is way better than the "bailout," so the opposition that the bailout saw from moderate Republicans just before the election is unlikely to be repeated, and Obama will likely get most of what he wants.

The Most Carthatic Thing I've Ever Seen

I probably didn't use the word "cathartic" correctly.

Kit Bond retiring

Missouri's senior senator, a man who inexplicably took the perfectly fine first name of "Christopher" and decided to abbreviate it as "Kit," will not seek reelection when his term expires in 2010.

Kit Bond is one of those senators you never hear about, which leads me to believe he's probably super corrupt, though I don't know this for sure. I do know he sucks, and he won't be missed, at least by me. Hell, even some group called "Republicans for Environmental Protection" hates him so much they gave him a rating of "-2."

Electoral-vote.com is mostly correct in asserting that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan would have a huge leg up in the race if she decided to run for the seat. Even though Missouri is undoubtedly tinting redder these days, the Democrat is quite popular. And if the name rings any bells, it may be because in 2000 her father, Governor Mel Carnahan, won his bid for election to the US Senate against John Ashcroft - three weeks after he died (wife Jean was appointed to a two-year term. Jim Talent, who is mentioned in 538's assessment of the situation, won the election for the remaining four years in 2002. He was then narrowly defeated in 2006 by Claire McCaskill, who herself was narrowly defeated in the gubernatorial race in 2004).

538's analysis is intriguing but premature (an example of precision over accuracy). Despite his analysis, I'd have to say that the best two Republicans on that list are Todd Akin and Roy Blunt. William Lacy Clay might not be a bad candidate for the Democrats - he represents most of St. Louis and doesn't even run against opposition anymore.

All-in-all, given the climate and the candidates available, it's quite possible that despite the fact that Missouri is quickly going red, the state could go from having two Republican senators going into the 2006 election to having two Democratic senators coming out of the 2010 election.

Oh my, this should be interesting

Hannity's new partner: Al Sharpton.

How to sit: 135 degrees?

I've been working full time for a little over six months now. Even in this short time, my physical health has been in fantastic decline. I'm more likely to eat out (even eating healthy foods doesn't help because food portions when eating out are always greater than what I would eat at home). I get far less exercise - I don't walk anywhere. And I'm always tired when I get home.

Add that to the fact that I've always had a bad back (probably mostly due to bad posture) and it's clear I need to do something. While researching things I can do to help my back and my posture (Wii Fit has been good as well) I came across this BBC article, which claims that the best angle at which to sit is 135 degrees. Anybody ever heard this before?

Wow

There must be some other way to ensure our President's safety, right? Because this seems kind of unreasonable- no email while in office?

Ouch.

"Army sends 'John Doe' letter to 7K relatives of Iraq, Afghanistan war dead"

I know that this is simply a mail-merge gone wrong, but it also fits nicely into my stereotyped vision of internal military functioning. Seriously, though, how did the 'culprit' mail 7,000 John Doe letters without at least noticing that two of the names are the same?

Maybe you've seen this before

What's the longest sentence you can construct in the English language using only one word?

So, I'm not actually sure it's the longest, and it uses different words that are spelled the same, but this is good anyway. I'll leave it as a comment.

Burris Appointment is Tainted

If you missed it, here's a Colbert Report report on the taint that Burris brings to the Senate (skip to 2:30).

Presidential Gathering

All the living presidents gathered the other day, as you probably know. Here's a short video of Bush being awkward and Obama being awesome.

Here's a really depressing line from the article:

"All of the living presidents were last at the White House in 1981: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and the incumbent Ronald Reagan. On that day, all the presidents stood in a circle inside the White House, discussing news of the world. The dominant topic? Then, as now, it was the Middle East. "

Dammit

At least I was clear about rescinding my post, but this didn't take long: China doesn't like our debt anymore.

Atheist bus ads

Moderately interesting article about atheists putting ads on London buses. Some of the ads read "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The article says that Richard Dawkins opposes putting the word "probably" in the ads. In my opinion, though, that turns atheism into a religion, but maybe I'm missing something.

Am I a bad person?

There's some sort of web award for the best political coverage. Internet users can vote. So I went over there (directed from 538) and, even though I had heard of fewer than half of them, and thus had no basis on which to vote, voted for 538, the best one I had actually read. Of course, I don't care as much as the title of this post suggests, but is such a decision morally acceptable?

Quick Heads Up

Maybe you saw it maybe you didn't. I don't know how much of an effect this will have, but the new EU president is Czech, and when it comes to global warming, he and Sarah Palin have a lot in common.

Is China Going to Call in our Debts?

(So, I wrote nearly this whole post before completely undermining it at the very end.  But I didn't really feel like throwing it away, so even if I'm basically an idiot here, at least it could bring about some discussion.  But keep in mind that, somewhat ironically, I no longer stand by some of what I've written here.)

With the economy tanking one of those comments you hear from time-to-time is that China, whose holdings of US debts amount to $585 billion, or over 4% of our entire economy, will suddenly call in our debt, crushing our economy.

Is this scenario plausible?  Might China actually do this?  I can't say it more strongly: no.

Unless I'm missing something, I can base this conclusion on two three things.  For one, "China" is not one entity.  There's about 1.5 billion people there right?  Now sure, the debt is likely to be pretty consolidated among more powerful actors, but it's not like there's one guy in the government who sits in front of two buttons all day that say "hold" and "call," just waiting for the moment to trash the economy.  So for "China" to call in our debt, that would mean that some circumstance would have to change that would result in the many different Chinese debtholders simulateneously wanting to call in that debt.

OK, I'm going to kind of gloss over number two because I did not follow this in my intermediate macro class, but I'm pretty sure this issue of debt is tied into trade deficits.  So for China to call in the debt would mean that China would also not be able to continue selling us more than we sell them.  And I don't think they want to do that.  (If anyone can correct me on this one, please do)

But the third one is also pretty key.  Let me add here that Japan holds almost the same amount of debt that China does, and combined they hold about 9% of our debt, or $1.15 trillion.  So, I was going to assume that the treasury rate was about 4% returns on this debt.  Unfortuantely, I just looked it up and realized it's closer to 0.4%.  This really kills my argument, but I'll keep going anyway.  So, 4% of $1.15 trillion means a return of $46 billion per year on this investment.  By contrast - think about how much fuss there was over the $25 billion for the automakers.  Even at today's rate of 0.46%, this results in annual interest of $5.29 billion.  And that's not a bad take.  OK, you're right it kind of is.  Dammit.

Good sources of information, round two

I just re-organized my Firefox bookmarks and decided to update my list of where I get information in the hopes that if I tell you I read all of these then I will actually continue to do so (see the post on the value of hypocrisy). I hope this works, as I both believe these to be valuable sources and also my non-reading of some of these sites has not been aggressively called out by someone else.

Academic blogs:

• Calculated Risk: Finance & Economics;
• Common Tragedies: Thoughts on Environmental Economics;
• Dani Rodrik's weblog: Unconventional thoughts on economic development and globalization;
• Electoral-Vote;
• Five Thirty Eight: Politics done right;
• Freakonomics: The Hidden Side of Everything;
  
• Grasping Reality: The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than Two-Handed Look at the World;
• Greg Mankiw's Blog: Random Observations for Students of Economics;
• Marginal Revolution: Small steps toward a much better world;
• The Conscience of a Liberal: Paul Krugman.

Periodicals and news blogs:

• Al Jazeera;
• The Atlantic;
  
• BBC;
• The Daily Beast;
• Drudge Report;
  
• Economist;
• Huffington Post;
• The New Republic;
  
• New York Times;
• Real Clear Politics;
  
• The Week.

Any others to be added to my overly long list?

An Effect of a Ban on Indoor Smoking

An email from my Aunt Marcia (I have no idea when she is quoting and when she is using her own words, so I will just give you the entire email):
"Heart Attack Rates Still Fall 3 Years After Indoor Smoking Bans

Myocardial infarction rates continue to fall 3 years after indoor smoking bans are implemented, according to a study in MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report].

The CDC notes that nine studies have shown quick drops in hospitalizations for myocardial infarctions after laws go into effect prohibiting smoking at work and in public places, but the report is the first to show this reduction continues for several years.

The study examined the rate of hospitalization for myocardial infarction in Pueblo, Colorado, after a smoke-free ordinance took effect in 2003. Rates dropped 27% in the first 18 months and an additional 19% in the next 18 months.

'These findings provide support for considering smoke-free policies an important component of interventions to prevent heart disease morbidity and mortality,' the CDC concluded."

Hypocrisy as a tool

Here's an interesting Washington Post article about how one can motivate a person to do something that may not be the most appealing activity but is for their own good in the long run. The basic idea is that if you can get a person to publicly declare something to be true/better/their habit (e.g. exercising regularly, eating healthily, or using a condom), then that person becomes significantly more likely to actually do that something. (Two caveats: 1. The person has to believe that you are correct in what you are asking them to declare; and, 2. You have to be supportive in pointing out their hypocrisy rather than aggressive.)

The examples provided range from using condoms to going to the gym, and in each case those who were made to feel publicly hypocritical about their own actions were much more likely to make the 'right' decision in the future. No spectacular methodology and no real long-term follow-up on the results, but a pretty interesting (and intuitive) result (and even six months of increased condom use is pretty impressive). Perhaps Blagojevich needed to be appointed head of a committee to fight corruption...

So it looks like stepping-on-a-kitten porn is illegal

Here's an interesting story about the intersection between animal cruelty and free speech (that intersection is, in fact, pornography. yeah, ew). Here's the gist:

"...In 1999, Congress made it a crime to sell “crush videos” and almost all other depictions of unlawful cruelty to animals.

The conduct itself is disgusting, of course. But the law does not criminalize the cruelty, which was already illegal in all 50 states, only its depiction. By making such expressions illegal — adding a new category of speech to the very few that are entirely unprotected under the First Amendment — the law raised profound constitutional questions about whether and when the government can decide that some sorts of information have no social value at all...

...The law does contain an exception for materials of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” But Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the exception was small comfort. “What constitutes serious value,” Professor Volokh said, “is very much in the eye of the beholder.”"

Gotta agree with Volokh, whose name sounds like Harry Potter character's to me, on this one. And making it a crime to sell videos depicting illegal acts sounds like a very slippery slope.

Also, the article ends with, "[the chief counsel of the Human Society] provided a reporter with links to two examples, one involving a kitten, the other a puppy. May you never see them." Ew.

Let's hope Chris keeps his job

If any of us should want to keep our jobs it should be Chris, at least according to Career Cast (rankings based on work environment, income, future prospects, physical demands, and stress). Basically the best jobs in the country are mathematician (ranked 1), actuary (2), and statistician (3) while the worst are lumber jack (200), dairy farmer (199), and taxi driver (198). It is in my best interests to have friends in that first set, so I really hope Chris is fortunate enough to hold that area down until he can hire the rest of us as we are fired from our less appealing jobs.

I currently sit at ranking 127 on the list (teacher). As it turns out that is below piano tuner (76), teacher's aid (106), and sewage plant operator (118). Damn it.

Update: I meant to include the full list before.

Don't know if I should laugh or cry

As you probably know, when a hockey player scores three goals in a game, it's called a "hat trick."

Devout hockey fans are also familiar with the "Gordie Howe hat trick," named for (by far) the greatest pre-Gretzky player in NHL history. It consists of a goal, an assist, and a fight in one game.

Well, Wikipedia has taken it a whole other step further with what it calls the "Mario Lemieux hat trick." (For non-hockey-obsessives, various health issues kept Lemieux [Luh-myoo] from playing a full and lengthy career. Nonetheless, his averages are actually very similar to Gretzky's, and he's certainly in the top five of hockey players all time.)

In 1993 Lemieux received radiation treatment for cancer on the day of a game in which he went on to score a goal and an assist, thus the "Mario Lemieux hat trick." Wow.

******************

As a side note, another thing I found absolutely amazing was the unnamed (though referred to as the "quintella" or "Lemieux cycle") is a feat which will probably never be repeated in hockey history - on December 31, 1988, Lemieux scored a powerplay goal, shorthanded goal, even-strength goal, empty-net goal, and a penalty shot. This was the first of four five-goal games for Lemieux, which ties him with Gretzky for second all time, though the record holder, Joe Malone, played in the 1910s.

Finally, I'll just add that I watched a game where Lemieux scored five goals in a game once. It was March 26, 1996, and he was playing Wayne Gretzky and the St. Louis Blues. He would add two assists for a total of seven points in the Penguins 8-4 victory.

Get him out of here

Sorry, Roland. You refer to yourself in the third person, and your whole life's list of accomplishments goes out the window in my book. I don't care if you brought world peace and ended world hunger.

Maybe if you're Wayne Gretzky, though.

Well, that didn't take long

As much as I hate to borrow from idiot Republican mouthpieces, we've got Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Jefferson, Eric Holder ... throw in less offensive but still hateable figures like Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden (annointing his son), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and possibly Caroline Kennedy, and even I've got to ask if the Democrats will use their power any more nobly than the Republicans did. Because they haven't even taken office yet, and it ain't lookin' good.

(Let me just add, since I'm begging the question above and I've been knocking it around in my head for a while: the role of Chris Dodd's political contributions from Fannie and Freddie in this economic crisis has been horribly overlooked. And I think it's Barney Frank who's playing the same role in the House, but I'm not as sure about that.)

Great Sports Article

RealClearSports hit a bullseye with its article "10 Most Underreported Sports Stories of 2008." Though it's given in the annoying one-at-a-time-and-click-to-see-the-next-item-on-the-list format, it's even worth a quick look for the non-sports-fan.

Also worth a read (maybe not so much for non-sports-fans) is the "10 Most Inaccurate Sports Predictions of 2008," though even I have to admit that giving top honors to the prediction that the Patriots would win the Super Bowl (last year) is pretty lazy.

Israel and Gaza Strip

So, can anybody help me understand what's going on here?  I haven't read anything (not that I've tried especially hard) that hasn't been filtered by the writer's own politics.