January 21, 2009
Toyota makes a run
It appears that Toyota will end GM's 77-year run at the top of the auto-sales heap. I wonder how much of this has to do with the crisis and how much has to do with policies within the companies (e.g. Toyota's development of the Prius).
It's not that easy being green...
Environmental Working Group just released a report on the efficiency and green-ness of CFL light bulbs. As it turns out many CFLs are not as great as the companies producing them may argue. Skipping the boring stuff, here is EWG's list of the seven best CFLs. There are also some tips for cleaning up broken CFLs, which contain mercury and are therefore poisonous.
God help us
We're in deeper shit than I thought.
Getting dressed this morning, I saw a financial expert on FOX News(!) who was saying that:
1. Obama's stimulus needed to be at least $900 billion.
2. The $700 billion TARP needed to be expanded to at least $1 trillion.
3. The government needs to nationalize the banks much more quickly than they are.
Oh dear god, help us now.
Getting dressed this morning, I saw a financial expert on FOX News(!) who was saying that:
1. Obama's stimulus needed to be at least $900 billion.
2. The $700 billion TARP needed to be expanded to at least $1 trillion.
3. The government needs to nationalize the banks much more quickly than they are.
Oh dear god, help us now.
Why I Love President Obama, Part 1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/
PS - Don't make a big deal of it, but if you find somewhere where Bush's whitehouse.gov still exists, let me know.
PS - Don't make a big deal of it, but if you find somewhere where Bush's whitehouse.gov still exists, let me know.
Hurricane Katrina
Check out what some bitter left-wing fringe website is writing today:
President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.
President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims. Obama visited thousands of Hurricane survivors in the Houston Convention Center and later took three more trips to the region. He worked with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce legislation to address the immediate income, employment, business, and housing needs of Gulf Coast communities.
President Barack Obama will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.
Wow. In this new era of postpartisanship (whatever that means) who would be so eager to remain so bitter at the Bush adminstration? These guys.
Botched Oath
The guy at Electoral-Vote was way more upset about yesterday's botched oath than what I've read in any other account. Reading this is sorta funny.
Hadn't watched Biden's inauguration before (botched video in the conference room). Man, he took that oath strong. Every phrase seemed to implicitly say "I can't wait to kick your ass after this oath, Justice Stevens."
Also, what the hell is this controversy over Barack Obama's middle name? Really? You're more worried about someone whose name means he's a terrorist than someone whose name means he's a pansy? Because I've got to say, "Robinette" is not an impressive middle name.
Hadn't watched Biden's inauguration before (botched video in the conference room). Man, he took that oath strong. Every phrase seemed to implicitly say "I can't wait to kick your ass after this oath, Justice Stevens."
Also, what the hell is this controversy over Barack Obama's middle name? Really? You're more worried about someone whose name means he's a terrorist than someone whose name means he's a pansy? Because I've got to say, "Robinette" is not an impressive middle name.
My sister's parade pictures
Opinions on Barack's Speech
I would like to see the speech again before giving my review, but I really enjoyed reading some of the Daily Beast correspondents' reactions to Barack's inaugural address.
Obama's first act as president
In his first official act as president Barack Obama issued the following statement declaring a national day of reconciliation (My source was the White House blog):
NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.
We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.
On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.
So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
January 20, 2009
Inaugural Address, NYT Style
NYT broke down each inaugural address by instances of each word. (As I checked the link, they already beat me to this!). Well, anyway, since I did it, here's what I got:
| Nation | 12 |
| New | 11 |
| America | 7 |
| Less | 7 |
| People | 7 |
| Today | 7 |
| Cannot | 6 |
| Common | 6 |
| Let | 6 |
| Now | 6 |
| Time | 6 |
| Work | 6 |
| World | 6 |
| Day | 5 |
| Generation | 5 |
| Know | 5 |
| More | 5 |
| Spirit | 5 |
| Crisis | 4 |
| End | 4 |
| Greater | 4 |
| Long | 4 |
| Meet | 4 |
| Men | 4 |
| Peace | 4 |
| Power | 4 |
| Seek | 4 |
| Things | 4 |
| Women | 4 |
| Words | 4 |
| Americans | 3 |
| Carried | 3 |
| Courage | 3 |
| Earth | 3 |
| Economy | 3 |
| Father | 3 |
| Force | 3 |
| Freedom | 3 |
| Future | 3 |
| Generations | 3 |
| Government | 3 |
| Hard | 3 |
| History | 3 |
| Hope | 3 |
| Ideals | 3 |
| Jobs | 3 |
| Journey | 3 |
| Just | 3 |
| Last | 3 |
| Life | 3 |
| Man | 3 |
| Many | 3 |
| May | 3 |
| Moment | 3 |
| Most | 3 |
| Nations | 3 |
| Oath | 3 |
| Old | 3 |
| Once | 3 |
| Ourselves | 3 |
| Prosperity | 3 |
| Question | 3 |
| Rather | 3 |
Katie's lame inauguration liveblog
I'm alone in my apartment, so I just really wanted to share my thoughts as I watch, like...
*when Bush entered, the crowd started booing and singing "nah nah nah, hey hey hey, good bye" (i don't know what that song is actually called) and the band furiously and unsuccessfully tried to drown them out. pretty funny.
*aretha franklin's hat is amazing (photo tk)
*watching msnbc is not worth it, because as much as i like to hear rachel maddow's take, she's totally overpowered by chris matthews saying things like, "msnbc is the network of the future."
*how many people do you think are on the mall? pretty amazing
that's all for now...
UPDATE:
*Barack Obama is President!
*Great speech, I thought. Hopefully makes up for the fact that he kind of flubbed the oath of office.
*Bush 41's outfit is pretty outrageous (giant fur hat, bright purple scarf). I guess he's showing his true colors as a fashion maven in his old age?
*when Bush entered, the crowd started booing and singing "nah nah nah, hey hey hey, good bye" (i don't know what that song is actually called) and the band furiously and unsuccessfully tried to drown them out. pretty funny.
*aretha franklin's hat is amazing (photo tk)
*watching msnbc is not worth it, because as much as i like to hear rachel maddow's take, she's totally overpowered by chris matthews saying things like, "msnbc is the network of the future."
*how many people do you think are on the mall? pretty amazing
that's all for now...
UPDATE:
*Barack Obama is President!
*Great speech, I thought. Hopefully makes up for the fact that he kind of flubbed the oath of office.
*Bush 41's outfit is pretty outrageous (giant fur hat, bright purple scarf). I guess he's showing his true colors as a fashion maven in his old age?
January 19, 2009
Gem from SNL
If you have any conservative friends left, you can see how this would help in confronting their arguments about Bush keeping us safe. Inspired by fake Ann Coulter.
[Hurricane Katrina] was a great American tragedy. [Hurricane Katrina]'s devastation is unprecedented; nothing like it has ever taken so great a toll on American soil. [Hurricane Katrina] claimed thousands of lives on that fateful day. But it was largely government failures that allowed so many deaths to come from the terrible tragedy, of [Hurricane Katrina].
Thankfully, though, for [three] years, Bush has kept us safe.
[Hurricane Katrina] was a great American tragedy. [Hurricane Katrina]'s devastation is unprecedented; nothing like it has ever taken so great a toll on American soil. [Hurricane Katrina] claimed thousands of lives on that fateful day. But it was largely government failures that allowed so many deaths to come from the terrible tragedy, of [Hurricane Katrina].
Thankfully, though, for [three] years, Bush has kept us safe.
Presidential Playlists
So, I heard this referenced on NPR yesterday so I decided to look it up: Top 10 iPod Playlists for Obama and McCain.
Quick comment on McCain: even I'm smart enough to know you don't include the smart artist twice - especially ABBA - and you don't make the most recent song on your list a song from when your opponent was a teenager.
What prompted me to post this was that "Yes We Can" by will.i.am made Obama's playlist. I love that Obama has an ego, though some of my friends have disagreed with me that he does. If there was any doubt, I'll just say this: he admitted (while running for president) that one of his favorite "songs" is one that just consists of famous people singing stuff he said over clips of him saying it. If that's not egotistical ...
Quick comment on McCain: even I'm smart enough to know you don't include the smart artist twice - especially ABBA - and you don't make the most recent song on your list a song from when your opponent was a teenager.
What prompted me to post this was that "Yes We Can" by will.i.am made Obama's playlist. I love that Obama has an ego, though some of my friends have disagreed with me that he does. If there was any doubt, I'll just say this: he admitted (while running for president) that one of his favorite "songs" is one that just consists of famous people singing stuff he said over clips of him saying it. If that's not egotistical ...
Great Moments in Presidental Speeches
Believe it or not, there was something worth watching on Letterman.
January 18, 2009
January 16, 2009
That's a lot of money
Christopher Buckley, or C-Buckz, as I'm tempted to call him (just kidding, although that really makes me wish he'd marry Star Jones so she could be Star-Buckz - sorry, it's been a long week) has an article at the Beast trying to put a handle on how much the $1.2 trillion dollar deficit really is. And while I like what he does, he's taking a macro approach, and before I had read it I was already planning on taking more of a micro approach.
Let's start with Bernie Madoff. One fraud case, 50 billion dollars. That's a lot of money. A whole lot. It averages out to about $170 for every man, woman, and child in America.
Now, you didn't lose $170 in the Madoff fraud case, which you're probably pretty happy about. And that makes you like most Americans - almost all of them in fact. But for every American who didn't get ripped off by Madoff, that means that one of them who did lost an extra 170 bucks. Put another way, if you put all Americans on one side of a giant room with a big line down the middle, then for every single person that got to cross the line to the "didn't invest" side, some investor would have to pay $170. Just think about how long that would take ...
Now think about the stimulus. The tax rebate stimulus in early 2008 was $150 billion. Then TARP was $700 billion. Now Obama proposes another $825 billion. That adds up to $1.675 trillion (Just for fun: $1,675,000,000,000) There are 138 million taxpayers in the United States, so this amounts to $12,140 per taxpayer. That's incredible! Essentially, the federal government is forcing taxpayers to band together and go into (an additional!) $12,140 worth of collective debt each (albeit at a low interest rate, and of course the burden is not evenly distributed).
The entirety of the debt when Clinton left office was under $6 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion with $1 trillion deficits projected indefinitely. And we haven't even gotten to Social Security et al yet.
Let's start with Bernie Madoff. One fraud case, 50 billion dollars. That's a lot of money. A whole lot. It averages out to about $170 for every man, woman, and child in America.
Now, you didn't lose $170 in the Madoff fraud case, which you're probably pretty happy about. And that makes you like most Americans - almost all of them in fact. But for every American who didn't get ripped off by Madoff, that means that one of them who did lost an extra 170 bucks. Put another way, if you put all Americans on one side of a giant room with a big line down the middle, then for every single person that got to cross the line to the "didn't invest" side, some investor would have to pay $170. Just think about how long that would take ...
Now think about the stimulus. The tax rebate stimulus in early 2008 was $150 billion. Then TARP was $700 billion. Now Obama proposes another $825 billion. That adds up to $1.675 trillion (Just for fun: $1,675,000,000,000) There are 138 million taxpayers in the United States, so this amounts to $12,140 per taxpayer. That's incredible! Essentially, the federal government is forcing taxpayers to band together and go into (an additional!) $12,140 worth of collective debt each (albeit at a low interest rate, and of course the burden is not evenly distributed).
The entirety of the debt when Clinton left office was under $6 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion with $1 trillion deficits projected indefinitely. And we haven't even gotten to Social Security et al yet.
Many Random Thoughts and Articles
Iowa representative Steve King, who predicted an Obama victory would lead to al-Qaeda "dancing in the streets," now says that he doesn't know why Obama will be using his middle name Hussein in the inauguration, but that his given reason - historical consistency with previous inaugurations - "could not be the reason."
UPS delivered 30 pounds of marijuana to a Texas resident last Tuesday. Two side thoughts: One, I don't know anything about the prices of drugs, but even with my suspicion that marijuana is cheaper than other street drugs out there, I'm surprised at the article's valuation of the delivery at $350/pound. Two, thank goodness that guy didn't have an accidental arrest warrant out.
Last night was Bush's final presidential address. Mostly it's not worth watching, but if you're willing to be overly-nitpicky you can find humor in a couple of spots. At 4:37 he describes, without naming, the two sides of the war on terror. If you pretend the descriptions apply in the opposite way he intended them it's sort of funny. At 6:38 - and again, this is nitpicky - his phrasing leaves me wondering if there were more Supreme Court appointments that I didn't know about. Finally, though his phrasing is technically accurate given his intention, at 9:00 it sounds as if he's using a rather glaring tautology.
The inauguration security force in Washington DC will consist of 42,500 personnel. By comparison, this is roughly nearly 30% of the total number of US troops currently serving in all of Iraq.
Do the results justify the actions? Don't look too much into me mentioning this - I'm in awe of this guy, but it's worth pointing out that yesterday's emergency landing in the Hudson brought a damaged plane within 900 feet of the GW Bridge - for reference, that means it was essentially at the same altitude as the top of the Empire State Building when it passed over the bridge. And that's without considering what would have happened had he missed the river and landed on the island ... On the other hand, I can't really think of any better options, and it's not like the pilot is going to be like "well, there's a chance this may not work out, so I'm just going to crash us in a field for the greater good." Just an observation.
Found this slideshow of "right-leaning celebrities." It's just funny because of how deep they had to dig. And one of their best example, Dennis Hopper, campaigned for Obama anyway.
Finally, a take on Pinky and the Brain that would be funny if it weren't true.
UPS delivered 30 pounds of marijuana to a Texas resident last Tuesday. Two side thoughts: One, I don't know anything about the prices of drugs, but even with my suspicion that marijuana is cheaper than other street drugs out there, I'm surprised at the article's valuation of the delivery at $350/pound. Two, thank goodness that guy didn't have an accidental arrest warrant out.
Last night was Bush's final presidential address. Mostly it's not worth watching, but if you're willing to be overly-nitpicky you can find humor in a couple of spots. At 4:37 he describes, without naming, the two sides of the war on terror. If you pretend the descriptions apply in the opposite way he intended them it's sort of funny. At 6:38 - and again, this is nitpicky - his phrasing leaves me wondering if there were more Supreme Court appointments that I didn't know about. Finally, though his phrasing is technically accurate given his intention, at 9:00 it sounds as if he's using a rather glaring tautology.
The inauguration security force in Washington DC will consist of 42,500 personnel. By comparison, this is roughly nearly 30% of the total number of US troops currently serving in all of Iraq.
Do the results justify the actions? Don't look too much into me mentioning this - I'm in awe of this guy, but it's worth pointing out that yesterday's emergency landing in the Hudson brought a damaged plane within 900 feet of the GW Bridge - for reference, that means it was essentially at the same altitude as the top of the Empire State Building when it passed over the bridge. And that's without considering what would have happened had he missed the river and landed on the island ... On the other hand, I can't really think of any better options, and it's not like the pilot is going to be like "well, there's a chance this may not work out, so I'm just going to crash us in a field for the greater good." Just an observation.
Found this slideshow of "right-leaning celebrities." It's just funny because of how deep they had to dig. And one of their best example, Dennis Hopper, campaigned for Obama anyway.
Finally, a take on Pinky and the Brain that would be funny if it weren't true.
January 15, 2009
Go Away Charlie Rangel
We already knew that he sucks (tax evasion as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is tough to explain) and now he's reintroducing legislation to reintroduce the draft. It'll never pass, but he still sucks.
Supreme Court Ruling Causes Violent Double Take
I nearly hit a car yesterday while driving home. OK, that's not quite true, but I certainly lost my full mental capacities for a moment while listening to NPR report on a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Let's say you are John Smith of Washington County. The cops pull you over for speeding, run your license, and see that you have an arrest warrant out in Washington County. Let's further speculate that the arrest warrant isn't for you, it's for a different John Smith, but was attributed to you by clerical error.
Now we'll have some real fun. Let's say there's something illegal in your car, which of course the cops found during the arrest/search process. Of course, eventually it will be discovered that the warrant was in error and your arrest will be cleared ...
However, due to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, the evidence that the state had no right to search for or seize from you in the first place is now totally admissable for use in a subsequent prosecution.
I mean, that's just such a blatant abuse of governmental power. It's unfortunate that throwing that evidence out would let guilty people walk, but it's certainly not worth the encroachment on the rights of citizens. I could go on but I'll just stop.
BONUS: While searching for this article I found an article about frequent-atheist-lawsuit-bringer Michael Newdow trying to get religious references pulled from next week's inaugural address. He'll surely fail so why does he keep trying? According to these two articles the answer is simple: atheists have so much narcissim and hubris, there's no other way to release it.
Let's say you are John Smith of Washington County. The cops pull you over for speeding, run your license, and see that you have an arrest warrant out in Washington County. Let's further speculate that the arrest warrant isn't for you, it's for a different John Smith, but was attributed to you by clerical error.
Now we'll have some real fun. Let's say there's something illegal in your car, which of course the cops found during the arrest/search process. Of course, eventually it will be discovered that the warrant was in error and your arrest will be cleared ...
However, due to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, the evidence that the state had no right to search for or seize from you in the first place is now totally admissable for use in a subsequent prosecution.
I mean, that's just such a blatant abuse of governmental power. It's unfortunate that throwing that evidence out would let guilty people walk, but it's certainly not worth the encroachment on the rights of citizens. I could go on but I'll just stop.
BONUS: While searching for this article I found an article about frequent-atheist-lawsuit-bringer Michael Newdow trying to get religious references pulled from next week's inaugural address. He'll surely fail so why does he keep trying? According to these two articles the answer is simple: atheists have so much narcissim and hubris, there's no other way to release it.
Victimless Crimes
On the radio during lunch today part of the O'Reilly Factor consisted of a discussion of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Long story short (more Wiki surfing) that got me thinking about victimless crimes.
Clearly this is a group that overall would take the position that, in general, if there's no victim there's no crime. So I'll go the other way - is there a case for something with no victim that should still be outlawed?
It's totally possible, by the way, that there may be some really obvious ones; I'm just not thinking of any off the top of my head.
(PS - O'Reilly, for the record, routinely cuts off callers spewing anti-gay talking points and remarks that he doesn't think that the govt has any business regulating the bedroom, which is a little more liberal/libertarian than I would have put my money on; nonetheless, he does oppose "redefining the religious and historical term 'marriage'" and also seemed to oppose repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the grounds that the number of heterosexuals alienated by its repeal would be greater than the increase in homosexual enlistment)
Clearly this is a group that overall would take the position that, in general, if there's no victim there's no crime. So I'll go the other way - is there a case for something with no victim that should still be outlawed?
It's totally possible, by the way, that there may be some really obvious ones; I'm just not thinking of any off the top of my head.
(PS - O'Reilly, for the record, routinely cuts off callers spewing anti-gay talking points and remarks that he doesn't think that the govt has any business regulating the bedroom, which is a little more liberal/libertarian than I would have put my money on; nonetheless, he does oppose "redefining the religious and historical term 'marriage'" and also seemed to oppose repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the grounds that the number of heterosexuals alienated by its repeal would be greater than the increase in homosexual enlistment)
Off to a good start!
Well, the Czechs do not disappoint: in an effort to promote European unity the Czechs commissioned a stereotype-based piece of art that included an element representing each country in the bloc. Who could have guessed that Romania would be upset to be represented as a toilet?
It's cold
So, we're all freakin' out here in the StL because it's really cold today. In terms of wind chill, the high today is supposed to be -16. But check out this map - barely above -35 in anywhere in Iowa and below -45 in most of Minnesota.
And yet Saskatchewan (spelled it right the first try!) is chillin' at -10, and Alberta won't even go below zero and parts of British Columbia won't go below freezing! This is crap.
And yet Saskatchewan (spelled it right the first try!) is chillin' at -10, and Alberta won't even go below zero and parts of British Columbia won't go below freezing! This is crap.
January 14, 2009
ADHD and Sports
I've kind of always wondered if there was a problem with ADHD drugs being abused in sports. Personally, I'm always afraid to play hockey if I've taken my medicine because it can really increase your heart rate, but apparently it can be quite helpful to athletes.
Although this guy drags out his argument longer than he needs to and presents it as if he's a genius who amazingly pierced through the information to find the truth, the article is nonetheless interesting.
Basically, in baseball a ban on stimulants led to a three-year increase in players with medical exemptions for Ritalin, Adderall, and similar drugs from 28 to 106, or 8% of players (nat'l averages are 3-5% for children and 1-3.5% for adults).
Although it's not my favorite it's the best I could find: here's an online ADHD test. Unfortunately it doesn't take the common step of splitting the questions into sort of a "mental and physical" dichotemy, but overall it's not bad.
Although this guy drags out his argument longer than he needs to and presents it as if he's a genius who amazingly pierced through the information to find the truth, the article is nonetheless interesting.
Basically, in baseball a ban on stimulants led to a three-year increase in players with medical exemptions for Ritalin, Adderall, and similar drugs from 28 to 106, or 8% of players (nat'l averages are 3-5% for children and 1-3.5% for adults).
Although it's not my favorite it's the best I could find: here's an online ADHD test. Unfortunately it doesn't take the common step of splitting the questions into sort of a "mental and physical" dichotemy, but overall it's not bad.
Scare quotes
The New Republic has a pretty funny article posted right now about the WSJ editorial board's use of scare quotes. According to the article, "Like most of us, the Journal [editorial board] uses scare quotes to signify that a term is misleading." The problem, argues The New Republic, is that The WSJ uses quotation marks in ways that seem to either indicate a certain level of incompetency in the use of the English language or a disdain for certain policies. Assuming that one of the respected papers in our country can speak our language, that leads us to the conclusion that The WSJ is simply implying a lot more than it is saying, an interesting practice for a news source.
I am posting this more because of my own frustration with the overuse of quotation marks than because of my opinions about the WSJ editorial staff (opinions that are more or less nonexistent).
I am posting this more because of my own frustration with the overuse of quotation marks than because of my opinions about the WSJ editorial staff (opinions that are more or less nonexistent).
January 13, 2009
Restructuring the Calendar
(Warning: there's no point to this post, and it's long. It's just, to me, interesting to ponder)
I've been working on my budget a lot recently, and the way our calendar is set up is really screwing me up, because I (like most people, I imagine) budget monthly but get paid biweekly. A simple example: if I spend exactly $30 per paycheck on something like health insurance, then there will be 10 months where I'll spend $60 and 2 months where I'll spend $90. So my monthly budget averages out to $65, but I can't possibly ever be on budget, even if I'm able to perfectly anticipate my expenses. The example isn't perfectly general but you see the point.
Restructuring the calendar (ever) would be like switching America to metric by March, or like switching society to a base 8 number system. It just won't happen. It's kind of weird to think that by the year 8000, we won't have been able to improve upon our calendar. But let's pretend (I should go into the base 8 thing sometime) that our little group was in charge of a new one and whatever we wanted would be approved. What would it look like?
I assume that an ideal calendar system would have the same number of days in each week and weeks in each month (and thus days in each month). I know there aren't a lot of programmers here, but just think about how much easier calendars and scheduling would be if, say, there were 360 days in a year (the prime factorization is 2*2*2*3*3*5).
You could have 6 days in a week, 5 weeks (thus 30 days) in a month, and 12 months in the year.
You could have 9 days in a week, 4 weeks in a month, and 10 months in a year.
You could have 8 days in a week, 5 weeks in a month, and 9 months in a year.
As long as the product in this format is 360 (or 72*5), you're golden!
(Better yet - imagine something like 256 days. 8 days in a week, 4 weeks in a month, 8 months in a year. Done. Added bonus: still a round number of months per season/quarter)
Unfortunately, we have 365 days. Prime factorization? 73*5. Or, for our purposes, 73*5*1. Which means the same format above still applies, but your only three options for inputs are 73, 5, and 1. I suppose the best solution that fits our "model" is 5 days in a week, 73 weeks in a month, and 1 month in a year (i.e., no more things called "months"). (In retrospect, have 12 months in which the last month has an extra week probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but again defeats the purpose)
So that's pretty ugly. But you know Tuesday would always been on 27th of every year, or however you aligned it. One might keep track of dates with labels like "Monday 49". All-in-all, my opinion is that this would be an improvement over the current calendar and the best possible choice.
There are two things that really screw this up, however. The first is weekends/work weeks. What are we going to do now - work four days and then take one off every week? Aside from the fact that this means an increase in work days (from 71% to 80%, though we could add more holidays ... side thought: as technology increases our productivity/net worth, we should be taking more time off anyway), it kind of defeats the purpose of the weekend. No traveling to see family, and who's going to do yard work on a "Saturday" if they have to work the next day, every week? (You could solve this by moving to a ten-day week, but then you'd have 36.5 weeks, which at least would even everything out every other year)
The real pain, however, is leap days. The whole point of my calendar is regularity. The last day of the week is always a number divisible by 5 in every year. So how do you handle leap days? My only thought is this: say the 5th and final day of the week is "Friday" - I guess you'd just end leap years with a "second Friday". But that defeats the whole purpose as well. Of course, there's no way to get around the leap year problem - you could go to a 400-year calendar, but even then it's not quite perfect.
I don't feel like writing any more on this.
I've been working on my budget a lot recently, and the way our calendar is set up is really screwing me up, because I (like most people, I imagine) budget monthly but get paid biweekly. A simple example: if I spend exactly $30 per paycheck on something like health insurance, then there will be 10 months where I'll spend $60 and 2 months where I'll spend $90. So my monthly budget averages out to $65, but I can't possibly ever be on budget, even if I'm able to perfectly anticipate my expenses. The example isn't perfectly general but you see the point.
Restructuring the calendar (ever) would be like switching America to metric by March, or like switching society to a base 8 number system. It just won't happen. It's kind of weird to think that by the year 8000, we won't have been able to improve upon our calendar. But let's pretend (I should go into the base 8 thing sometime) that our little group was in charge of a new one and whatever we wanted would be approved. What would it look like?
I assume that an ideal calendar system would have the same number of days in each week and weeks in each month (and thus days in each month). I know there aren't a lot of programmers here, but just think about how much easier calendars and scheduling would be if, say, there were 360 days in a year (the prime factorization is 2*2*2*3*3*5).
You could have 6 days in a week, 5 weeks (thus 30 days) in a month, and 12 months in the year.
You could have 9 days in a week, 4 weeks in a month, and 10 months in a year.
You could have 8 days in a week, 5 weeks in a month, and 9 months in a year.
As long as the product in this format is 360 (or 72*5), you're golden!
(Better yet - imagine something like 256 days. 8 days in a week, 4 weeks in a month, 8 months in a year. Done. Added bonus: still a round number of months per season/quarter)
Unfortunately, we have 365 days. Prime factorization? 73*5. Or, for our purposes, 73*5*1. Which means the same format above still applies, but your only three options for inputs are 73, 5, and 1. I suppose the best solution that fits our "model" is 5 days in a week, 73 weeks in a month, and 1 month in a year (i.e., no more things called "months"). (In retrospect, have 12 months in which the last month has an extra week probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but again defeats the purpose)
So that's pretty ugly. But you know Tuesday would always been on 27th of every year, or however you aligned it. One might keep track of dates with labels like "Monday 49". All-in-all, my opinion is that this would be an improvement over the current calendar and the best possible choice.
There are two things that really screw this up, however. The first is weekends/work weeks. What are we going to do now - work four days and then take one off every week? Aside from the fact that this means an increase in work days (from 71% to 80%, though we could add more holidays ... side thought: as technology increases our productivity/net worth, we should be taking more time off anyway), it kind of defeats the purpose of the weekend. No traveling to see family, and who's going to do yard work on a "Saturday" if they have to work the next day, every week? (You could solve this by moving to a ten-day week, but then you'd have 36.5 weeks, which at least would even everything out every other year)
The real pain, however, is leap days. The whole point of my calendar is regularity. The last day of the week is always a number divisible by 5 in every year. So how do you handle leap days? My only thought is this: say the 5th and final day of the week is "Friday" - I guess you'd just end leap years with a "second Friday". But that defeats the whole purpose as well. Of course, there's no way to get around the leap year problem - you could go to a 400-year calendar, but even then it's not quite perfect.
I don't feel like writing any more on this.
How Porsche cashed in on Volkswagen
Here's the article, but I've summarized it below. Reading about it on Wiki, it seems like most of this happened at the end of last week. (Come to find there are some disparities between the two articles, but the non-Wiki story is way more interesting, so I'll use that when necessary)
In March 2007, Porsche began increasing its stake in Volkwagen, "its most important partner", amid fears that VW would be bought up by hedge funds and subsequently dismantled and liquidated (I'm trying to resist the "chopped up for parts" pun), Porsche increased its stake in the company to about 30%.
Over the next year and a half Porsche continued to buy stock in VW (which they did not "finally reveal" until October 2008). Over that time, as Porsche continued to buy up the stock, the price of it increased. Of course, hedge fund managers could see that the price was going up without any new news about the company, and so reasoned (correctly) that the new price had been artificially inflated. So they bet on the stock to fall.
How does one actually bet on a stock to fall? This is something few people understand. It's not quite the same as betting in Vegas. Short-selling, as it's called, involves entering into an agreement wherein you receive money (in the amount of the current stock price) now and are obligated to return a share of the stock later. So if the current price is $50 and the future price is $40, you can receive $50 today and are then obliged to return a share of stock later. Typically, then, to return the stock you would just buy a share at that day's price and transfer it to the other person.
I'm just going to make up numbers in this part ... So shares of VW had a true value of, say, $60. Thanks to Porsche buying up all the shares, the price had been inflated to $80. Betting this "bubble" would burst, the hedge funds shorted the stock.
Except it turns out that Porsche now owned 75% of VW - nearly all the stock that is available for purchase. And Porsche didn't want to sell it, so they priced it at $100, which they could do because they basically held a monopoly on the stock.
Why is this a problem for the hedge funds? By shorting the stock, they had an obligation to return a share of the stock to its original owner (Porsche). So on the day it came due, each one had to go buy a share at the market price and give it up - except now the market price was $100, even though the stock was still only worth $60.
And according to the article, that's how a company with $8 billion in annual revenue made $10 billion playing the market.
In March 2007, Porsche began increasing its stake in Volkwagen, "its most important partner", amid fears that VW would be bought up by hedge funds and subsequently dismantled and liquidated (I'm trying to resist the "chopped up for parts" pun), Porsche increased its stake in the company to about 30%.
Over the next year and a half Porsche continued to buy stock in VW (which they did not "finally reveal" until October 2008). Over that time, as Porsche continued to buy up the stock, the price of it increased. Of course, hedge fund managers could see that the price was going up without any new news about the company, and so reasoned (correctly) that the new price had been artificially inflated. So they bet on the stock to fall.
How does one actually bet on a stock to fall? This is something few people understand. It's not quite the same as betting in Vegas. Short-selling, as it's called, involves entering into an agreement wherein you receive money (in the amount of the current stock price) now and are obligated to return a share of the stock later. So if the current price is $50 and the future price is $40, you can receive $50 today and are then obliged to return a share of stock later. Typically, then, to return the stock you would just buy a share at that day's price and transfer it to the other person.
I'm just going to make up numbers in this part ... So shares of VW had a true value of, say, $60. Thanks to Porsche buying up all the shares, the price had been inflated to $80. Betting this "bubble" would burst, the hedge funds shorted the stock.
Except it turns out that Porsche now owned 75% of VW - nearly all the stock that is available for purchase. And Porsche didn't want to sell it, so they priced it at $100, which they could do because they basically held a monopoly on the stock.
Why is this a problem for the hedge funds? By shorting the stock, they had an obligation to return a share of the stock to its original owner (Porsche). So on the day it came due, each one had to go buy a share at the market price and give it up - except now the market price was $100, even though the stock was still only worth $60.
And according to the article, that's how a company with $8 billion in annual revenue made $10 billion playing the market.
FYI - Clinton Hearing
In case you're interested, the Senate hearing on Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State nomination is available here. (Hey, she just spent time talking about microfinance! Awesome!)
Bernie Madoff sucks
I know this story is sort of ubiquitous, but it can't hurt to emphasize how awful this guy is. I mean, the guy cost his investors 50 billion dollars. That's with a B. Billions of dollars is not foreign to us, but it's not something you hear with individuals. Bill Gates' entire net worth is $58 billion, roughly the same ballpark as the amount stolen. Or, put another way, $50 billion is also roughly the same amount the government has spent on AIG, Chrysler, and GM combined - and it'll get some of that money back.
What really did it for me, though, was that he defrauded his own sister out of millions, leaving her with "nothing" (though to be fair, I'm not sure what "nothing" means to a millionaire).
What really did it for me, though, was that he defrauded his own sister out of millions, leaving her with "nothing" (though to be fair, I'm not sure what "nothing" means to a millionaire).
January 12, 2009
Well, that was bound to happen
Bart, your questions answered.
I got laid off today. More specifically, my "position has been eliminated." The company won't pay for my boss to have an assistant anymore.
So: Between my savings and small severance, I have living expenses through the end of my current lease, which April 30. My immediate plans include hitting up the temp agencies and filing for unemployment.
So: Advice? Ideas? Leads? (No, really. I'll send you my resume).
I got laid off today. More specifically, my "position has been eliminated." The company won't pay for my boss to have an assistant anymore.
So: Between my savings and small severance, I have living expenses through the end of my current lease, which April 30. My immediate plans include hitting up the temp agencies and filing for unemployment.
So: Advice? Ideas? Leads? (No, really. I'll send you my resume).
Searching for Extraterrestrial Life ("Where are They?")
I stumbled The Bloop on Wikipedia today. I innocently found my way over to SETI, which refers to the collective Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. The rest of my day was gone.
(Before you decide to make fun of me as you think about the fact that I blew my day on this - remember that you're helplessly intrigued by the space elevator)
Typically this wouldn't have happened - I can Wiki-chain or whatever you want to call it and then go on with my day. But I found that my view on the existence of Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life (I'll call it IETL or better yet IL) appears to be in quite the minority, at least as best as I could surmise from Wikipedia. I'll try to sum up my view thus:
There is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and it's probably not that uncommon. However, it is unlikely that there is life anywhere "close" to us - essentially a zero probability of being close enough to reach by either manned or unmanned space travel, and not much better odds that we are close enough to intelligent life to have any sort of one-way, let alone two-way, communication.
There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the topic of what's called the "Fermi paradox" - assuming IL exists, why haven't we found it? (Often, "Where are They?") Variations on my (I suppose, uninformed) opinion do exist on the page but are not very prominent, which surprised me. So I got interested in reading about this stuff (and bored at work) and ended up on all kinds of interesting pages, which I've listed below. (Some I have not yet read)
SETI
Fermi Paradox
Megastructure
Kardashev scale
Rare Earth Hypothesis
Interstellar Travel (Last one I've read)
Drake Equation
Bracewell probe
Light cone (I'm really interested in this one but haven't gotten there yet)
The article on interstellar travel seemed to imply that we might be able to reach Alpha Centauri within 50 years. The star is 4.3 light years away, or 25 trillion miles. This would require traveling 57 million miles/hr, or approximately 1,500 times the current record of 38,600 mph.
Talking again about IL, one article had an interesting take on life-favoring characteristics on earth. The moon, it claims, is the result of a Mars-sized object colliding with a young earth. This favorably increased our rotation speed, which minimizes intra-day temperature variation, and also put us at a favorable tilt on our axis (too much tilt results in too much inter-seasonal variation, but too little of such variation would slow evolution and thus delay the existence of IL)
That's all I've got for right now. Except that apparently one (very) unfortunate side effect of hypothermia is a literally-unstoppable urge to remove one's clothing.
(Before you decide to make fun of me as you think about the fact that I blew my day on this - remember that you're helplessly intrigued by the space elevator)
Typically this wouldn't have happened - I can Wiki-chain or whatever you want to call it and then go on with my day. But I found that my view on the existence of Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life (I'll call it IETL or better yet IL) appears to be in quite the minority, at least as best as I could surmise from Wikipedia. I'll try to sum up my view thus:
There is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and it's probably not that uncommon. However, it is unlikely that there is life anywhere "close" to us - essentially a zero probability of being close enough to reach by either manned or unmanned space travel, and not much better odds that we are close enough to intelligent life to have any sort of one-way, let alone two-way, communication.
There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the topic of what's called the "Fermi paradox" - assuming IL exists, why haven't we found it? (Often, "Where are They?") Variations on my (I suppose, uninformed) opinion do exist on the page but are not very prominent, which surprised me. So I got interested in reading about this stuff (and bored at work) and ended up on all kinds of interesting pages, which I've listed below. (Some I have not yet read)
SETI
Fermi Paradox
Megastructure
Kardashev scale
Rare Earth Hypothesis
Interstellar Travel (Last one I've read)
Drake Equation
Bracewell probe
Light cone (I'm really interested in this one but haven't gotten there yet)
The article on interstellar travel seemed to imply that we might be able to reach Alpha Centauri within 50 years. The star is 4.3 light years away, or 25 trillion miles. This would require traveling 57 million miles/hr, or approximately 1,500 times the current record of 38,600 mph.
Talking again about IL, one article had an interesting take on life-favoring characteristics on earth. The moon, it claims, is the result of a Mars-sized object colliding with a young earth. This favorably increased our rotation speed, which minimizes intra-day temperature variation, and also put us at a favorable tilt on our axis (too much tilt results in too much inter-seasonal variation, but too little of such variation would slow evolution and thus delay the existence of IL)
That's all I've got for right now. Except that apparently one (very) unfortunate side effect of hypothermia is a literally-unstoppable urge to remove one's clothing.
Thank you, 23/6
I was wondering last week about who the hell voted against impeachment last week. Of course, I had all the information I really needed the whole time:
Number of times "Milton" appears in name: One
Number of Nobel Prizes won: Zero
Number of times "Milton" appears in name: One
Number of Nobel Prizes won: Zero
Relief
A long time ago, in a post far, far, away, I mentioned that you wouldn't hear from me for a weekend while I studied for an exam.
On their infinitely mysterious scoring system, I have today been informed that I scored a 6 - the minimum passing score, and thus I am not quite looking to change career fields yet.
I'd love to celebrate, but it's 8:30 in the morning. (Add some Bailey's to my morning coffee, perhaps?)
On their infinitely mysterious scoring system, I have today been informed that I scored a 6 - the minimum passing score, and thus I am not quite looking to change career fields yet.
I'd love to celebrate, but it's 8:30 in the morning. (Add some Bailey's to my morning coffee, perhaps?)
January 09, 2009
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.
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.
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 !!!!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
January 08, 2009
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?
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?
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?
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.
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. "
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.
January 07, 2009
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.
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 ontwo 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.
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
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.
January 06, 2009
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:
Any others to be added to my overly long list?
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.
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."
"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...
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:
...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.
"...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.
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.
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.
Maybe if you're Wayne Gretzky, though.
January 05, 2009
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.)
(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.
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.
December 30, 2008
How not to bring back the Republican Party
I really wanted a different headline, but it wouldn't fit.
So Chip Saltsman recently distributed a CD to other Republicans with a song parody that is pretty hard not to describe as "racist." Now look - this is clearly stupid and idiotic, but you never know. Maybe it was just a joke. Maybe Chip's new to politics, or doesn't really get involved in the political side of things that often.
In fact, as you probably know, this isn't the case at all. Saltsman is a candidate to become chairman of the RNC - essentially, a position where one's knowledge of how to handle political situtations is all that matters. More amazing, though, is the fact that this issue has become something on which (some) Republicans are actually rallying around him!
I don't understand! Your party just got demolished in an election, and your response is gonna be, "Yeah, I know he didn't realize that race is a sensitive issue in this country, but I still think he's got enough of a pulse on the people to be our party's chief political strategist." Seriously?!
I don't care what your party stands for or what you think the country stands for - if you don't try to claim the center/moderate ground you're merely endangering yourself as a party.
So Chip Saltsman recently distributed a CD to other Republicans with a song parody that is pretty hard not to describe as "racist." Now look - this is clearly stupid and idiotic, but you never know. Maybe it was just a joke. Maybe Chip's new to politics, or doesn't really get involved in the political side of things that often.
In fact, as you probably know, this isn't the case at all. Saltsman is a candidate to become chairman of the RNC - essentially, a position where one's knowledge of how to handle political situtations is all that matters. More amazing, though, is the fact that this issue has become something on which (some) Republicans are actually rallying around him!
I don't understand! Your party just got demolished in an election, and your response is gonna be, "Yeah, I know he didn't realize that race is a sensitive issue in this country, but I still think he's got enough of a pulse on the people to be our party's chief political strategist." Seriously?!
I don't care what your party stands for or what you think the country stands for - if you don't try to claim the center/moderate ground you're merely endangering yourself as a party.
December 29, 2008
Probably our first poetry post
My uncle's friend wrote this. It's kind of stupid, but also kind of entertaining. It's timely, at least. I also don't know why the last few lines are slashed-though or how to fix them.
T'was the night before inauguration and what to my dismay
The market was tanking, I lost my 401K!
The stocks were hung, in downfall they stuck
While Bush did nothing, a truly lame duck
The republicans were nestled, their heads in the sand
With visions of defeat of the republican brand.
And Cheney with his gun, his heart a pace
Looking for someone, to shoot in the face.
When out on the house floor, there came such a clatter
I sprang to the internets to find what was the matter.
Away to my screen I ran with a flash
Hoping the market, had not c rashed.
The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow
Showed me someone I needed to know.
When what to my eyes, I paused, with a comma
But a vision of hope, It was Barack Obama!
With excitement and conviction in each of his steps
I wondered what he and his elves, would do next.
More rapid than eagles his appointments they came
And he whistled and shouted, and called them by name.
Now Emanuel! Now, Dashle! Now Richardson and Biden!
On, Clinton, On Napolitano, and Gates, no sense in hidin’!
To fix the economy, our reputation and more.
And to stop the killing of this unnecessary war.
As Obama stood still, the republicans they trembled
Remembering 8 years of a disaster they had assembled.
They have broken our banks, and doubled our debt.
They scared us to death with weapons of threats.
They squandered a surplus, They started a war.
They shredded our constitution, littered on the floor.
They attack our unions, our immigrants and those who are gay.
They claim to be Christians, yet on the sick they prey.
We may never recover from this hole they dug.
But we will climb to the top with a American tug. The republican party have destroyed all that matters
They deserve nothing more but to hold the damn ladder.
But his voice did change, along with a smile.
Thinking of the bills that soon would be filed.
Protect those who are old and young alike
Restore our honor and our military might.
Protect our planet, and clean our air.
While creating a surplus we can leave to our heirs
Fix our economy, and health care for all.
And honor those who fought, and those who fall.
Obama sprang to his feet, to his team he gave a shout.
The challenges seem impossible, hard work needed no doubt
But I heard him exclaim ere he talked and ran.
Hey! It is not just a slogan, YES WE CAN!
T'was the night before inauguration and what to my dismay
The market was tanking, I lost my 401K!
The stocks were hung, in downfall they stuck
While Bush did nothing, a truly lame duck
The republicans were nestled, their heads in the sand
With visions of defeat of the republican brand.
And Cheney with his gun, his heart a pace
Looking for someone, to shoot in the face.
When out on the house floor, there came such a clatter
I sprang to the internets to find what was the matter.
Away to my screen I ran with a flash
Hoping the market, had not c rashed.
The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow
Showed me someone I needed to know.
When what to my eyes, I paused, with a comma
But a vision of hope, It was Barack Obama!
With excitement and conviction in each of his steps
I wondered what he and his elves, would do next.
More rapid than eagles his appointments they came
And he whistled and shouted, and called them by name.
Now Emanuel! Now, Dashle! Now Richardson and Biden!
On, Clinton, On Napolitano, and Gates, no sense in hidin’!
To fix the economy, our reputation and more.
And to stop the killing of this unnecessary war.
As Obama stood still, the republicans they trembled
Remembering 8 years of a disaster they had assembled.
They have broken our banks, and doubled our debt.
They scared us to death with weapons of threats.
They squandered a surplus, They started a war.
They shredded our constitution, littered on the floor.
They attack our unions, our immigrants and those who are gay.
They claim to be Christians, yet on the sick they prey.
We may never recover from this hole they dug.
But we will climb to the top with a American tug. The republican party have destroyed all that matters
They deserve nothing more but to hold the damn ladder.
But his voice did change, along with a smile.
Thinking of the bills that soon would be filed.
Protect those who are old and young alike
Restore our honor and our military might.
Protect our planet, and clean our air.
While creating a surplus we can leave to our heirs
Fix our economy, and health care for all.
And honor those who fought, and those who fall.
Obama sprang to his feet, to his team he gave a shout.
The challenges seem impossible, hard work needed no doubt
But I heard him exclaim ere he talked and ran.
Hey! It is not just a slogan, YES WE CAN!
December 26, 2008
News Flash: Elections 2010 and 2012 possibly still too close to call
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.
Two years afterward the Republicans took the Congress for the first time in 50 years.
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
