Continuing with the theme of really cool end-of-year countdown lists.
From the same site as the Obsolete List that I posted moments ago, I'm also enjoying a list of the 10 most awesome commercials of the decade. Although, to be fair, some of them are so epic that its hard to really call them commercials (for proof, please check out #2 and #4 on the list).
I saw a short documentary on the making of #5 in a new media class I took a few years ago. I thought it was beautiful then and I still do.
As for #7 (The Obama/Will.i.am "Yes We Can" commercial), I just have to say that I wish his entire presidency had been as good as that speech and the ad it was turned into. When he runs for re-election, and can no longer rely on such moving rhetoric and imagery, what's he going to do?
And finally, #9 is one of my all-time favorites. I only remember actually seeing it on TV once, but I've always remembered it. Also, it was apparently directed by Spike Jonze (who recently did "Where the Wild Things Are"), so that's kind of cool.
However, I'm a little sad they did not include the Nike spot that ran during last summer's Olympic Games. For the sheer feeling of that's-so-cool-it-sent-shivers-up-my-spine, it has to be one of the best of the decade. I mean, the guy at the end has no legs. NO LEGS! And he's running faster than you or I could ever hope to.
--
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Obsolete List
One of the best parts about the end of the year is all the "best of", "worst of", and "everything in between of" lists that are published. And since this is the end of a decade too (okay, maybe the decade technically goes until 2010), we get to have all those lists times ten!
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
Sunday, December 20, 2009
D.C. Cop Pulls Gun at Snowball Fight
Apparently, all it takes is a few inches of snow in Washington D.C. and all hell breaks loose.
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Congress Wastes Your Money on Vacations
Remember how incensed the members of Congress were when the executives of the major auto companies took private jets to Washington to ask for a bail-out?
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"Cadillac Tax" Hurts Everyone
Well, the Senate Democrats reached 60 votes yesterday, so they've shut the door on the potential for a Republican filibuster to stall a vote on the health care bill. It looks like a straight-party vote could come as soon as Thursday.
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
Thursday, December 17, 2009
At Least "Global Warming" Has A Sense of Irony
No matter which side of the Global Warming debate you're on (fun fact: there's actually five sides), you have to admit that this is pretty funny. The day before Obama is supposed to arrive in Copenhagen to discuss how we can "solve" the climate change problem, the city has been hit by four inches of snow.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Bring Bush Back?
Public Policy Polling has released their Presidential approval ratings for December, and Obama remains in favor with just under half of the population (49%, the same as in November), but the most stunning result is that 44 percent of those polled said they would rather have Bush back in office (50 percent said they prefer Obama to Bush).
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Monday, December 7, 2009
On the Front Lines
The front lines of the War on Christmas, that is.
After years of defending the words "Merry Christmas" from the assault of the words "Happy Holidays", the tide may be beginning to turn.
This year, the defenders of Christmas are on the attack against those who would replace their most important name of a Holy Day in December with a generality designed to be as politically correct as possible. Their weapon of choice: an online ratings system for retailers.
The website allows users to rate their Christmas shopping experience, from Friendly, to Negligent, to Offensive. Other potential Christmas shoppers, it is hoped, will change their shopping plans so they spend their money at places like Bass Pro Shops (97% Friendly), K-Mart (82% F), or Sears (79% F), instead of Old Navy (60% Offensive), Best Buy (76% O), or GAP (85% O).
I think there's a second interesting conclusion to be drawn. Taking a look at the places that seem to respect Christmas versus those that prefer general Holiday cheer, I'd say there's a calculated move on the part of management to stress (or un-stress) the "Christmas" aspect of their holiday sales.
The costumers at Old Navy and GAP are far more likely to desire a P.C. attitude (or at least less likely to be angered by it) than the shoppers at Bass Pro Shops or Cabela's. I'm generally in favor of saying whatever you want to say (although I don't really care for "Happy Holidays" personally), but if the stores are doing what they think will best satisfy their costumers, I'm going to count that as the market doing its job.
--
After years of defending the words "Merry Christmas" from the assault of the words "Happy Holidays", the tide may be beginning to turn.
This year, the defenders of Christmas are on the attack against those who would replace their most important name of a Holy Day in December with a generality designed to be as politically correct as possible. Their weapon of choice: an online ratings system for retailers.
The website allows users to rate their Christmas shopping experience, from Friendly, to Negligent, to Offensive. Other potential Christmas shoppers, it is hoped, will change their shopping plans so they spend their money at places like Bass Pro Shops (97% Friendly), K-Mart (82% F), or Sears (79% F), instead of Old Navy (60% Offensive), Best Buy (76% O), or GAP (85% O).
I think there's a second interesting conclusion to be drawn. Taking a look at the places that seem to respect Christmas versus those that prefer general Holiday cheer, I'd say there's a calculated move on the part of management to stress (or un-stress) the "Christmas" aspect of their holiday sales.
The costumers at Old Navy and GAP are far more likely to desire a P.C. attitude (or at least less likely to be angered by it) than the shoppers at Bass Pro Shops or Cabela's. I'm generally in favor of saying whatever you want to say (although I don't really care for "Happy Holidays" personally), but if the stores are doing what they think will best satisfy their costumers, I'm going to count that as the market doing its job.
--
One-hit, Wonderful.
Daniel Pewter's song "Bad Day" was named the one-hit wonder of the decade by Billboard Magazine, which makes me wonder if its better to be remembered for one bad day than for nothing at all?
He beat out "Lean Back", by the Terror Squad, and "Butterfly", by Crazy Town, for the honor (?). All of which proves a point I've been thinking about for quite some time.
All in all, this wasn't the best decade for one-hit wonders, at least not when compared to the nineties, which brought us the likes of "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" by the Proclaimers, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Deep Blue Something, and "The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe, to say nothing of "Steal My Sunshine" (Len), "Mambo Number 5" (Lou Bega), "Closing Time" (Semisonic), "She's So High" (Tal Bachman), "Save Tonight" (Eagle Eye Cherry), "What its Like" (Everlast), "Tubthumping" (Chumbawamba), "The Impression That I Get" (The Mighty Mighty Bostones), "Sunny Came Home" (Shawn Colvin), "How Bizarre" (OMC), "No Rain" (Blind Melon), "Insane in the Brain" (Cypress Hill), "Rump Shaker" (Wrecks-n-Effect), and even "Here Comes The Hotstepper" (Ini Kamoze).
Honestly, there were so many great one-hit wonders in the 90s, that if I had to pick only 50 songs to listen to for the rest of my life, probably 25 of them would be listed somewhere on this page.
(and yes, the general point of this post was just for me to rattle off my knowledge of 1990s music)
As for Powter, he has at least one more partial day in the sun. I was curious about what he has been doing since the release of "Bad Day" in 2005, and apparently he released an album last year (entitled, appropriately, Under The Radar). The only single on that album, "Next Plane Home", reached only #39 on the U.S. pop chart.
Then again, a sure sign that you will always be relevant in American pop culture is to have your song covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks:
--
He beat out "Lean Back", by the Terror Squad, and "Butterfly", by Crazy Town, for the honor (?). All of which proves a point I've been thinking about for quite some time.
All in all, this wasn't the best decade for one-hit wonders, at least not when compared to the nineties, which brought us the likes of "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" by the Proclaimers, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Deep Blue Something, and "The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe, to say nothing of "Steal My Sunshine" (Len), "Mambo Number 5" (Lou Bega), "Closing Time" (Semisonic), "She's So High" (Tal Bachman), "Save Tonight" (Eagle Eye Cherry), "What its Like" (Everlast), "Tubthumping" (Chumbawamba), "The Impression That I Get" (The Mighty Mighty Bostones), "Sunny Came Home" (Shawn Colvin), "How Bizarre" (OMC), "No Rain" (Blind Melon), "Insane in the Brain" (Cypress Hill), "Rump Shaker" (Wrecks-n-Effect), and even "Here Comes The Hotstepper" (Ini Kamoze).
Honestly, there were so many great one-hit wonders in the 90s, that if I had to pick only 50 songs to listen to for the rest of my life, probably 25 of them would be listed somewhere on this page.
(and yes, the general point of this post was just for me to rattle off my knowledge of 1990s music)
As for Powter, he has at least one more partial day in the sun. I was curious about what he has been doing since the release of "Bad Day" in 2005, and apparently he released an album last year (entitled, appropriately, Under The Radar). The only single on that album, "Next Plane Home", reached only #39 on the U.S. pop chart.
Then again, a sure sign that you will always be relevant in American pop culture is to have your song covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks:
--
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Celebrate Thanksgiving, Celebrate Capitalism
Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday, almost as unique as the 4th of July. But there's more to it than simply stuffing yourself full of food, or drinking heavily to make your extended family more bearable.
When it comes right down to it, Thanksgiving is a celebration of man's ability to produce wealth. And, by extension, of the system of living that allows him to do so.
That's right, Thanksgiving is a celebration of capitalism.
We're taught that this holiday is a remembrance of a peaceful union between the early colonists and the Native Americans, but we all know how that turned out in the end. And although the day has become a celebration of family, lots of food, (and football), that's not really what it's about either.
It's about the one common thread between that first Thanksgiving and this one. The thing that makes it all possible.
Capitalism.
Lawrence Reed, from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains why:
"Thanksgiving Day is a particularly appropriate time to reflect on the meaning and value of profit. The settlers at Plymouth colony who started the holiday tradition nearly wiped themselves out early on when they set up a communal, socialistic economy. Each person was producing for everybody else and received an equal share of the total production. In the absence of a strong profit motive, the settlers starved until Gov. Bradford altered the arrangement. Thereafter, men and women produced for profit and the result was bountiful harvests with full Thanksgiving tables."
So that takes care of the value of capitalism and profit in the first Thanksgiving, but what about today? When you think about it, only in a capitalist society is a huge annual feast even possible. Reed continues:
"Consider this as you feast at the table today. The people who raised the turkey didn't do so because they wanted to help you out. The others who grew the cranberries and the yams didn't go to the trouble and expense out of some altruistic, charitable impulse. If you think those folks and the others who made almost everything else you own performed their tasks as sacrificial rituals, then you probably believe McDonalds when they say, "We do it all for you."
In Marxist North Korea, they have a regime that works night and day to see that nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won't be anything like Thanksgiving dinner in North Korea today, and that's no coincidence.
As for me, you can count on me saying a prayerful thanks for more than just good food today. I'm going to say thanks for the profit motive which made it all possible. When God instilled a measure of productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing."
I'm right there with him.
Henry Hazlitt wrote that the most important lesson of economics is to look not only at what is immediately present, but also to see that which is hidden or at least more difficult to see.
The same is true, I would think, of Thanksgiving. We certainly should be thankful for the food, family, friends, etc., but with all those wonderful things right in front of us, we should not forget about that which is not always immediately present to our attention. A capitalist society makes Thanksgiving possible, and I'm thankful for living in one.
When it comes right down to it, Thanksgiving is a celebration of man's ability to produce wealth. And, by extension, of the system of living that allows him to do so.
That's right, Thanksgiving is a celebration of capitalism.
We're taught that this holiday is a remembrance of a peaceful union between the early colonists and the Native Americans, but we all know how that turned out in the end. And although the day has become a celebration of family, lots of food, (and football), that's not really what it's about either.
It's about the one common thread between that first Thanksgiving and this one. The thing that makes it all possible.
Capitalism.
Lawrence Reed, from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains why:
"Thanksgiving Day is a particularly appropriate time to reflect on the meaning and value of profit. The settlers at Plymouth colony who started the holiday tradition nearly wiped themselves out early on when they set up a communal, socialistic economy. Each person was producing for everybody else and received an equal share of the total production. In the absence of a strong profit motive, the settlers starved until Gov. Bradford altered the arrangement. Thereafter, men and women produced for profit and the result was bountiful harvests with full Thanksgiving tables."
So that takes care of the value of capitalism and profit in the first Thanksgiving, but what about today? When you think about it, only in a capitalist society is a huge annual feast even possible. Reed continues:
"Consider this as you feast at the table today. The people who raised the turkey didn't do so because they wanted to help you out. The others who grew the cranberries and the yams didn't go to the trouble and expense out of some altruistic, charitable impulse. If you think those folks and the others who made almost everything else you own performed their tasks as sacrificial rituals, then you probably believe McDonalds when they say, "We do it all for you."
In Marxist North Korea, they have a regime that works night and day to see that nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won't be anything like Thanksgiving dinner in North Korea today, and that's no coincidence.
As for me, you can count on me saying a prayerful thanks for more than just good food today. I'm going to say thanks for the profit motive which made it all possible. When God instilled a measure of productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing."
I'm right there with him.
Henry Hazlitt wrote that the most important lesson of economics is to look not only at what is immediately present, but also to see that which is hidden or at least more difficult to see.
The same is true, I would think, of Thanksgiving. We certainly should be thankful for the food, family, friends, etc., but with all those wonderful things right in front of us, we should not forget about that which is not always immediately present to our attention. A capitalist society makes Thanksgiving possible, and I'm thankful for living in one.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Relax, folks.
Remember that census worker who was found, dead, in Kentucky back in September? He was hung, with his hands bound behind him, and the word "Fed" was scrawled across his chest.
Remember how angry a lot of people were because the perpetrator must be some kind of libertarian/anti-government/census-hating/nutjob? Andrew Sullivan went so far as to declare there was no way this was suicide.
Well, it turns out that the perpetrator was actually Bill Sparkman (the 51-year old census taker) himself. Yup, it was a suicide. Apparently, he had an insurance policy that would not pay if he committed suicide, so he tried to make it look like a heinous crime instead. Obviously, this still is a sad story -- a man took his own life -- but at least he was not the victim of an irrational attack against the wrong kind of target.
--
Remember how angry a lot of people were because the perpetrator must be some kind of libertarian/anti-government/census-hating/nutjob? Andrew Sullivan went so far as to declare there was no way this was suicide.
Well, it turns out that the perpetrator was actually Bill Sparkman (the 51-year old census taker) himself. Yup, it was a suicide. Apparently, he had an insurance policy that would not pay if he committed suicide, so he tried to make it look like a heinous crime instead. Obviously, this still is a sad story -- a man took his own life -- but at least he was not the victim of an irrational attack against the wrong kind of target.
--
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Why I Hate New York: Eminent Domain Edition
Eminent domain, which allows the government to seize private property for public use, is actually allowed in the Constitution (one of many things found in the 5th Amendment).
However, the 5th also makes it very clear that owners must be compensated fairly for their land and property (although I guess its questionable if that's really possible), and that such actions are only acceptable when the land is going to be put to public use, such as the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Unfortunately, eminent domain claims have been increasingly used for corrupt reasons, and to assist private development when people refuse to sell.
That's exactly what the City of New York is planning to do.
Nicole Gelinas of the Wall Street Journal questions the use of eminent domain in Brooklyn to help pave the way for a sports and entertainment complex (known as the "Atlantic Yards" project) in Prospect Heights.
"So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
To meet the needs of in-flowing residents, developers had been converting sturdy old warehouses into condos. One of the newer arrivals, Mr. Goldstein, paid $590,000 in 2003 for his three-bedroom condo in a distinctive, eight-story dry-goods warehouse designed by a renowned Chicago architect and solidly built nearly 80 years before. His neighborhood was home, too, to small-scale industrial firms and a still-operating Prohibition-era bar, as well as to working-class renters."
Hmm....that doesn't sound too slummy to me.
So how did Bruce Ratner, the developer, plan to convince the courts that these few city blocks needed to be razed to the ground in order to preserve the public well-being? They hired a consulting firm to cook up a report about how bad the area is, citing mostly weeds and graffiti (oh the horror). They also focused on the "under utilization" of the land, which makes the project an attempt at civic planning, rather than letting the market continue to improve the neighborhood, as it had been doing, driven by the demand for new apartments, like Goldstein's.
Damon Root, of Reason, says nothing good can come from this union of public power and private business:
"Ratner isn't planning to build a bridge or a road or any other legitimate public project that might permit the forceful taking of private property. He wants to build a basketball arena, sell tickets to the games (not to mention sell broadcast rights, advertising space, concessions, and merchandise), and make a big fat profit. That's not public use, it's private gain.
Furthermore, state officials have gone out of their way to put those profits in Ratner's hands. Consider that when the project was officially announced in 2003 there was no mention of blight, which is the state of extreme disrepair frequently cited by the ESDC to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law. Two years later, however, Ratner and the ESDC started claiming that the neighborhood was "blighted." Yet by that point Ratner had already acquired many of the properties he wanted (thanks to eminent domain) and left them empty, thus creating much of the unsightly neglect he now cites in support of his project."
According to Gelinas, Ratner is pretty well aware that his project is not a "public use" under any definition of the term. A few weeks ago, when questioned by a reporter about his specific plans for the location, Ratner replied: "Why should people get to see the plans? This isn't a public project."
Touche, sir. And hopefully the New York Court of Appeals sees it the same way when they rule on this case (Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation) sometime in the next few days. A ruling is expected before Thanksgiving, reports the Bergen (N.J.) Record.
Of course, when you're relying on the government to save you from the government, I'm not sure I'd like your chances, even if the Constitution is on your side.
Here's a trailer for a documentary that is being made about the people living under the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint and their fight against the use of eminent domain.
Brooklyn Mayor Marty Markowitz (do you think they call him "Marty Mark"? I would.) says that this would make Brooklyn "the place to be in America." Sorry, Marty, but those words will never accurately describe Brooklyn. Even if you build a gold-plated arena bigger than the Vatican.
As a final note, I can't help but laugh at the commitment of Ratner to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn. Right now, the Nets are 0-12. You'd think the city of Brooklyn would be circulating a petition to keep them away.
However, the 5th also makes it very clear that owners must be compensated fairly for their land and property (although I guess its questionable if that's really possible), and that such actions are only acceptable when the land is going to be put to public use, such as the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Unfortunately, eminent domain claims have been increasingly used for corrupt reasons, and to assist private development when people refuse to sell.
That's exactly what the City of New York is planning to do.
Nicole Gelinas of the Wall Street Journal questions the use of eminent domain in Brooklyn to help pave the way for a sports and entertainment complex (known as the "Atlantic Yards" project) in Prospect Heights.
"So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
To meet the needs of in-flowing residents, developers had been converting sturdy old warehouses into condos. One of the newer arrivals, Mr. Goldstein, paid $590,000 in 2003 for his three-bedroom condo in a distinctive, eight-story dry-goods warehouse designed by a renowned Chicago architect and solidly built nearly 80 years before. His neighborhood was home, too, to small-scale industrial firms and a still-operating Prohibition-era bar, as well as to working-class renters."
Hmm....that doesn't sound too slummy to me.
So how did Bruce Ratner, the developer, plan to convince the courts that these few city blocks needed to be razed to the ground in order to preserve the public well-being? They hired a consulting firm to cook up a report about how bad the area is, citing mostly weeds and graffiti (oh the horror). They also focused on the "under utilization" of the land, which makes the project an attempt at civic planning, rather than letting the market continue to improve the neighborhood, as it had been doing, driven by the demand for new apartments, like Goldstein's.
Damon Root, of Reason, says nothing good can come from this union of public power and private business:
"Ratner isn't planning to build a bridge or a road or any other legitimate public project that might permit the forceful taking of private property. He wants to build a basketball arena, sell tickets to the games (not to mention sell broadcast rights, advertising space, concessions, and merchandise), and make a big fat profit. That's not public use, it's private gain.
Furthermore, state officials have gone out of their way to put those profits in Ratner's hands. Consider that when the project was officially announced in 2003 there was no mention of blight, which is the state of extreme disrepair frequently cited by the ESDC to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law. Two years later, however, Ratner and the ESDC started claiming that the neighborhood was "blighted." Yet by that point Ratner had already acquired many of the properties he wanted (thanks to eminent domain) and left them empty, thus creating much of the unsightly neglect he now cites in support of his project."
According to Gelinas, Ratner is pretty well aware that his project is not a "public use" under any definition of the term. A few weeks ago, when questioned by a reporter about his specific plans for the location, Ratner replied: "Why should people get to see the plans? This isn't a public project."
Touche, sir. And hopefully the New York Court of Appeals sees it the same way when they rule on this case (Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation) sometime in the next few days. A ruling is expected before Thanksgiving, reports the Bergen (N.J.) Record.
Of course, when you're relying on the government to save you from the government, I'm not sure I'd like your chances, even if the Constitution is on your side.
Here's a trailer for a documentary that is being made about the people living under the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint and their fight against the use of eminent domain.
Brooklyn Mayor Marty Markowitz (do you think they call him "Marty Mark"? I would.) says that this would make Brooklyn "the place to be in America." Sorry, Marty, but those words will never accurately describe Brooklyn. Even if you build a gold-plated arena bigger than the Vatican.
As a final note, I can't help but laugh at the commitment of Ratner to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn. Right now, the Nets are 0-12. You'd think the city of Brooklyn would be circulating a petition to keep them away.
Another Example
of why government-funded, monopolized, services are a bad idea. When there is no competition, there is no way to keep prices down, so they tend to shoot up. And in this case, the price that is sky-rocketing is the price of labor.
SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) recently went on strike (although they kindly waited until after the World Series, despite their initial threats). The union is demanding an increase in wages and benefits, but when you consider that the average unionized SEPTA worker is already making $52,000 a year, you have to wonder why.
By the way, the median salary in the city of Philadelphia is only $36,646. So most transit workers are making significantly more money than the people riding on the buses/trains/subways with them.
Mix in the fact that we're in the middle of a recession, and that unemployment in Philadelphia recently hit 11 percent, and its pretty hard to believe that anyone can support this strike or the union that organized it.
--
SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) recently went on strike (although they kindly waited until after the World Series, despite their initial threats). The union is demanding an increase in wages and benefits, but when you consider that the average unionized SEPTA worker is already making $52,000 a year, you have to wonder why.
By the way, the median salary in the city of Philadelphia is only $36,646. So most transit workers are making significantly more money than the people riding on the buses/trains/subways with them.
Mix in the fact that we're in the middle of a recession, and that unemployment in Philadelphia recently hit 11 percent, and its pretty hard to believe that anyone can support this strike or the union that organized it.
--
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The More You Know....
...the less attractive government-run health care becomes.
At least that seems to be the message from a recent Gallup poll asking people whether they believe providing health insurance is the responsibility of the federal government or not. Gallup has been polling this question since 2001, and for the first time ever the number of people opposed to government health insurance has surpassed the number in favor of it (50%-47%).
As recently as 2006, 69 percent of Americans felt that it was the government's responsibility to provide health coverage; last year that number fell to 54 percent, the previous low.
So why the dramatic shift?
"Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's health care system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have health care coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government."
Gallup concludes:
"The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed health care debate since President Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the health care system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have health care coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in health care could or should be this broad."
I believe it was Socrates who said the truth can only be discovered through use of the dialectic. In other words, you don't know what you believe until you challenge it with an argument of some kind. It seems that the debates over health care are having one positive effect: convincing more people that government health care is a bad idea.
--
At least that seems to be the message from a recent Gallup poll asking people whether they believe providing health insurance is the responsibility of the federal government or not. Gallup has been polling this question since 2001, and for the first time ever the number of people opposed to government health insurance has surpassed the number in favor of it (50%-47%).
As recently as 2006, 69 percent of Americans felt that it was the government's responsibility to provide health coverage; last year that number fell to 54 percent, the previous low.
So why the dramatic shift?
"Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's health care system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have health care coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government."
Gallup concludes:
"The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed health care debate since President Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the health care system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have health care coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in health care could or should be this broad."
I believe it was Socrates who said the truth can only be discovered through use of the dialectic. In other words, you don't know what you believe until you challenge it with an argument of some kind. It seems that the debates over health care are having one positive effect: convincing more people that government health care is a bad idea.
--
Monday, November 16, 2009
Where Is The Money Going?
According to ABCNews.com, the Federal Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus money to fund projects that do not exist.
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Committee Guts Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Bill
Ron Paul's latest attempt to bring some kind of sanity to Washington has been dealt a serious blow by the House Financial Services Committee, which "gutted" his bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, was introduced in February and has accumulated 311 co-sponsors. However, Rep. Paul (R-TX) maintains that several important elements of the bill have been removed by the committee during hearings on the bill held in September.
Paul says the changes have removed provisions that closed loopholes, such as the protection from audits of transactions with other nations' central banks. And he's pointing the finger at the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's panel on domestic monetary policy, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC).
And Watt (surprise, surprise) has gained more than a little bit from the banking and financial sector during his time in office. In 2008, when he won election for a ninth term, the largest percentage of his campaign contributions (35%, or $217,000) came from connections to financial, real estate, and insurance industries. According to OpenSecrets.org, Bank of America (headquartered in Charlotte, a part of Watt's district, which is one of the most gerrymandered in the country) was the largest single contributor to Watt's 2008 campaign.
On the plus side, Rep. Paul says he will try to restore the provisions that have been cut from the bill with an amendment when the bill reaches the floor. With all those co-sponsors, the bill should be easily passed, but the question remains about how effective the bill will be.
HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, was introduced in February and has accumulated 311 co-sponsors. However, Rep. Paul (R-TX) maintains that several important elements of the bill have been removed by the committee during hearings on the bill held in September.
Paul says the changes have removed provisions that closed loopholes, such as the protection from audits of transactions with other nations' central banks. And he's pointing the finger at the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's panel on domestic monetary policy, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC).
And Watt (surprise, surprise) has gained more than a little bit from the banking and financial sector during his time in office. In 2008, when he won election for a ninth term, the largest percentage of his campaign contributions (35%, or $217,000) came from connections to financial, real estate, and insurance industries. According to OpenSecrets.org, Bank of America (headquartered in Charlotte, a part of Watt's district, which is one of the most gerrymandered in the country) was the largest single contributor to Watt's 2008 campaign.
On the plus side, Rep. Paul says he will try to restore the provisions that have been cut from the bill with an amendment when the bill reaches the floor. With all those co-sponsors, the bill should be easily passed, but the question remains about how effective the bill will be.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Happy Ayn Rand Week - Continued
As I mentioned on Monday, there are two new biographies about Ayn Rand that have been published within the past month.
Sam Anderson, of the New York Times, reviews Ayn Rand and the World She Made (by Anne Heller), and the review is worth reading simply for the following description of the subject:
"Few fellow creatures have had a more intensely odd personal flavor; her temperament could have neutered an ox at 40 paces."
Anderson takes plenty of opportunities to criticize Rand during the review, but ultimately concludes on a positive note:
"Overall, though, Heller does a remarkable job with a subject who was almost cripplingly complex—a real woman starring in her own propaganda film about a propagandist whose propaganda eventually takes over the world."
Then, there is Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (By Jennifer Burns, of the University of Virginia), which rolls in at only 384 pages, and seems to have been generally reviewed less favorably. Brian Doherty, of the Washington Times, questions the connection between Rand and the American right-wing in his review of the book:
"Rand undoubtedly was a ferocious defender of free markets and a great lover of America because she saw it as the closest political embodiment of her values. But she was never, despite Ms. Burns' title connecting her goddesshood and the American right, any special darling of modern conservatives.... ...The reader of Ms. Burns' book will get a proper sense of where Rand really stands in American ideological history. Rand (though she herself despised the word and movement for peculiar reasons of her own) was not a member in good standing of the American right; she was far more a goddess of American libertarianism, that radical philosophy of consistent anti-statism and individualism unconnected to conservative traditionalism."
Still, Doherty is mostly positive, saying that Rand still has important lessons to teach about the implications of big government.
And here's Burns herself in an interview with Reason TV, where she discusses her book, Rand's influence on conservatives and libertarians, and why Rand is important today.
--
Sam Anderson, of the New York Times, reviews Ayn Rand and the World She Made (by Anne Heller), and the review is worth reading simply for the following description of the subject:
"Few fellow creatures have had a more intensely odd personal flavor; her temperament could have neutered an ox at 40 paces."
Anderson takes plenty of opportunities to criticize Rand during the review, but ultimately concludes on a positive note:
"Overall, though, Heller does a remarkable job with a subject who was almost cripplingly complex—a real woman starring in her own propaganda film about a propagandist whose propaganda eventually takes over the world."
Then, there is Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (By Jennifer Burns, of the University of Virginia), which rolls in at only 384 pages, and seems to have been generally reviewed less favorably. Brian Doherty, of the Washington Times, questions the connection between Rand and the American right-wing in his review of the book:
"Rand undoubtedly was a ferocious defender of free markets and a great lover of America because she saw it as the closest political embodiment of her values. But she was never, despite Ms. Burns' title connecting her goddesshood and the American right, any special darling of modern conservatives.... ...The reader of Ms. Burns' book will get a proper sense of where Rand really stands in American ideological history. Rand (though she herself despised the word and movement for peculiar reasons of her own) was not a member in good standing of the American right; she was far more a goddess of American libertarianism, that radical philosophy of consistent anti-statism and individualism unconnected to conservative traditionalism."
Still, Doherty is mostly positive, saying that Rand still has important lessons to teach about the implications of big government.
And here's Burns herself in an interview with Reason TV, where she discusses her book, Rand's influence on conservatives and libertarians, and why Rand is important today.
--
Intellectual Carnage: John Boehner and Rachel Maddow
Honestly, this is just sad.
On Thursday, during a rally on the steps of the Capital on to oppose health care reform, John Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, decided to quote from his pocket Constitution. The only problem is that the words he actually spoke ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...") are actually from the Declaration of Independence.
But wait, it gets better.
That night, Rachel Maddow (MSNBC's most female liberal commentator) decided to correct the Representative. In her "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you" voice, she pointed out that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble.
That, of course, is completely incorrect.
Take a look at the intellectual carnage for yourself:
I wish that our elected leaders, as well as the people that are paid to criticize them, would actually take a look at our founding documents once in while. I'm not asking you to write an essay on the importance of the Federalist Papers, or even the Articles of Confederation. Just please understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, or do not speak in front of a camera.
--
On Thursday, during a rally on the steps of the Capital on to oppose health care reform, John Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, decided to quote from his pocket Constitution. The only problem is that the words he actually spoke ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...") are actually from the Declaration of Independence.
But wait, it gets better.
That night, Rachel Maddow (MSNBC's most female liberal commentator) decided to correct the Representative. In her "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you" voice, she pointed out that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble.
That, of course, is completely incorrect.
Take a look at the intellectual carnage for yourself:
I wish that our elected leaders, as well as the people that are paid to criticize them, would actually take a look at our founding documents once in while. I'm not asking you to write an essay on the importance of the Federalist Papers, or even the Articles of Confederation. Just please understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, or do not speak in front of a camera.
--
We Rule This Place
This is so cool that I'm just going to re-post it in its entirety. From The New Scientist (via Chart Porn, via Sociological Images, via Megan), these maps show the human colonization of the Earth. Also, it seems appropriate to post this during "Rand week".
The first one shows every road in the world.
The next one shows all the railroads in the world:
Nice work, humanity.
Finally, this map shows the amount of time it would take for you to reach any major city (50,000 people or more) from a given location on the planet. Since the key is really small, here's the summery: white means less than an hour, yellow means 2-3 hours, orange means about six hours, red means about 24 hours, and black means a few days. Also, the blue lines are shipping lanes, so this could be useful if you're ever ship wrecked.
And in case you're wondering, the most remote place on Earth is the Tibetan Plateau, where it can take three weeks to reach a city of 50,000 people. The real kicker: only one of those days is spent in a car, while the other 20 are on foot.
--
The first one shows every road in the world.
The next one shows all the railroads in the world:
Nice work, humanity.
Finally, this map shows the amount of time it would take for you to reach any major city (50,000 people or more) from a given location on the planet. Since the key is really small, here's the summery: white means less than an hour, yellow means 2-3 hours, orange means about six hours, red means about 24 hours, and black means a few days. Also, the blue lines are shipping lanes, so this could be useful if you're ever ship wrecked.
And in case you're wondering, the most remote place on Earth is the Tibetan Plateau, where it can take three weeks to reach a city of 50,000 people. The real kicker: only one of those days is spent in a car, while the other 20 are on foot.
--
Monday, November 2, 2009
Happy Ayn Rand Week
All this week, the Reason Foundation is celebrating the "freedom and ideas of Ayn Rand", so I thought I'd celebrate a little too. I'm debating between either building a railroad in my backyard or writing a philosophical treatise, recording it, and posting it on YouTube (that's the modern equivalent of a radio broadcast, right?).
Either way, lets get the week started with Nick Gillespie, who takes a look at the enduring power of Rand, who has been referenced on everything from Mad Men to The Simpsons.
Gillespie also penned this article that examines Rand's life, her work, and the two new biographies that have been written about her.
If you still want more about Rand, from Gillespie, he wrote a similar story more than four years ago about the continued influence of Rand in American culture and politics.
Or, if you're tired of being too serious about Rand, you can check out this entertaining flow-chart (and how I love flow-charts) that serves as an easy how-to guide to become a Randian hero. The rest of the page is pretty entertaining too.
And by the way, Ayn rhymes with pine.
--
Either way, lets get the week started with Nick Gillespie, who takes a look at the enduring power of Rand, who has been referenced on everything from Mad Men to The Simpsons.
Gillespie also penned this article that examines Rand's life, her work, and the two new biographies that have been written about her.
If you still want more about Rand, from Gillespie, he wrote a similar story more than four years ago about the continued influence of Rand in American culture and politics.
Or, if you're tired of being too serious about Rand, you can check out this entertaining flow-chart (and how I love flow-charts) that serves as an easy how-to guide to become a Randian hero. The rest of the page is pretty entertaining too.
And by the way, Ayn rhymes with pine.
--
Polishing the Brass on the Titanic (Continued)
On Thursday, I wrote about the downward plunge of newspaper circulation in the U.S. based on the recent numbers released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The average decline in circulation for daily weekday papers was 10.6 percent (or about 30 million copies), based on numbers from the past six months compared to the same six months in 2008.
But, before we freak out any more about the end of American newspapers as a whole, Daniel Gross of Slate has a word of advice: Chillax. (Really, that's exactly what he says in the article.)
Here's why he thinks things aren't as bad as they might seem:
"First of all, there's nothing ipso facto shocking about a decline in patronage of 10 percent in six months. Many political blogs and cable news shows have seen their audiences fall by much more than 10 percent since the feverish fall of 2008. And advertising at plenty of online publications has fallen by a similar amount. In case anybody has forgotten, we've had a deep, long recession, a huge spike in unemployment, and a credit crunch. Consumers have cut back sharply on all sorts of expenditures....
...Many other components of consumer discretionary spending—hotels, restaurants, air travel—have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels?"
Certainly the election last fall drove circulation numbers higher than they would have been, resulting in a more dramatic falloff in the time since, but that doesn't change the fact that the decline exists. And if it continues to slide, even at a slower pace, that's bad news, right?
Wrong, says Gross, because falling circulation does not necessarily mean falling revenue. Many papers have increased prices at the newsstand and for home delivery. So, while the New York Times has seen a 7.3 percent drop in circulation, they have also announced that revenues are actually UP 6.7 percent in the third quarter. At the same time, income from circulation surpassed income from advertisements for the first time, ever.
Of course the question is whether the higher costs can balance out the losses that are being felt in advertising (traditionally the way newspapers made their money), while at the same time not driving away so many customers that even higher prices are forced upon those that remain. It does not sound like a good long-term plan, but at least there might be hope.
--
But, before we freak out any more about the end of American newspapers as a whole, Daniel Gross of Slate has a word of advice: Chillax. (Really, that's exactly what he says in the article.)
Here's why he thinks things aren't as bad as they might seem:
"First of all, there's nothing ipso facto shocking about a decline in patronage of 10 percent in six months. Many political blogs and cable news shows have seen their audiences fall by much more than 10 percent since the feverish fall of 2008. And advertising at plenty of online publications has fallen by a similar amount. In case anybody has forgotten, we've had a deep, long recession, a huge spike in unemployment, and a credit crunch. Consumers have cut back sharply on all sorts of expenditures....
...Many other components of consumer discretionary spending—hotels, restaurants, air travel—have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels?"
Certainly the election last fall drove circulation numbers higher than they would have been, resulting in a more dramatic falloff in the time since, but that doesn't change the fact that the decline exists. And if it continues to slide, even at a slower pace, that's bad news, right?
Wrong, says Gross, because falling circulation does not necessarily mean falling revenue. Many papers have increased prices at the newsstand and for home delivery. So, while the New York Times has seen a 7.3 percent drop in circulation, they have also announced that revenues are actually UP 6.7 percent in the third quarter. At the same time, income from circulation surpassed income from advertisements for the first time, ever.
Of course the question is whether the higher costs can balance out the losses that are being felt in advertising (traditionally the way newspapers made their money), while at the same time not driving away so many customers that even higher prices are forced upon those that remain. It does not sound like a good long-term plan, but at least there might be hope.
--
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Halloween, Obama-style
I wonder how much money the White House Halloween Party cost? According to the AP, the event included "an odd cast of figures [wondering] around the North Lawn, including skeletons playing musical instruments, walking trees, and "Star Wars" characters. The night's arrangements took a month or two to prepare, the White House said."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Polishing the Brass on the Titanic
The Audit Bureau of Circulation, which calculates newspaper circulation numbers in the United States, has released the totals for the six-month period from March-September. Let's just say they aren't very pretty.
When compared to the circulation numbers from March-September of 2008, only one of the top 25 newspapers in the United States has seen an increase an increase in circulation. That paper, the Wall Street Journal, is up a whopping 0.6 percent. As for the other 24, its not only that they are down, but how badly they are down. Here's a sampling:
USA Today: -17.2%
New York Times: -7.3%
Washington Post: -6.4%
New York Post: -18.8%
Houston Chronicle: -14.2%
Boston Globe: -18.5%
Dallas Morning News: -22.2%
San Francisco Chronicle: -25.9%
These aren't papers that no one cares about; these are some of the most important papers in the country. And some of them have lost one out of every five or six readers in the span of a year. Megan McArdle thinks this is more than just a bad stretch:
"I think we're witnessing the end of the newspaper business, full stop, not the end of the newspaper business as we know it. The economics just aren't there. At some point, industries enter a death spiral: too few consumers raises their average costs, meaning they eventually have to pass price increases onto their customers. That drives more customers away. Rinse and repeat . . ."
McArdle, who stood in front of me and about 40 other enterprising young journalists back in June and tried to assure us there would be some kind of future in the business, is not the only one who says newspapers are circling the drain.
Paul Gillin, of Newspaper Death Watch, says that newspaper circulation today is lower than it was in 1940, the first year for which data on circulation is available. Back then, 31 percent of people read a newspaper. Today, it's less than 13 percent. Even worse, in 1940 there were 118 newspapers published for every 100 households in the United States. Ten years ago, there were 53 per 100 households. Today, that total is less than 33 per 100 households.
On the plus side, the ABC also released the top 10 circulation gainers during the past year. Then again, I think it's a top 10 list because there weren't enough papers with positive numbers to make a full top 25.
Maybe it's time I read the writing on the wall and gave up on this kind of career.
--
When compared to the circulation numbers from March-September of 2008, only one of the top 25 newspapers in the United States has seen an increase an increase in circulation. That paper, the Wall Street Journal, is up a whopping 0.6 percent. As for the other 24, its not only that they are down, but how badly they are down. Here's a sampling:
USA Today: -17.2%
New York Times: -7.3%
Washington Post: -6.4%
New York Post: -18.8%
Houston Chronicle: -14.2%
Boston Globe: -18.5%
Dallas Morning News: -22.2%
San Francisco Chronicle: -25.9%
These aren't papers that no one cares about; these are some of the most important papers in the country. And some of them have lost one out of every five or six readers in the span of a year. Megan McArdle thinks this is more than just a bad stretch:
"I think we're witnessing the end of the newspaper business, full stop, not the end of the newspaper business as we know it. The economics just aren't there. At some point, industries enter a death spiral: too few consumers raises their average costs, meaning they eventually have to pass price increases onto their customers. That drives more customers away. Rinse and repeat . . ."
McArdle, who stood in front of me and about 40 other enterprising young journalists back in June and tried to assure us there would be some kind of future in the business, is not the only one who says newspapers are circling the drain.
Paul Gillin, of Newspaper Death Watch, says that newspaper circulation today is lower than it was in 1940, the first year for which data on circulation is available. Back then, 31 percent of people read a newspaper. Today, it's less than 13 percent. Even worse, in 1940 there were 118 newspapers published for every 100 households in the United States. Ten years ago, there were 53 per 100 households. Today, that total is less than 33 per 100 households.
On the plus side, the ABC also released the top 10 circulation gainers during the past year. Then again, I think it's a top 10 list because there weren't enough papers with positive numbers to make a full top 25.
Maybe it's time I read the writing on the wall and gave up on this kind of career.
--
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Mole Rats Defeat Cancer
File this one under proof that the Universe maintains some kind of balance. Take the Naked Mole Rat, for example. Sure, you might be one of the ugliest creatures on Earth, but on the plus side, you can't get cancer.
That's right, scientists have found that Naked Mole Rats have a unique gene that makes them immune to cancer by stopping the rampant proliferation of cells that makes the disease so deadly. Popular Science has the low-down:
"According to the scientists, the mole rat's cells express a gene that tells cells to stop dividing. The gene, called p16, forms a second ring of defense against cancer. Most mammals, including humans, only have one gene, p27, protecting cells from cancer. And while most cancers know a way around p27, p16 stops them cold."
Popular Science also runs a blog called "Science Confirms the Obvious", which, as the name might imply, details scientific studies that tell you what you already knew. It's actually funnier than it sounds.
That's right, scientists have found that Naked Mole Rats have a unique gene that makes them immune to cancer by stopping the rampant proliferation of cells that makes the disease so deadly. Popular Science has the low-down:
"According to the scientists, the mole rat's cells express a gene that tells cells to stop dividing. The gene, called p16, forms a second ring of defense against cancer. Most mammals, including humans, only have one gene, p27, protecting cells from cancer. And while most cancers know a way around p27, p16 stops them cold."
Popular Science also runs a blog called "Science Confirms the Obvious", which, as the name might imply, details scientific studies that tell you what you already knew. It's actually funnier than it sounds.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Deserving Nobel Prize Winner
With all the hoopla surrounding President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, we should not lose sight of the other award winners who have actually done something to earn their Prize. In the case of Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics this year, that means proving that normal people are actually better at solving complicated economic problems than politicians and bureaucrats.
Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the 24th American to win that award since 1980. But it's what she did to earn the Prize that's really cool.
The Nobel selection committee had this to say:
"Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes."
In other words, free people work things out. Ostrom has shown that people who have a direct interest in solving problems do a better job than governmental agencies that follow prevailing theories on conflict of interest. Not only do they do a better job of handling disputes, but they produce more successful outcomes.
John Stossel takes a deeper look:
"Ostrom's work concentrates on common-pool resources (CPR) like pastures and fisheries. Policymakers assume that such situations are plagued by free-rider problems, where all individuals have a strong incentive to use the resource to the fullest and no incentive to invest in order to enhance it. Analysts across the political spectrum theorize that only bureaucrats or owners of privatized units can efficiently manage such resources.
Few scholars actually venture into the field to see what people actually do when faced with free-rider problems. Ostrom did. It turns out that free people are not as helpless as the theorists believed...
...Not only is government help often not needed, Ostrom says it usually screws things up because bureaucrats operate in an ivory tower ignorant of the local customs and the specific resource.
Political theorists assume away the problems of political control, but the problems are real. There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. Unlike bureaucrats, they bear the costs of their mistakes."
It just makes sense, doesn't it? When people need to solve a problem, they usually do. But in this era of government-rides-to-the-rescue-again, it's great to see people like Dr. Ostrom (political scientist at Indiana University) rewarded for defending freedom. The 10-million Swedish kronor prize -- about $1.4 million -- that she'll share with University of California professor Oliver Williamson must be pretty sweet too.
Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the 24th American to win that award since 1980. But it's what she did to earn the Prize that's really cool.
The Nobel selection committee had this to say:
"Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes."
In other words, free people work things out. Ostrom has shown that people who have a direct interest in solving problems do a better job than governmental agencies that follow prevailing theories on conflict of interest. Not only do they do a better job of handling disputes, but they produce more successful outcomes.
John Stossel takes a deeper look:
"Ostrom's work concentrates on common-pool resources (CPR) like pastures and fisheries. Policymakers assume that such situations are plagued by free-rider problems, where all individuals have a strong incentive to use the resource to the fullest and no incentive to invest in order to enhance it. Analysts across the political spectrum theorize that only bureaucrats or owners of privatized units can efficiently manage such resources.
Few scholars actually venture into the field to see what people actually do when faced with free-rider problems. Ostrom did. It turns out that free people are not as helpless as the theorists believed...
...Not only is government help often not needed, Ostrom says it usually screws things up because bureaucrats operate in an ivory tower ignorant of the local customs and the specific resource.
Political theorists assume away the problems of political control, but the problems are real. There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. Unlike bureaucrats, they bear the costs of their mistakes."
It just makes sense, doesn't it? When people need to solve a problem, they usually do. But in this era of government-rides-to-the-rescue-again, it's great to see people like Dr. Ostrom (political scientist at Indiana University) rewarded for defending freedom. The 10-million Swedish kronor prize -- about $1.4 million -- that she'll share with University of California professor Oliver Williamson must be pretty sweet too.
The European Stages of Life
The people who research this kind of thing believe that half of the babies born in America in 2007 will live to be 104. Maybe that means we need to redefine traditional ways of looking at the stages of life, so today the New York Times took a reflective look at how man has defined his own life throughout the centuries.
This one is without a doubt my favorite, from A.A. Gill in the London Times, July 2009:
"I've often thought that Europe is an allegory for the ages of man. You're born Italian. They're relentlessly infantile and mother-obsessed. In childhood, we're English: chronically shy, tongue-tied, cliquey, and only happy when kicking balls, pulling the legs off something, or sending someone to Coventry. Teenagers are French: pretentiously philosophical, embarrassingly vain, ridiculously romantic and insincere. Then, in middle age we become either Swiss or Irish. Old age is German: ponderous, pompous, and pedantic. Then, finally, we regress into being Belgian, with no idea who we are at all."
This one is without a doubt my favorite, from A.A. Gill in the London Times, July 2009:
"I've often thought that Europe is an allegory for the ages of man. You're born Italian. They're relentlessly infantile and mother-obsessed. In childhood, we're English: chronically shy, tongue-tied, cliquey, and only happy when kicking balls, pulling the legs off something, or sending someone to Coventry. Teenagers are French: pretentiously philosophical, embarrassingly vain, ridiculously romantic and insincere. Then, in middle age we become either Swiss or Irish. Old age is German: ponderous, pompous, and pedantic. Then, finally, we regress into being Belgian, with no idea who we are at all."
Monday, October 26, 2009
People Just Don't Care About News
At least that seems to be the message that has been sent by recent viewership totals of the four major cable news stations -- CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, and HLN (formerly known as Headline News) -- during prime time.
CNN, which is by far the one that relies on actual news coverage (as opposed to talking heads and one-way opinion shows) to drive its audience numbers, came in dead last for the month of October for prime-time programming, reports the New York Times.
However, CNN still has the highest viewership numbers when you look at all the hours in the day, but when it comes to prime-time, the most important hours of the day in terms of advertising revenue, it looks like the American public has a much stronger taste for opinion. FoxNews has made a living on those types of programs (led by the "Papa Bear" himself, Bill O'Reilly, who grabs an average of 880,000 viewers a night), so it should be little surprise that Fox dominates almost every time slot of the prime time schedule.
Opposite 'O Reilly at 8 p.m. is MSNBC's Keith Olberman (the #1 pundit on my list of pundits I'd like to personally strangle) who pulls in less than 300,000 viewers a night, followed by HLN's Nancy Grace with roughly 270,00. In the same time slot, CNN's Campbell Brown gets only 162,000 viewers.
The story is pretty much the same at 7 p.m., with Fox's Shepard Smith grabbing the top spot with 465,000 viewers, while MSNBC's Chris Matthews (179,000), HLN's Jane Velez Mitchell (166,000), and CNN's Lou Dobbs (162,000) barely manage to get that many viewers combined.
The only CNN host not to finish in last place during prime time is the ancient one, Larry King, who managed to finish third at 9 p.m. with 224,00 viewers. That's still well behind Fox's Sean Hannity (659,000) and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (242,000), but ahead of HLN's Joy Behar (181,000).
Maybe the saddest part for CNN is that their signature show, Anderson Cooper 360, also went to the bottom of the barrel in October. Cooper (who got 211,000 viewers) was beaten by RE-RUNS of Olberman (223,000) and Grace (222,000) during the 10 o'clock hour. Fox's Greta Van Sustern won with 538,000 viewers.
Sadder still - in three of the four time slots, CNN programs were beaten by HLN programs....and HLN is actually owned by CNN. Basically, that's like USA network getting better prime time ratings than NBC.
--
CNN, which is by far the one that relies on actual news coverage (as opposed to talking heads and one-way opinion shows) to drive its audience numbers, came in dead last for the month of October for prime-time programming, reports the New York Times.
However, CNN still has the highest viewership numbers when you look at all the hours in the day, but when it comes to prime-time, the most important hours of the day in terms of advertising revenue, it looks like the American public has a much stronger taste for opinion. FoxNews has made a living on those types of programs (led by the "Papa Bear" himself, Bill O'Reilly, who grabs an average of 880,000 viewers a night), so it should be little surprise that Fox dominates almost every time slot of the prime time schedule.
Opposite 'O Reilly at 8 p.m. is MSNBC's Keith Olberman (the #1 pundit on my list of pundits I'd like to personally strangle) who pulls in less than 300,000 viewers a night, followed by HLN's Nancy Grace with roughly 270,00. In the same time slot, CNN's Campbell Brown gets only 162,000 viewers.
The story is pretty much the same at 7 p.m., with Fox's Shepard Smith grabbing the top spot with 465,000 viewers, while MSNBC's Chris Matthews (179,000), HLN's Jane Velez Mitchell (166,000), and CNN's Lou Dobbs (162,000) barely manage to get that many viewers combined.
The only CNN host not to finish in last place during prime time is the ancient one, Larry King, who managed to finish third at 9 p.m. with 224,00 viewers. That's still well behind Fox's Sean Hannity (659,000) and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (242,000), but ahead of HLN's Joy Behar (181,000).
Maybe the saddest part for CNN is that their signature show, Anderson Cooper 360, also went to the bottom of the barrel in October. Cooper (who got 211,000 viewers) was beaten by RE-RUNS of Olberman (223,000) and Grace (222,000) during the 10 o'clock hour. Fox's Greta Van Sustern won with 538,000 viewers.
Sadder still - in three of the four time slots, CNN programs were beaten by HLN programs....and HLN is actually owned by CNN. Basically, that's like USA network getting better prime time ratings than NBC.
--
Global Warming Now in Doubt, Americans Say
In the past six months, apparently 14 percent of Americans have changed their minds about the existence of global warming, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. In April, the same survey said that 71 percent of people felt there was "solid evidence the Earth is warming", but in October's survey only 57 percent said that was true.
There was also an 11 percent decline (from 47 to 36) in respondents who said the Earth's warming was due to human activities. Also significant is a nine percent decline (44 to 35) in people who said global warming is a "serious problem". The decline goes across all political opinions, but it is most pronounced among independent voters.
So why is this? Could it be that health care and swine flu have replaced global warming as the biggest threat to life on Earth? Could it be, as Megan McArdle suggests, that "45 million Americans spent the last year reviewing the scientific evidence on Global Warming and changed their minds"? Or was it the unseasonably cool summer that most of North America experienced, combined with the earliest snowfall on record in many places in the Rocky Mountains, that has swayed opinion?
--
There was also an 11 percent decline (from 47 to 36) in respondents who said the Earth's warming was due to human activities. Also significant is a nine percent decline (44 to 35) in people who said global warming is a "serious problem". The decline goes across all political opinions, but it is most pronounced among independent voters.
So why is this? Could it be that health care and swine flu have replaced global warming as the biggest threat to life on Earth? Could it be, as Megan McArdle suggests, that "45 million Americans spent the last year reviewing the scientific evidence on Global Warming and changed their minds"? Or was it the unseasonably cool summer that most of North America experienced, combined with the earliest snowfall on record in many places in the Rocky Mountains, that has swayed opinion?
--
Monday, October 19, 2009
U.S. Navy: World Police
The U.S. Navy makes it official: this country's military is no longer for our own defense and protection. Now, we are a "global force for good".
Somehow, I don't see our generals and admirals sitting around to discuss the nature of "the good", but once they figure that out, I'm sure we'll have eternal peace on Earth. Then again, philosophers have been working on that idea for a long time without a lot of objective success, so we might have to fight a few hundred more wars first. So it goes.
In all honesty, I do kind of like the ad. It's cool, the editing is awesome, and I'm all for pumping up the history and spirit of the Armed Forces. I just wish they could change the slogan at the end of it to something that doesn't make my skin crawl.
Somehow, I don't see our generals and admirals sitting around to discuss the nature of "the good", but once they figure that out, I'm sure we'll have eternal peace on Earth. Then again, philosophers have been working on that idea for a long time without a lot of objective success, so we might have to fight a few hundred more wars first. So it goes.
In all honesty, I do kind of like the ad. It's cool, the editing is awesome, and I'm all for pumping up the history and spirit of the Armed Forces. I just wish they could change the slogan at the end of it to something that doesn't make my skin crawl.
If Failure is Impossible, What's the point of Success?
Walter Williams, of George Mason University's Economics department, wants to know.
According to a recent essay by Williams, the worth of a college degree is dropping almost by the day. While academic achievement scores are consistently dropping across the nation, our collective GPA seems to get better and better. Why?
"What is being labeled grade inflation is simply a euphemism for academic dishonesty. After all, it's dishonesty when a professor assigns a grade the student did not earn. When a university or college confers a degree upon a student who has not mastered critical thinking skills, writing and problem-solving, it's academic dishonesty. Of course, I might be in error calling it dishonesty. Perhaps academic standards have been set so low that idiots could earn A's and B's."
Williams goes on to point out specific instances where grade-inflation has weakened the meaning of a degree -- even from some of the most prestigious schools in the country.
"In October 2001, the Boston Globe published an article entitled "Harvard's Quiet Secret: Rampant Grade Inflation." The article reported that a record 91 percent of Harvard University students were awarded honors during the spring graduation. The newspaper called Harvard's grading practices "the laughing stock of the Ivy League."
Harvard is by no means unique. For example, 80 percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A's and B's. Fifty percent of students at Columbia University are on the Dean's list. At Stanford University, where F grades used to be banned, only 6 percent of student grades were as low as a C. In the 1930s, the average GPA at American colleges and universities was 2.35, about a C plus; today the national average GPA is 3.2, more than a B."
The reason why colleges would be willing to let academic standards fall so low? In Williams' opinion, it mostly has to do with the "rankings" of schools that have become so important in the eyes of some administrators.
And this is a problem throughout the college system, not just at the upper-most tier. In four years at Fairfield University, I saw plenty of people, many of whom probably shouldn't have been admitted in the first place, passing classes with the kind of ease that made me question the value of my own success. What significance is a college degree, even a college degree with honors, if it is simply handed out to anyone who paid the money and stuck around for four years? The only thing colleges can really control is their academic standards, but it appears that far too many of them have let other considerations get in the way.
Regardless of the reason, this trend has destroyed the value of a bachelor's degree (while the price of said degree has gone through the roof), and that's bad for everyone involved.
According to a recent essay by Williams, the worth of a college degree is dropping almost by the day. While academic achievement scores are consistently dropping across the nation, our collective GPA seems to get better and better. Why?
"What is being labeled grade inflation is simply a euphemism for academic dishonesty. After all, it's dishonesty when a professor assigns a grade the student did not earn. When a university or college confers a degree upon a student who has not mastered critical thinking skills, writing and problem-solving, it's academic dishonesty. Of course, I might be in error calling it dishonesty. Perhaps academic standards have been set so low that idiots could earn A's and B's."
Williams goes on to point out specific instances where grade-inflation has weakened the meaning of a degree -- even from some of the most prestigious schools in the country.
"In October 2001, the Boston Globe published an article entitled "Harvard's Quiet Secret: Rampant Grade Inflation." The article reported that a record 91 percent of Harvard University students were awarded honors during the spring graduation. The newspaper called Harvard's grading practices "the laughing stock of the Ivy League."
Harvard is by no means unique. For example, 80 percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A's and B's. Fifty percent of students at Columbia University are on the Dean's list. At Stanford University, where F grades used to be banned, only 6 percent of student grades were as low as a C. In the 1930s, the average GPA at American colleges and universities was 2.35, about a C plus; today the national average GPA is 3.2, more than a B."
The reason why colleges would be willing to let academic standards fall so low? In Williams' opinion, it mostly has to do with the "rankings" of schools that have become so important in the eyes of some administrators.
And this is a problem throughout the college system, not just at the upper-most tier. In four years at Fairfield University, I saw plenty of people, many of whom probably shouldn't have been admitted in the first place, passing classes with the kind of ease that made me question the value of my own success. What significance is a college degree, even a college degree with honors, if it is simply handed out to anyone who paid the money and stuck around for four years? The only thing colleges can really control is their academic standards, but it appears that far too many of them have let other considerations get in the way.
Regardless of the reason, this trend has destroyed the value of a bachelor's degree (while the price of said degree has gone through the roof), and that's bad for everyone involved.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Morality of Blackmail
Lizzie Widdicombe, of The New Yorker (doesn't that just sound like the name of someone who would write for The New Yorker?), has an interesting piece about the moral-reasoning behind the idea that blackmail is wrong.
Consider the following example:
"There’s a film coming out—a thinly disguised portrayal of a media mogul—and word is that if it’s released it will hurt the mogul’s reputation. Powerful people intervene: they call a meeting and offer the movie studio money—eight hundred and forty-two thousand dollars—to scrap the movie and destroy the negatives. Would it be wrong for the studio to take the money?...
...The mogul in question was William Randolph Hearst, and the movie was Orson Welles’s “Citizen Kane.” The studio turned down the offer, but, (Northwestern law professor James) Lindgren asked, “had they given in and taken the money, could the studio have been prosecuted for extortion?”"
Widdicombe goes on to ask if the same reasoning can be applied to the current situation with David Letterman, or, more specifically, with Robert Halderman (the CBS executive who is being prosecuted for attempting to get Letterman to pay him money to keep Letterman's affairs with female staffers a secret).
As Widdicombe puts it:
"The thinking goes like this: It’s perfectly legal for Halderman to write, or threaten to write, a screenplay (or an e-mail to TMZ) exposing the fact that David Letterman had flings with “Late Show” employees. It’s also legal for Halderman to ask Letterman for money as part of a business transaction. So why are the two things illegal when you put them together? In other words,...Why is it illegal to threaten to do what you can do legally anyway?"
The only way you can really defend blackmail as being wrong is to judge the motives of the individual (or individuals) who are engaging in it. If you're asking someone for money to provide a service for them in terms of a business deal, its okay, but if you ask them for money for more nefarious reasons, that's wrong.
The problem is that our justice system is not set up to judge guilt and innocence on the basis of motives alone (although motivation can have an impact on the degree to which a convicted criminal is punished), so there has to be a more objective standard. It's just very difficult to find, apparently.
Maybe the only real reason to make blackmail illegal is as a deterrent against doing something that is legal, but not very nice, says Erin Smith of Business Insider. But that doesn't sound like a very good foundation for making something against the law. After all, there are plenty of mean/annoying/irritating things that are perfectly legal. It seems that Libertarian economist Walter Block, quoted in the New Yorker article, would agree. He says that blackmail, "like smoking, is "yucky", but should be legal."
Your Thoughts?
Consider the following example:
"There’s a film coming out—a thinly disguised portrayal of a media mogul—and word is that if it’s released it will hurt the mogul’s reputation. Powerful people intervene: they call a meeting and offer the movie studio money—eight hundred and forty-two thousand dollars—to scrap the movie and destroy the negatives. Would it be wrong for the studio to take the money?...
...The mogul in question was William Randolph Hearst, and the movie was Orson Welles’s “Citizen Kane.” The studio turned down the offer, but, (Northwestern law professor James) Lindgren asked, “had they given in and taken the money, could the studio have been prosecuted for extortion?”"
Widdicombe goes on to ask if the same reasoning can be applied to the current situation with David Letterman, or, more specifically, with Robert Halderman (the CBS executive who is being prosecuted for attempting to get Letterman to pay him money to keep Letterman's affairs with female staffers a secret).
As Widdicombe puts it:
"The thinking goes like this: It’s perfectly legal for Halderman to write, or threaten to write, a screenplay (or an e-mail to TMZ) exposing the fact that David Letterman had flings with “Late Show” employees. It’s also legal for Halderman to ask Letterman for money as part of a business transaction. So why are the two things illegal when you put them together? In other words,...Why is it illegal to threaten to do what you can do legally anyway?"
The only way you can really defend blackmail as being wrong is to judge the motives of the individual (or individuals) who are engaging in it. If you're asking someone for money to provide a service for them in terms of a business deal, its okay, but if you ask them for money for more nefarious reasons, that's wrong.
The problem is that our justice system is not set up to judge guilt and innocence on the basis of motives alone (although motivation can have an impact on the degree to which a convicted criminal is punished), so there has to be a more objective standard. It's just very difficult to find, apparently.
Maybe the only real reason to make blackmail illegal is as a deterrent against doing something that is legal, but not very nice, says Erin Smith of Business Insider. But that doesn't sound like a very good foundation for making something against the law. After all, there are plenty of mean/annoying/irritating things that are perfectly legal. It seems that Libertarian economist Walter Block, quoted in the New Yorker article, would agree. He says that blackmail, "like smoking, is "yucky", but should be legal."
Your Thoughts?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What About Mississippi?
Today, Obama is making his first trip to New Orleans as President. I'm not sure why more people aren't upset about this. Remember all the anger there was about Bush taking a week to get to New Orleans after Katrina? Well, it's taken this President nearly nine months to get there.
Then again, he sure has been busy with all that he's accomplished since taking office, so I guess its understandable.
What's less understandable is why he is only visiting New Orleans and not taking a couple of extra hours to stop by some of the towns in rural Mississippi that were actually more severely damaged than the city of New Orleans. (Remember, Katrina actually made landfall just across the border in Mississippi, about 50 miles east of New Orleans)
The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, told the AP he's "greatly disappointed" that Obama is skipping the Mississippi altogether. In the same article, U.S. Representative Gene Taylor (D) of the 4th Congressional District, which includes all of the state's Gulf Coast, said he wrote a letter to Obama this week "that began by pointing out the president hasn’t visited the area."
"Taylor criticized the administration for opposing legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, which Taylor believes would prevent gaps in coverage for millions of people who live areas vulnerable to hurricanes.
Then again, he sure has been busy with all that he's accomplished since taking office, so I guess its understandable.
What's less understandable is why he is only visiting New Orleans and not taking a couple of extra hours to stop by some of the towns in rural Mississippi that were actually more severely damaged than the city of New Orleans. (Remember, Katrina actually made landfall just across the border in Mississippi, about 50 miles east of New Orleans)
The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, told the AP he's "greatly disappointed" that Obama is skipping the Mississippi altogether. In the same article, U.S. Representative Gene Taylor (D) of the 4th Congressional District, which includes all of the state's Gulf Coast, said he wrote a letter to Obama this week "that began by pointing out the president hasn’t visited the area."
"Taylor criticized the administration for opposing legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, which Taylor believes would prevent gaps in coverage for millions of people who live areas vulnerable to hurricanes.
“If you visited the Mississippi Gulf Coast today, you would find that some areas have recovered, but in the cities of Waveland, Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian and in portions of other cities and counties, only one-half to two-thirds of the homes have been rebuilt,” Taylor wrote."
Of course, a photo opp and speech in the center of the Ninth Ward is a more powerful image than, say, in Pascagoula or Waveland, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the people there either. It seems to be another example of how this Administration is more interested in its image than in actually doing something positive.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What if you're having sex WITH your roommate?
Tufts University (just outside of Boston) has instituted a new policy that bans "sexual activity while your roommate is present in the room", the AP reports.
So, having sex in a Tufts dorm room is perfectly okay as far as the school is concerned, but your buddy can't watch. Or, you know, have to try and sleep through it.
Here's what Kim Thurler, a spokeswoman for the University, had to say:
""It's really about respect and consideration, and it's a question of how roommates utilized their space," Thurler said....Thurler maintains the new policy is not about regulating students' behavior, rather getting roommates talking about the issue of space with each other. She said the policy is aimed at the school's 5,000 undergraduates."
Freshman Jon Levinson, perhaps a budding libertarian, gave the perspective of the rational part of the student body:
""I don't believe it's the university's place to determine what goes on in a room," said Levinson. "Personally, I wouldn't want to have sex in front of my roommate, and my roommate wouldn't want to have sex in front of me."
So, having sex in a Tufts dorm room is perfectly okay as far as the school is concerned, but your buddy can't watch. Or, you know, have to try and sleep through it.
Here's what Kim Thurler, a spokeswoman for the University, had to say:
""It's really about respect and consideration, and it's a question of how roommates utilized their space," Thurler said....Thurler maintains the new policy is not about regulating students' behavior, rather getting roommates talking about the issue of space with each other. She said the policy is aimed at the school's 5,000 undergraduates."
Freshman Jon Levinson, perhaps a budding libertarian, gave the perspective of the rational part of the student body:
""I don't believe it's the university's place to determine what goes on in a room," said Levinson. "Personally, I wouldn't want to have sex in front of my roommate, and my roommate wouldn't want to have sex in front of me."
Levinson said he didn't think it that many students viewed it as a problem and wondered why the school came up with the policy with just a handful of cases."
I'm not sure if Tufts has mixed housing or not, but regardless, I still have one really obvious question (the title of the post). Also, I have to wonder if this is the first institutionally-enforced "sex-ile" rule.Monday, October 12, 2009
Zero Tolerance for Zero-Tolerance Laws
Zero-tolerance laws (much like Three-Strike Laws, and any other kind of law that can be described as a basic blanket statement) don't really make much sense to me. Why? Because they punish all violators as equals, even if the crimes committed are not in any way equal in terms of intention, motivation, or execution.
Case in point, a 6-year-old in Delaware has been suspended by his local school district because he brought a three-piece camping utensil into school with him. Zachary Christie was apparently "so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts" that he wanted to eat lunch with his new camping thingy (perhaps this counts as a "Splayd"?).
Does it make sense to treat little Zachary like the re-incarnation of Dylan Klebold? Probably not, but that's not going to stop the Christina School District from throwing the book at him because the school's code of conduct clearly states that "knives are banned, regardless of the possessor's intent".
On the plus side, at least this ridiculous suspension is getting Delaware to take another look at these absurd laws. Last year, Delaware lawmakers decided that it's not okay to expel kids over these types of incidents after this happened:
"...a third-grade girl was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake."
Zachary and his parents continue to fight this suspension while they homeschool him temporarily. Here's to hoping the Delaware legislature (and other states too) comes to it's senses soon.
Case in point, a 6-year-old in Delaware has been suspended by his local school district because he brought a three-piece camping utensil into school with him. Zachary Christie was apparently "so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts" that he wanted to eat lunch with his new camping thingy (perhaps this counts as a "Splayd"?).
Does it make sense to treat little Zachary like the re-incarnation of Dylan Klebold? Probably not, but that's not going to stop the Christina School District from throwing the book at him because the school's code of conduct clearly states that "knives are banned, regardless of the possessor's intent".
On the plus side, at least this ridiculous suspension is getting Delaware to take another look at these absurd laws. Last year, Delaware lawmakers decided that it's not okay to expel kids over these types of incidents after this happened:
"...a third-grade girl was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake."
Zachary and his parents continue to fight this suspension while they homeschool him temporarily. Here's to hoping the Delaware legislature (and other states too) comes to it's senses soon.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Pseudepigraphic Victories
I've been away from blogging for a little more than a week, in part because I've been away from home and in part because it feels like that I've been writing about an article per night for the Town and Country on the nights that I have been home.
Anyway, maybe taking that time off was just my way of letting the media catch-up with this blog. That's right, Pseudepigraphic Epistemology has once again beaten the professionals on a story. Actually two stories.
Today, the Associated Press has this story about the "stop-and-frisk" program in New York, a subject that was the focus of my latest post on "Why I Hate New York City", back on September 30.
Thanks to reader Meg for bringing it to my attention. She writes:
"+1 to you for picking up on this story in September."
Then, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but this story on Yahoo! news about NASA's plans to smash a $79 million probe into the side of the Moon. And yes, they are doing it on purpose. I got all sorts of angry (appropriately, I would think) about that idea way back in June.
I think that's +2 for me.
But seriously, wouldn't we be better off if they simply burned (literally) that $79 million. At least then we could use it for warmth. So what if there is ice under the surface of the Moon? Where does that leave us?
Anyway, maybe taking that time off was just my way of letting the media catch-up with this blog. That's right, Pseudepigraphic Epistemology has once again beaten the professionals on a story. Actually two stories.
Today, the Associated Press has this story about the "stop-and-frisk" program in New York, a subject that was the focus of my latest post on "Why I Hate New York City", back on September 30.
Thanks to reader Meg for bringing it to my attention. She writes:
"+1 to you for picking up on this story in September."
Then, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but this story on Yahoo! news about NASA's plans to smash a $79 million probe into the side of the Moon. And yes, they are doing it on purpose. I got all sorts of angry (appropriately, I would think) about that idea way back in June.
I think that's +2 for me.
But seriously, wouldn't we be better off if they simply burned (literally) that $79 million. At least then we could use it for warmth. So what if there is ice under the surface of the Moon? Where does that leave us?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Google (Flooded) Earth
Google Earth is apparently now a political tool, as opposed to, you know, its intended purpose of providing accurate information about the geography of the world we live on.
A new plug-in for the mapping program allows you to "see" the destruction that Global Warming will wreck on our coastal cities and beach resorts. It's the perfect device if you really want to know what Greenland will look like without all that ice (I'm guessing it will be rocky and empty), or if you just can't wait to see Miami turn into America's Venice.
Or, if you're like Al Gore (who provides the narration), and spreading the fear of Global Warming is your only real purpose in life.
A new plug-in for the mapping program allows you to "see" the destruction that Global Warming will wreck on our coastal cities and beach resorts. It's the perfect device if you really want to know what Greenland will look like without all that ice (I'm guessing it will be rocky and empty), or if you just can't wait to see Miami turn into America's Venice.
Or, if you're like Al Gore (who provides the narration), and spreading the fear of Global Warming is your only real purpose in life.
Why I Hate New York City: NYPD abuses power
It was recently brought to my attention that this blog is the number three response on Google blog search for the phrase "I Hate New York City", so here's to moving up towards number one.
This is actually pretty old news, but the problem remains the same, and that problem is that the NYPD has been using its "stop-and-frisk" program to stop and frisk thousands of innocent people in an obvious abuse of power. In a period of just three months (April through June, 2009) the NYPD stopped and interrogated more than 140,000 individuals on the streets of the city. According to police department statistics, more than nine out of ten of those incidents ended with no citations issued, and no arrests being made.
So what, you say, if the police want to stop some people in the name of security, that's fine. Well, besides infringing on the rights of those people (9 out of 10 who were doing nothing wrong), and disrupting their day with an unnecessary interrogation, the names and addresses of everyone who has been stopped by the NYPD in the last five years (since the stop-and-frisk program began) is permanently stored on the department's computer system. Having that information in the database can more easily make them the subject of future investigations.
But even if you don't care about personal liberty and the idea that an individual has a right to some modicum of privacy, this will surely concern you: the innocent people victimized by this program are almost always minorities. Of those 140,000 stops between April and June, more than half (74,283) were of blacks, and 44,296 were of Latinos. Less than 14,000 were of whites.
In essence, the NYPD is building a huge database of the minorities in the city, and the information in that database can be collected at will from anyone at anytime with no reason given by the officer conducting the stop. If you resist or refuse to cooperate with the "stop-and-frisk", I'm sure they can charge you just the same as if you were resisting arrest for actually doing something wrong.
But this is not a case of racial profiling, and it should not be mistaken as one. This is a case of civil liberties, and it just so happens that more minorities have had theirs abused.
Whats the difference? If it was a case of racial profiling, you correct it by balancing the number of people stopped. All that's going to do is give the police in New York City more of an excuse for stopping people; they will just have to make sure they stop more white people next time.
Stopping and interrogating any innocent person is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin, and storing their personal information on a police database (again, when they are completely innocent) is even worse. At their current pace, the NYCLU estimates that the NYPD will stop more than 600,000 innocent people during 2009.
I still don't understand why anyone would choose to live in New York City. The cops are after you, even if you're a model citizen.
This is actually pretty old news, but the problem remains the same, and that problem is that the NYPD has been using its "stop-and-frisk" program to stop and frisk thousands of innocent people in an obvious abuse of power. In a period of just three months (April through June, 2009) the NYPD stopped and interrogated more than 140,000 individuals on the streets of the city. According to police department statistics, more than nine out of ten of those incidents ended with no citations issued, and no arrests being made.
So what, you say, if the police want to stop some people in the name of security, that's fine. Well, besides infringing on the rights of those people (9 out of 10 who were doing nothing wrong), and disrupting their day with an unnecessary interrogation, the names and addresses of everyone who has been stopped by the NYPD in the last five years (since the stop-and-frisk program began) is permanently stored on the department's computer system. Having that information in the database can more easily make them the subject of future investigations.
But even if you don't care about personal liberty and the idea that an individual has a right to some modicum of privacy, this will surely concern you: the innocent people victimized by this program are almost always minorities. Of those 140,000 stops between April and June, more than half (74,283) were of blacks, and 44,296 were of Latinos. Less than 14,000 were of whites.
In essence, the NYPD is building a huge database of the minorities in the city, and the information in that database can be collected at will from anyone at anytime with no reason given by the officer conducting the stop. If you resist or refuse to cooperate with the "stop-and-frisk", I'm sure they can charge you just the same as if you were resisting arrest for actually doing something wrong.
But this is not a case of racial profiling, and it should not be mistaken as one. This is a case of civil liberties, and it just so happens that more minorities have had theirs abused.
Whats the difference? If it was a case of racial profiling, you correct it by balancing the number of people stopped. All that's going to do is give the police in New York City more of an excuse for stopping people; they will just have to make sure they stop more white people next time.
Stopping and interrogating any innocent person is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin, and storing their personal information on a police database (again, when they are completely innocent) is even worse. At their current pace, the NYCLU estimates that the NYPD will stop more than 600,000 innocent people during 2009.
I still don't understand why anyone would choose to live in New York City. The cops are after you, even if you're a model citizen.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A Communication Revolution
A really cool video on this "social media fad" that we seem to be experiencing right now. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are (really, are we ever?), but I would assume they are only taking into account Americans, or maybe all Internet users, for their data rather than the entire population of the world.
Viva la Revolution.
Viva la Revolution.
The Good Old Days
Remember the 1990s? Things were pretty awesome back then, I think we all would agree.
The world just isn't the same anymore. Case in point:
"Boris Yeltsin got so drunk during a 1995 visit to Washington that Secret Service agents found him a few hundred feet from the White House clad only in his underwear and trying to hail a cab — because, he explained, he wanted a pizza."
Honestly, I'm tempted to buy Taylor Branch's new book on the Clinton years in the White House just to find out more about that particular incident. For now, I'll settle for these details:
"The Yeltsin incident came after one of the former Russian President’s late-night drinking sessions. On the night in question, he was staying at Blair House, the guest quarters for foreign leaders visiting Washington, which sits directly across from the White House in Pennsylvania Avenue.
He managed to give his Secret Service detail the slip. Frantically looking for him, they found him in his underwear on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to get a taxi. He explained in slurred words that he wanted a pizza."
Somehow, I just can't see a meeting between Obama and Medvedev (or Putin) ending like that.
The world just isn't the same anymore. Case in point:
"Boris Yeltsin got so drunk during a 1995 visit to Washington that Secret Service agents found him a few hundred feet from the White House clad only in his underwear and trying to hail a cab — because, he explained, he wanted a pizza."
Honestly, I'm tempted to buy Taylor Branch's new book on the Clinton years in the White House just to find out more about that particular incident. For now, I'll settle for these details:
"The Yeltsin incident came after one of the former Russian President’s late-night drinking sessions. On the night in question, he was staying at Blair House, the guest quarters for foreign leaders visiting Washington, which sits directly across from the White House in Pennsylvania Avenue.
He managed to give his Secret Service detail the slip. Frantically looking for him, they found him in his underwear on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to get a taxi. He explained in slurred words that he wanted a pizza."
Somehow, I just can't see a meeting between Obama and Medvedev (or Putin) ending like that.
Practice the Second Amendment
Since Obama became President, millions of Americans have decided to patriotically practice the Second Amendment by adding to their own personal supply of firearms. Unfortunately, all those new gun purchases has created a bit of a shortage when it comes to bullets. The AP reports:
"Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.
"That is going to cause an upswing in ammunition sales," said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing about 5,000 members. "Without bullets a gun is just a paper weight."
Correction, Mr. Keane, without bullets a gun is just a really cool paperweight.
Or it could be that a gun without bullets is your new carry-on, at least on Amtrak. The Senate voted on Wednesday to allow travelers to carry handguns in their luggage while traveling on America's system of passenger trains. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that it passed by a vote of 68-32, meaning that while the two parties can't seem to agree on much, there is apparently bi-partisan support for bringing guns on trains. Go figure.
Maybe they were thinking this will finally be the right kind of incentive for Amtrak to run their trains on time.
"Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.
"That is going to cause an upswing in ammunition sales," said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing about 5,000 members. "Without bullets a gun is just a paper weight."
Correction, Mr. Keane, without bullets a gun is just a really cool paperweight.
Or it could be that a gun without bullets is your new carry-on, at least on Amtrak. The Senate voted on Wednesday to allow travelers to carry handguns in their luggage while traveling on America's system of passenger trains. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that it passed by a vote of 68-32, meaning that while the two parties can't seem to agree on much, there is apparently bi-partisan support for bringing guns on trains. Go figure.
Maybe they were thinking this will finally be the right kind of incentive for Amtrak to run their trains on time.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
More Bad News
At least it's bad news presented in graph form (as we've been over before, I love graphs). But, as I continue to pursue a potential career in journalism, this certainly doesn't look good.
Michael Mandel, of BusinessWeek, just wrote a comprehensively negative report on the state of journalism in America. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic comments:
"this is, sadly, perhaps the 21st century equivalent of studying northern Atlantic nautical charts in your bedroom chamber on the Titanic. But these charts are still useful!"
So how fast is the ship sinking? If these are to be believed, what the industry is going through right now is simply the exaggeration of a trend that began in the early '90 and picked up speed around 2000 (which is just about the time a little thing called the Internet became more or less ubiquitous). In fact, Mandel makes the case that journalism's decline is worse than that of industry.
But its not limited to just newspapers. News periodicals seem to be on a similar path, though the decline is not as dramatic. Even television news is suffering through a downturn, but this seems to be more of a recent occurrence and not a long-term trend. At least not yet.
And then there's this, from Google Trends via Reason, that shows the online readership (in terms of Daily Unique Visitors) for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Two years ago, the WaPo was the clear leader, and they maintained a strong edge until the run-up to the election last year (that's the spike for all three). Since then, all three have been in a virtual dead-heat.
So, just to recap, in the past two years the HuffPo has doubled their online readership while the Washington Post has seen their readership more or less cut in half. The WSJ still gets about the same, (and lets be honest, that paper will always have a pretty stable readership because of the financial coverage) making it a good control for a study like this.
I doubt the Washington Post is the only paper to have seen such a dramatic slide in the past year. It's not good news for the news.
Michael Mandel, of BusinessWeek, just wrote a comprehensively negative report on the state of journalism in America. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic comments:
"this is, sadly, perhaps the 21st century equivalent of studying northern Atlantic nautical charts in your bedroom chamber on the Titanic. But these charts are still useful!"
So how fast is the ship sinking? If these are to be believed, what the industry is going through right now is simply the exaggeration of a trend that began in the early '90 and picked up speed around 2000 (which is just about the time a little thing called the Internet became more or less ubiquitous). In fact, Mandel makes the case that journalism's decline is worse than that of industry.
But its not limited to just newspapers. News periodicals seem to be on a similar path, though the decline is not as dramatic. Even television news is suffering through a downturn, but this seems to be more of a recent occurrence and not a long-term trend. At least not yet.
And then there's this, from Google Trends via Reason, that shows the online readership (in terms of Daily Unique Visitors) for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Two years ago, the WaPo was the clear leader, and they maintained a strong edge until the run-up to the election last year (that's the spike for all three). Since then, all three have been in a virtual dead-heat.
So, just to recap, in the past two years the HuffPo has doubled their online readership while the Washington Post has seen their readership more or less cut in half. The WSJ still gets about the same, (and lets be honest, that paper will always have a pretty stable readership because of the financial coverage) making it a good control for a study like this.
I doubt the Washington Post is the only paper to have seen such a dramatic slide in the past year. It's not good news for the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
