How Important is Intensity?

That's the question that the Obama administration, and Democrats in general (and specifically Democrats running for re-election in 2010), might have to begin asking themselves. This chart has made the rounds of blogs over the past couple of days:


So the obvious issue here is that the chart does not tell the whole story, and I'm sure most political minds would agree that overall approval or disapproval is more important that the extremes of those same positions, but it has to be slightly disconcerting to see the sudden surge of the "strongly disapprove" camp.

Or, if you're like me, it actually makes you feel kind of good. Maybe more people are seeing this socialist administration for what it is.

Why Recessions are Bad - Natty Light Edition

Because more people are buying crappy beer. I mean really crappy beer.

Over the two weeks before the 4th of July, sales of Bud and Bud Light were down 14% and 7%, respectively, from the same two week period a year ago. Sales of Corona were down 11% and sales of Miller Lite were down 9%.

So who's sales were up? Busch, Natural Light, and Keystone. The article refers to them as "subpremium" beers, but I think that's an overstatement.

It's long been said that during tough economic times, consumption of alcohol generally goes up, but apparently the quality of the alcohol consumed is inversely related.

Wait....you mean homeless people have to follow rules?!?

I hate to agree with something that New York City is doing, but in this case I have to admit that I do. According to a story in the New York Times (and I'm not too excited about quoting the Times either, but you do what you have to do), New York City is implementing a stronger policy towards the 9,720 families who currently live in the city's homeless shelters.

The new policy makes it easier for the shelters to evict residents who - get this - are breaking the rules.

Now, if you or I is renting an apartment, and the rental contract forbids us from building a meth lab in the bathroom, but we decide to do it anyway, we're probably going to get evicted (if we don't get blown to bits first). However, up until now, it was incredibly difficult for the homeless shelters to remove families for violations such as: illegal behavior, illegal drugs, weapons, or missing curfew.

I say families, because in the past the city has always been able to evict individuals from the system if they broke the laws, but as soon as you had a kid, you were basically home-free (there's a good idea: incentivize homeless people who can't support themselves to have kids, which they also - surprise, surprise - can't support).

A bigger problem is the families who live in the temporary housing that the system provides and refuse to move out when offered a more permanent arrangement. According to the article, families frequently turn down permanent housing when its "not to their liking". If I was homeless, and someone was offering me a place a live, I don't think I'd have the nerve to tell them I didn't like it. Are they thinking, "No, but if you put in a jacuzzi tub I might reconsider"?

The main reason I imagine most of them don't find permanent housing to their "liking" is because it's not entirely free. Even though there are limits for how long you are supposed to remain in a free shelter, there was really no way for the city to enforce those limits (again, only if kids were involved) by threatening to evict families if they did not move to permanent housing.

The worst part is that Robert Hess, commissioner for homeless services, sounds downright apologetic about the new policy, saying they don't intend to use the increased eviction power, except in the most egregious situations. He certainly shouldn't feel bad for making people follow the rules of the system they are in.

Richard Motta, from a volunteer organization that runs three shelters has the right idea when he invokes T.R. : "If you need a big stick now and then, for certain families, so be it."

Generally, I'm not in favor of a lot of rules, but if you want to benefit from getting free housing on the public's dime, you better be willing to co-operate. Closing the loop-hole of "have a kid and there's nothing we can do if you break the rules" is a decision I applaud.

I Hate Adam Geller

And who is Adam Geller? He's a national reporter for the AP who felt the following lede accurately reflected the majority of libertarians in the county:

He fled the "People's Republic of Massachusetts" to escape tyranny. Now he strides the campground in a plaid kilt and mirror shades, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle across his torso, an immense Scottish sword sheathed between his shoulders.

Out here, though, the only signs of danger are the ones warning drivers to watch out for moose. Could it be he senses a threat we're not seeing?

"Not expecting," says the swordsman, who calls himself Doobie, grinning broadly. "Just ready."

Really?! Really!?! The words "smear job" come to mind. Although he goes on, later in the article, to discuss a few of the actual ideas that stand behind the libertarian movement, I can't forgive him. Since the majority of people stop reading news stories after a few paragraphs, they would click away to something else thinking libertarians are all nuts. No wonder most people - when they find out you're a libertarian - immediately think of crazies like "Dobbie" and come to the quick conclusion that we are nothing more than a group of fridge extremists who want everyone to own 16 guns (oh, and we want 6 year olds to carry guns too, and do drugs, if possible, while they are being filmed for a kiddie porno).

And just to clarify....I don't oppose "Doobie's" right to dress like that or to carry his sword and guns around with him. He can do whatever he wants, up to the point where he violates my life in some way. Well, by allowing himself to be the center of that story does actually impact my life, so thats why I'm kind of angry with him.

By the same token, Geller has every right to write mindless piles of crap like that and try to pass it off as journalism. And I have every right to hate him for it. Regardless of what you believe, it should never be okay to slander an intellectual, political, movement by casting a spotlight on the most extreme and least-well-educated-about-the-meaning-of-the-movement parts. It's basically the same thing the media did to Ron Paul in the last election by tying him to the 9/11 Truth movement and never looking at anything else.

Also, I don't have any problem with a kind of "Libertarian nirvana" as Geller puts it. In fact, it sounds like a pretty awesome idea. But a weekend-long convention is hardly Galt's Gulch, and I doubt the people who were there (if they were anything like "Doobie") could actually survive for very long in such a place.

When I first found out that Ayn Rand hated libertarians, I couldn't understand why. I think "Doobie" just showed me a pretty good reason.

But let's not forget who the real bad guy is here.

**The following is directed solely at Adam Geller**

Geller, you must be one of the scummiest reporters that the AP employs. How anyone who calls themselves a journalist could pass off that crap as being an honest representation of reality is beyond me. I'm sure there were plenty of libertarian crazies at that event in New Hampshire this weekend, but I'm sure there were also some serious people who would have loved to talk to you about the ideas that have driven them to their viewpoint. If not, if the only people there were "Doobie" and his gun-belt-wearing, kilt-wrapped, sword-brandishing brothers, then how dare you simply accept that they must be representative of all libertarians? Did you ever think that maybe you should make a few phone calls, do a little research, and maybe uncover the fact that all libertarians are not barbarians clinging to some random semblence of philosophy?

You, sir, are an idiot, and as soon as I can find your contact information I will let you know as much.

**ok, now back to your regularly scheduled program**

Actually, Geller isn't the only person I'm mad at....

Shame on you, "Doobie", just because you think its cool to dress up like you're going to a renaissance faire and pack more heat than an entire SWAT team, that DOES NOT give you the right to speak to the media. Did you ever think for a second that you (and your assinine ideas about what being a libertarian means) might not exactly cast the rest of the movement in the best light? No, you didn't think. You just said what you wanted and did what you wanted, because thats what being a libertarian is all about, right? 'Yeah, dude, lets just all go to New Hampshire for the weekend and carry our guns around and get high and talk about how much the government oppresses us.' If you want to wear a kilt and carry a sword, go to Comic Con; if you want to be a libertarian, do some actual thinking.

And finally, the American public are to blame as well. Because people have such sort attention spans, it allows the media to get away with simple, narrow, representations of complex ideas like:

Ron Paul = 9/11 Truth
Libertarians = gun-toting crazies who don't want to participate in civil society.

The libertarian movement will never be anything more than a sideshow until people like Doobie realize there are minds and ideas behind it. And until complete douches like Adam Geller stop trying to make it look like all libertarians are crazy losers.

Why I Hate New York City - Sidewalk Sheds

I'm hoping to turn this into a recurring piece on here, because it seems like the evidence is never ending. I've been complaining about New York City for years, so it will be good to start compiling the evidence in my favor.

The Wall Street Journal reports on how sidewalk sheds in New York, supposedly a temporary arrangement to keep people safe from debris falling off buildings that are either under construction or simply decaying, have become permanent fixtures in the city. And it's not just because of the recession.

Megan McArdle argues that the job of "shed builder" is totally recession proof:

"In good times, they protect against construction and renovations. In bad times, they protect against falling-apart buildings that the landlords can't afford to repair."

Of course, I could also explore the issue of why landlords can't afford to, or don't even want to, repair the increasingly dilapidated structures across the city (here's a hint: rent-controlled apartments are bad), but that's best left for another time.

It doesn't seem to matter how the economy is doing. Boom or bust, there are between 4,000 and 6,000 sidewalk sheds across the city at any given time. The WSJ article quotes an architect who compares the "ugly, dismal, and ubiquitous" sheds to the "arcades of Bologna". What is this guy smoking?? He's obviously a New Yorker, because only someone so incredibly out of touch with reality could try to compare this to this. Some of the sheds have been up for more than 10 years.

So here's your vision of New York City in the not-to-distant future: nearly every sidewalk is covered with a shed, protecting the huddled masses from the collapsing facades of buildings that are too expensive to repair. The only construction work being done in the city is the maintenance on old sidewalk sheds that have fallen into disrepair, because the owners realize it is far cheaper and easier to repair the sheds than the buildings themselves. And the coverings mean than no one can look up and see how crappy the city's once-proud structures have become, so no one realizes they live in such a crappy place, and New Yorkers retain their smug sense of superiority even as their city crumbles around them.

Yup, sounds like the "greatest city in the world" to me.

Maybe Obama should go on "So You Think You Can Dance"

And, hey, he'd probably be pretty good, right?

But at least he would get more people to pay attention to him, since "SYTYCD" got better ratings than his press conference about health care last night.

And yes, if you add up the totals from the three networks that were carrying his speech, Obama did actually have more eyeballs on him last night. But thats not the end of the story.

The White House had originally wanted to have Obama's address at 9pm, but only CBS agreed to carry it at that time. So the administration was strong-armed by NBC and ABC into moving the address back an hour. Why? Because neither network was going to cover the President at the expense of their top-rated reality shows (NBC's "America's Got Talent" and ABC's "Wipeout") in the nine o'clock slot.

Congratulations, America. Reality TV is more important than the President. I wonder how Obama feels about populism now?

Two for the price of One

Two great stories from the blog at Reason Magazine (I seriously cannot wait until my subscription kicks in!) about the death of impartial news coverage and the power of the black market.

First, they report that a small Boston-area newspaper, the Bay-State Banner, is accepting $200,000 in funds from the city to stay open. Why? Because it is the only minority-run paper in the Boston area.

Now, keeping aside the idea that they are being given this money to stay open just because it's a minority paper (don't you think the Boston Globe would like a city bail-out??), consider the ramifications when newspapers begin accepting money from politicians to keep themselves afloat.

Do you think they might be a little more willing to endorse those guys in the next election? I'm gonna say yeah, probably. Not that newspapers have to be entirely objective (and they never will be), but this sets a new low.


Second, how about a black market for cigarettes? But cigarettes are legal, you say, how could there be a black market for them. Well, since taxes on cigarettes vary from state to state, people have begun buying cigarettes in bulk from states with low taxes and transporting them across state lines to places with much higher taxes. Then, of course, the smugglers sell their cigarettes (illegally) at a much lower price.

Just to give you an idea of how much money we're talking about, in New York people have to pay over $4 in taxes on a pack of smokes.

As always, black markets are the natural, market-driven, response to government restrictions on what can be bought and sold. But even though we usually only think of black markets in terms of items that are illegal, we should keep in mind that ANY form of government regulation has the potential to create a black market if it is draconian enough.

Black markets aren't good for anyone (except the relatively few people who make profits off them, until they get caught), and the easiest way to get ride of them is to remove regulations/taxes/tariffs and let the market run as it should.

I mean, $4 in taxes for a pack of cigarettes? I don't smoke, but after reading that, I might need a drink.

Don't Like It Here?

Then Move to Moldova!

Yes, Moldova, the tiny Eastern European nation sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine that is, as far as I am aware, the last Communist nation in Europe.

So why move to Moldova? Because it appears to have been better isolated from the economic crisis than just about anywhere else in the developed world. Obviously part of the reason has to do with that fact that the Commies are in charge - if you aren't actively participating in the free market, you won't get hurt by it. Of course, at the same time you won't benefit from it when times are good.

But communism isn't the only reason why they have escaped the problems of the global economic collapse. There is a major cultural taboo against buying anything on credit; they run almost the entire economy on a cash-first principle. Good luck running a Ponzi scheme or bundling bad mortgages in that kind of an economic culture.

The complete lack of buying on credit helps explain why Moldova was recently ranked fifth out of 184 nations in terms of economic stability by a prominent British economic journal, The Banker. Then again, it's also Europe's poorest country in terms of GDP, so I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

Here's the funny thing though. With the dollar and euro (relatively) weak when compared to the Moldovan Leu, people there are buying up as much foreign currency as they can right now. They are hoping to cash in when the economy turns around and they can trade their euros and dollars for a lot more Leu than they had paid for them.

Even in the last bastion of Communism in Europe, the market rules.

It's all about me

After weeks (6, to be more precise) of writing this, I've decided to "go public" by posting it on Facebook. If that's what brought you here, thanks for taking a look.

This started as a way to record stuff that happened to me while interning up here in Rochester for the summer, but it kind of lacked any kind of identity (and still sorta does), but I think its been getting a lot better.

And yes, I realize the title is incredibly pretentious, but I figured - if I'm going to pretend that my thoughts and ideas are important enough to publish on the Internet, I might as well have a pretentious title to go along with it.

The name itself comes from the two coolest words I learned in college. "Pseudepigrapha" translates as "false writing", or basically any writing where the author claims to be someone he's not. A lot of books in the Old Testament are this way, because people wrote in the name of a prophet, but the prophet himself was not actually the author.

"Epistemology" is the study of knowledge, or the study of how we know what we know.

If you're still reading at this point, you might as well check out the posts below, which are (mostly) far more interesting than this. Some of my favorite ones:

- Why Americans usually sit at sporting events

- Why I love graphs

- A monster made of traffic barrels

- "I'm on a Boat" news parody

- A review of Epic Road Trip 2009, Part II (and its preview)

- And plenty of libertarian-motivated posts about the music industry, national polls, Cap-and-Trade policy, Al Gore, the 4th of July, standardized testing, and other things.

Enjoy! Come back often! Tell your friends!


And if you still have time, I'm apparently also going to be writing for a sports blog, so take a look at that too.

NASA Fail

I'm sure most people are at least mildly aware that this week is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. I'm sure at least some of you are also aware of the supposed "moon landing conspiracy" - the idea that it never actually happened and all the footage/photographs were staged on a Hollywood back lot.

To me, the moon landing means 3 things:

1. The most (and also probably the last) significant achievement of NASA; winning us the Space Race over the Russian Commies

2. The most (and probably only) significant and lasting achievement of the Kennedy Administration.

3. The most awesome thing ever. That was a human being, walking around on the surface of another planetary body. Of all the uncountable gazillion living things to ever walk the surface of the earth, mankind was the first to be able to go walk on the face of something else.

Anyways, I don't particularly believe in the whole "we faked the moon landing story", even though I am willing to accept the premise that the government did have a pretty good incentive to make sure the mission succeeded. And it did take place during the Nixon Administration, so its not like the idea of lying to every single American was beyond comprehension by the people in charge.

But now, there's another reason to think, maybe, possibly, somehow, someway, we have been deceived for all these years. NASA has announced that they "accidentally" taped over the original footage of the landing, so a Hollywood film restoration company is now making a new film out of restored footage from a number of secondary recordings of the event.

So here's what I'm thinking. Let's just assume for the moment that the whole thing was faked. Now, with the way technology has advanced, NASA realises that when that original footage is all over the place to celebrate the 40th anniversary this week, people might be able to find some more revealing "flaws" in the film. So, to make sure everything is okay, they are having the tape "restored" (read - digitally altered to remove questionable evidence).

Again, I don't buy all this, but it certainly doesn't make the conspiracy claims go away.

Then again, there's also these photos to consider. They seem to indicate that something landed on the moon in July 1969, but I guess there's no way to prove there were people inside it.

Legislative Redundancy

Yesterday, New York lawmakers (yes, those same guys who spent weeks just fighting over who got to control the Senate, like a group of 1st graders arguing over who gets to play on the jungle gym during recess) passed a law banning texting while driving.

On the scale of useless legislation, this has to land just west of utterly unnecessary.

Unnecessary because New York already has a law that prohibits the use of a cell phone while driving. Shouldn't that cover texting as well, or have they come up with a new way to text without actually using a cell phone?

I'm no fan of texting while you drive - in fact I think its one of the stupidest things you can do while driving - and in no way am I defending people who do it. They are a danger to everyone around them. However, it's ludicrous to believe that a law that bans such activity will actually put a stop to it, and it's pathetic that people don't have the common sense (or even the sense of self-preservation), and self control, to put down their blackberry swurve or whatever.

I will acknowledge that government has a legitimate reason to act in this situation - unlike mandatory seat belt laws, which effect no one but yourself (and make me so angry) - because people who are distracted while driving are indeed a threat to everyone else's well-being. But the answer is not in more laws and restrictions, it's in the need of every individual to recognize the need to act in a responsible manner.

Acting in a personally irresponsible way simply invites governmental intervention into your life. If you give elected officials an excuse to impose more laws, they will almost always take it.

I can't wait to get back to a state that doesn't think it has to tell people how to drive responsibly, and allows its citizens to make rational decisions without the forced coercion of laws that ban behavior when we should know better already. People in PA probably text while driving as much as anywhere else - and are just as dangerous because of it - but at least our legislature hasn't wasted everyone's time with a useless new law that will accomplish nothing and only further the nanny-state dependency.

Do you Sit or Stand?

Proof that the free market has determined things you never even take time to think about: such as whether you prefer to sit or stand at a sporting event.

The Wall Street Journal ran this interesting story about why Americans tend to sit at sporting events while people in other countries usually stand. Perhaps it also helps to explain why soccer never really caught on in this country either. We like to sit, we like to relax, we like sports with natural, relaxing pauses in the action, like baseball or football, as opposed to the constant action of futball.

But as The Sports Economist speculates, the issue may have more to do with the market than with anything else. British and European sports were mostly about entertainment for the working classes. Working class people did not have much money (period) to spend on luxuries like sporting events, so there was no incentive for the owners of teams to build nice stadiums or provide amenities like actual places to sit. Thus, spectators would stand around in large "terraces" to watch the action. When Stamford Bridge, one of the most famous soccer pitches in the world, first opened in 1905, it had only 500 seats, but room for over 90,000 people to stand.

On the other hand, American spectator sports that were developing at the same time were a money-making enterprise from the very start. Early baseball owners, building the first real stadiums, decided that catering to the lower classes was not going to make them any money, so they targeted the upper and developing middle classes. Those people also enjoyed sports, but they were also willing to pay a little more if you provided them with a place to sit. So owners did the smart thing, built grandstands, and brought in the cash.

Many early baseball stadiums included standing room, but usually WAY in the outfield - as you can see from this famous picture of the 1903 World Series at Boston's South End Grounds; or this picture of Washington Park (home of the Brooklyn Dodgers) in 1909 (yes, I'm kind of a geek for old time baseball stadiums). By the 1920s, however, "modern" ballparks like Fenway Park, Ebbets Field, and Yankee Stadium were being built that included seating all the way around the outfield.

And so, cultural traditions were born out of these different approaches to the market.

These traditions are still with us today: When the English Premier League tried to outlaw standing-only sections a few years back, it was met with protests from all sides. And, though standing room sections have become increasingly popular at American ballparks, they are not a true alternative - you still usually have to buy a ticket to an actual seat to get in.

Free Market > Government (again)

Remember the good old days?

Remember high school, when downloading music illegally with Napster or LimeWire opened up free access to just about anything you'd want to listen to, or burn onto a CD?

Remember college, when BitTorrent and other file-sharing programs did pretty much the same thing, so you could put all that free, illegal, music on your iPod and Zune?

Remember the government crack-down? The stories of college students sentenced to jail for downloading millions of songs?

Remember how, just like the war on drugs, all the public service announcements, anti-piracy warnings, and attempts to shut down fire-sharing networks never actually succeeded in stopping the flow of illegal tunes?

Well, now the market has done what the government never could.

According to a new report, illegal downloading of music has dropped off at a rate of 60% in the past two years. Why?? Did teenagers suddenly stop being interested in free music? Did all those government warnings about the evil that will befall you if you share music for free finally get some results?

No, and no.

As it turns out, the market has created something better than illegal mP3 download sites. Web-streaming sites like YouTube, Pandora, and Grooveshark are well on the way to replacing them. It's a good deal for everyone involved. For those of us who just want our music for free, we can now get it (and make customizable playlists as well), without opening up out computer to viruses and other threats from downloading a ton of music. For the music industry, they get paid (its not much, but more than they used to get from illegal downloads, which was nothing) by the websites themselves, who in turn make money from ad sales.

Amazing, isn't it?

Epic Road Trip 2009, Part II, Review

Part II was officially declared a success as of 9:45 p.m. last night, when I returned to my humble apartment in Rochester. A few thoughts on the experience:

- I already knew that New York City freqently lies about being the "greatest city in the world" (in 'reality', something New Yorkers are only mildly aware of, it actually ranks somewhere around 700, slightly ahead of Kabul), but this trip managed to make me hate it even more.

On Saturday, as I was driving from Scranton, PA, to Long Island, I was enjoying the lack of traffic on Route 80 and looking forward to a relatively pain-free trip across the GWB and into New York. I was less than a mile from the toll booths, within sight of the bridge, when I rounded a corner and saw a parking lot had developed in front of me.

No exaggeration, it took me 50 minutes to go that last mile. Then, at the end of that hellish experience, I was still expected to pay an $8 toll. And the toll taker had the sheer audacity to say "thank you" as I paid him. I paused a moment to inform him that I hated his (explitive deleted) city and drove off.

Not to go on a rant here, but it amazes me what passes as acceptable in New York City. I don't think there is a population anywhere in the world that should tolerate that. I only had to do it once, and it made me want to blow up the GWB (I'm now popping up on every CIA, FBI, NTSB, and DHS security screen), so I have no idea how people who do that every day can handle it. There must be hallucinagens in the water to make people believe its ok to be sitting for an hour waiting to drive one mile. If the entire city sunk into the ocean tomorrow (come on, global warming!), I honestly wouldn't be even a little upset.

- That being said, it was awesome to get to see everyone who was at Michelle's, and I'm already missing them again. For a few brief hours on Saturday afternoon through Sunday morning, we re-created a little of that Fairfield magic that we left behind in apartments 304, 306, 311, 410, etc.

- And driving through Central, Southern, and Western New York is actually really nice.

- Oddly enough, the quickest route from Rochester (in one part of New York) to Long Island (another part of New York) is through 2 other states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey). So that got me thinking, where else in the country would that be true?? It would have to be on the East Coast, where states are both small and oddly shaped, and today I managed to come up with 1.5 other situations where it could happen. Try to figure it out, answer is below.

- Some statistics on the trip:
To Long Island, via Scranton: 395 miles, 8:12
Back to Rochester: 416 miles, 8:35. (I took a different, slightly longer, route)
2 cans on Vanilla Coke
1 Blue Gatorade
1 bottle of Pepsi
20 chicken nuggets (10 each from Wendy's and Burger King)

- Quick Hitters:
I stopped at a Burger King just north of Cortland, NY, on Friday night at about 10:00, and had the nicest drive-through experience of my life.

Both my trips to Long Island have involved people who live just off of route 25A. Is this the road that goes everywhere? And why is it 25A?

I also saw a sign for a Route 17K on the way home. Does that mean it's the 11th Route 17 in the state? Or is it Route 17,000?

**The Answer**
If you were driving from Wheeling, West Virginia (or somewhere else in the northwest corner of the state) to Martinsburg, West Virginia (or somewhere else in the eastern panhandle), then the quickest route would involve passing through part of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Thats the only other place this scenario would really be true.

The 0.5 is in Maryland. If you were driving from the western edge of the state, like in Oakland or Cumberland, and you were going to the south-eastern corner (like near Waldorf), then the most direct route would take you through part of West Virginia and Virginia. However, due to the lack of interstates in those parts of those states, the actual fastest route involves staying entirely within Maryland on I-68 and I-70. So that doesn't really count.

The Epic Road Trip 2009 series will continue in August with Part III (All Points West concert in Jersey City) and Part IV (New England).

Epic Road Trip 2009, Part II

Part one, as some may or may not be aware, was the week-long post-graduation drive to St. Louis that my girlfriend Megan and I took to visit our mutual friend Jessica. And of course, to escape the reality that college was over.

Part II is taking place this weekend, and though it is not as impressive or lengthy as Part I (after all, sequels are never quite as good as the original - except maybe for The Empire Strikes Back), I have high hopes that it will be quite enjoyable. I'll be venturing from Rochester down to King's Park (on Long Island) for a graduation party with a bunch of friends from Fairfield who I haven't seen in weeks.

Oddly enough, the trip (which should be about 7 hours each way) is from one part of New York to another part of New York, but the most direct route takes me through two other states on the way. I wonder how many other places there are in the country where that would be possible (without a lengthy detour)?

Anyway, in honor of the trip, here is a list of 50 great travel quotes to inspire (now go take a trip!)

The Double-Edged Sword of Competition

Humans are motivated to do their best when competing against others in small groups, but competition on a large scale actually has the reverse effect, a new study suggests.

Scientists at the University of Michigan (I wonder if its Gerald and Karen DeGroot?) have found that the will to compete actually falls when people are in larger groups. Basically, we feel that we have less of a chance of winning, so we decide its not as worth it to try.

One of the things they studied: Students that take SATs in large groups (like in a gym or auditorium) apparently score lower than students that are seated in classrooms. Personally, I took the SAT once in each setting, and I scored over 100 points higher in the smaller group.

This has a number of interesting possible meanings, at least in my opinion.

If this is something that is hardwired into our unconscious minds, as they seem to be suggesting, does that help explain why primative humans naturally formed small communities/family groups? Competition, the key to surviving and advancing in a primative world, was best facilitated by small groups, it would be the members of those groups who had an evolutionary advantage over single individuals and larger populations.

By the same token, if you want to be more motivated to get into shape, maybe this means you should join a smaller gym?

At the very least, its another solid knock against the very idea of a "nationally standardized test", because it furthers the argument that such an idea is basically impossible.

Americans Love Small Government

Further proof that there is a little bit of Libertarian in all of us.

From the Washington Examiner today:

"Last month's Washington Post/ABC poll reported that Americans favor smaller government with fewer services to larger government with more services by a 54 to 41 percent margin -- a slight uptick since 2004. The percentage of Independents favoring small government rose to 61 percent from 52 percent in 2008. The June NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported that, even amid recession, 58 percent worry more about keeping the budget deficit down versus 35 percent worried more about boosting the economy. A similar question in the June CBS/New York Times poll showed a 52 to 41 percent split."

More Problems with Cap-and-Trade

I've probably already exceeded my quota for comments about Cap-and-Trade, so I'll keep this post brief.

First, a slightly older piece from Reason about the hidden costs that have been mixed into the bill. It's worth reading simply for the fact that the author (Ronald Bailey) refers to Cap-and-Trade as "Rube Goldbergesque" in its unnecessary complexity. The complexity, of course because this is Congress, is meant to hide the extra costs that are built into the bill.

Second, Ted Gayer of The American compares (pretty accurately, I think) Cap-and-Trade to quitting smoking. His analysis shows how Congress' special interests have messed up the concept behind the bill in the first place, mostly by restricting HOW industries can reduce their greenhouse emissions. Says Gayer:

"Unfortunately, there has been little discussion of the other components of the Waxman-Markey bill that will increase the cost of pollution reduction without achieving any climate benefits. Most notably, the bill includes a renewable electricity mandate, which requires electricity utilities to substitute renewable energy (such as wind, solar, or geothermal energy) for energy derived from fossil fuels. Electric utilities would need to generate 6 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2012, ramping up to 20 percent by 2021."

"The electricity mandate undermines the cost-saving feature of a cap-and-trade program. Rather than allow the market the flexibility to find the cheapest sources of pollution reduction, the mandate prescribes where and how the reductions must occur."

Ultimately, he attributes this fact to the power of the renewable electricity lobbyists that have convinced Congress this is the only way to reduce greenhouse gasses. Rather than allowing the market to find its own answers, Congress is forcing electric companies to provide electricity that comes from alternative fuels.

The idea behind Cap-and-Trade (specifically the "trade" part) is that companies have the flexibility to trade away their required emissions cuts to other companies who might be able to cut their emissions more cheaply. Basically, it should create a market where some companies (those who can cheaply/easily cut emissions) will purchase the emissions of other companies. That means it doesn't matter who cuts what amount, but the total amount is met.

Restrictions like this, however, change that. Now, electric companies have their hands tied. The power of the alternative fuel lobbyists have removed that flexibility.

So whats more important to the idea behind the bill: That greenhouse gasses are reduced, or how greenhouse gasses are reduced? The difference is not as subtle as it seems.

Let Gayer have the last word:

"Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is a costly endeavor. Congress only makes things worse by supplementing their cap-and-trade program with expensive mandates that serve no environmental end."

Al Gore = Winston Churchill??

Not in my opinion. Hopefully not in many people's opinion. But, yes, apparently so in his own (humble) opinion.

Yesterday, Gore compared the fight against global warming to America fighting in WWII. No, I'm not kidding. He went so far as to compare himself to Churchill; then went on to claim that the difficulty in convincing the public that global warming is a threat compares to the unwillingness of Western powers to see Hitler as a threat in the 1930s.

Gore obviously needs a lesson in history. But if he wants to use this metaphor, I'll play along.

And if you need to get the attention of people, you might have to wait until global warming invades Poland and starts executing entire populations of people.

But if that does happen, I know what we can do. Sooner or later, Global Warming is going to get over-confident. It's going to think it can take over Russia too. But not even the ferocious power of the Global Warming war machine will be able to stand up to the Russian Winter.

And if those freezing temperatures don't prove that Global Warming can't take over the world, do you think Gore would approve of exploding atomic bombs to win our fight against global warming? I mean, it worked in WWII, right?

A Second Stimulas?

I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds this funny. Paul Krugman complains about how the people advocating for a second round of stimulus for the US have been largely shut out of the debate about what to do next with the stumbling economy.

Really? A guy who writes for the New York Times is complaining about, basically, selection bias in the media?

McArdle refutes his argument pretty clearly, and without appealing to the incredible sense of irony I pointed out above.

The reason there is no debate about a second round of stimulus is that the Democrats in Congress who created the first stimulus don't even want to touch it. Right now, they know they are going to get hammered over the national debt in 2010 and probably in 2012 as well, so they are trying to decide what major spending plan they could most easily defend when its election time: national healthcare, more climate stuff, or more stimulus money.

It certainly won't be the third option, because while healthcare would possibly help the poor and middle classes (where the D's get the most votes) and they can try to make a case that climate issues help everyone (an argument not at all based in reason, but whatever), the reality is that the first stimulus didn't make the big splash they wanted and a second effort like that will only make things worse.

Rochester is #1

But probably not in the way you would want to be.....

According to this new report from Forbes.com, Rochester has seen more pay cuts than any other city in the country. Wages here have fallen 2.3% over the past quarter.

But at least Rochester isn't the only city in New York that is in trouble. Syracuse, Albany, New York City, Poughkeepsie, and Buffalo are all in the top 10 on the list.

So when I'm done here in August, where could I move to make money? Phoenix, Tulsa, and Baltimore top the list for pay raises over the past quarter.

My Love Affair with Graphs

For whatever reason, I've always loved a good chart or graph.

I'm not really sure why. Maybe it's because they can convey so much information with only a quick glace.

What I do know is that there are few things better than a humorous chart or graph. And while all types can be used humorously, there is a special place in my heart reserved for the unique kind of humor that is made possible only with Venn diagrams and flow charts (and I wish I could post a link to my favorite flow chart of all time on here, but it exists only on a crumpled sheet of loose leaf)

So why the overload on XKCD comics? Well, for a comical graph lover like myself, today has been a very good day, and it caused me to reflect back on some of my favorite graphs of the past.

And as a side note, I've always thought that baseball standings should include a graph like this, because the season is so long that a won-loss record just doesn't tell the whole story.

But as for today:

First, you can imagine my excitement when I came upon this, a Venn diagram of potential cross-over varieties of silverware. After all, if we can have a Spork, why not a Spife? Or, dare we think it, a Splayd (though I'm not sure how they came up with the name for that one). In this economy, we could all save money (and time doing dishes) but making the switch to more evolved cutlery.

Then, I came across this post from The Atlantic that shows nothing less than the entire economic history of the world, in a graph. Maybe it's because of my love of graphs (or maybe it's part of the cause) but the idea of the Malthusian Crisis has always fascinated me since I first learn about the term in Dr. Rosenfeld's History 30 class sophomore year. Breaking out of the "Malthusian trap" is probably the greatest accomplishment of modern man (even if it did screw over a few people, as the graph also shows).

Next, Megan McArdle (read her blog, she's awesome!) posted this interesting graph from the Bernstein-Romer analysis of the of the Obama stimulas plan. The graph shows that they expected the stimulas money to have made an instant impact on the unemployment situation. In fact, we should already have seen about 1/3 of the intended impact of the stimulas package, according to the original plan. Curiously, this hasn't happened.

I'm not about to theorize why that might be the case, because this is a post on graphs, not on politics.

Do you bruise easily?

Word of the Day

It's Monday. Specifically, its Monday after a 3-day holiday weekend. So maybe everyone needs a little fun reminder about the importance of persevering through the daily toil of Monday-ness. And so, the word of the day:

Sticktoitiveness

And even though spell check is telling me that's not a word, it is

Happy 4th of July

This is the most important document in the entire history of the world.

Need proof? Search "declaration of independence" on Wikipedia. You will be 67 responses, from a wide variety of places. The list will include nations both great (Russia, Brazil) and small (East Timor, Guinea-Bissau). It will also include a few places most people have never heard of (The Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia - which means Ukraine). It will also include several U.S. states, from the Civil War era (and Texas is actually on there twice. typical).

But what you will not find - on this list of the world's most powerful statements of freedom, liberty, and rights - is a single document that was written before 1776.

Enjoy it. This is what it means to be an American, and more importantly, this is what it means to stand up for your freedom at all costs.

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
A Declaration
By the Representatives of the
United states of America,
In general Congress assembled.

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Girl Who Does Not Age

Continuing today's theme of strange scientific stuff is this story about a 16 year old girl who hasn't aged since she was an infant. Although it sounds like the kind of thing you'd see on the cover of a supermarket tabloid, this report comes from (slightly more reputable) ABC News.

If you still don't believe it, there's going to be an TLC Documentary about her on August 2; and Friday night's 20/20 will feature a story on her as well.

She's certainly an odd case, and possibly the solution to human immortality. But if the cost of living a lot longer is being a toddler for life and having to go everywhere in a stroller, I'm not sure I'd be on board with that. Then again, she's never had to work a day in her life.....so maybe.

This girl is a medical freak in more ways than one.

She's 16 years old, but only 30 inches tall and weighs only 16 pounds. When she was very young, she survived 7 stomach ulcers, a massive stroke that left no damage at all, then developed a tumor that caused her to sleep for 14 days in a row (I'd call that a coma), but then she woke up and the tumor was gone.

I'm not exactly sure what to think about this.....but wow.

Giant Ant Colony

No, not a colony of giant ants (thank god, because those are terrifying), but a massive colony of ants has been discovered by scientists on the Mediterranean Coast.

How big? How about 3,600 miles long?

The colony dwarfs any other known colony of ants that was previously known about (the biggest in the US is on the Pacific Coast and its "only" 560 miles long.

And that's not where the weirdness ends. The ants that formed that huge colony in Europe are actually a breed of Argentinian ant that is well known for building huge communities. Weirder still, the ants that built that big colony on the West Coast of the United States (and another huge colony, in Japan) are also from Argentina. And when scientists mixed ants from the three super-colonies, they did not fight one another as expected, but got along "like a bunch of old friends". That means they share the same chemical profile, and, likely, they are all genetically linked.

Argentinian ants have established colonies on every single continent except Antartica (kinda ironic, since thats the only continent with "ant" in the name), and their domination of the world may be second only to mankind.

Russians & Mormons switching identities??

If you like drinking and gambling (and who doesn't?), then you might want to consider a vacation in Utah instead of Russia.

"What?", you say. Utah (the land of the Mormons, where even Coke and Folgers have to be sold on the black market) is now a better location for getting your vice on than Russia (the land of Vodka, Roulette, and thousands of shady casinos)??

Well, maybe not entirely. But after yesterday we're certainly headed in that direction.

According to the AP, the Russian government (so....Putin) has officially closed all casinos, slot machine parlors, and betting halls across the entire nation, except for four remote locations that are far from Moscow and other major population centers.

The worst part is that the government has essentially put 400,000 of their own people out of work (and in the middle of a worsening national economic crisis) in the name of morality, or something.

My favorite part is that the article basically acknowledges that this law was Putin's idea and that it has very little support with the Russian people.


Meanwhile...In Utah. The state ditched a 40-year old law that required people to fill out an application, pay a fee, and become a member of a private club before they were allowed to set foot in a bar. That such a law even existed in the first place is hard to believe, but now that its gone, the people of the Beehive State (yep, the Beehive State) can stroll into any local watering hole and enjoy whatever it is that bars in Utah sell.

And soon, Utah might take another step towards what they are calling "normalization of alcohol policy. As of right now, there is a law (referred to as the "Zion Curtain") that prohibits bartenders from handing drinks directly to patrons at restaurants and bars. Instead, they must walk out from behind the bar in order to deliver the booze.

It makes Pennsylvania's liquor laws look absolutely liberal.

Barrel Monster!

I've probably been a little too political on here over the past few days, so here's something we can all enjoy:

A college student in North Carolina was arrested for stealing 3 traffic barrels and turning them into a "barrel monster".

If you read further down the story, you come to realize that, unfortunately, this kid a complete tool. But still, its a pretty awesome idea.

5 Things You Need To Know : Ron Paul Editorial

Today, the Washington Times printed an editorial that was authored by Ron Paul. In it, Dr. Paul, on the day that was listed as the deadline for pulling out of Iraqi cities, restates the need for anti-interventionist policies and I (as is usually the case) couldn't agree with him more.

I don't want to just repost the entire article here, but if you want the brief version, here it is (in a new segment I like to call, "5 Things You Need To Know"

1. The idea of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" represents a false choice. This is not a simple choice between two poles, there is much more complexity to the issue and other alternatives do, in fact, exist. If "war is the health of the state", as George Orwell once said, then false choices between two non-existent extremes is certainly the doctor that keeps the state healthy (and in a constant state of war).

2. We should spend whatever money is necessary to make sure that the American people are as safe as they can be. This is the primary purpose of any government. However, this does not justify the fact that we have 700 military bases in 135 nations around the world. We have over 100,000 troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea alone.

3. We should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, and never, EVER, try to engage in "nation building". I'm just going to quote Dr. Paul on this one: "Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like."

4. When it becomes necessary to engage in conflict with other nations, we should follow the rules laid down in the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war, and military intervention should only happen following a declaration of war. Undeclared wars drag on with no end, no goal, and no objective way to declare victory or defeat.

5. We should follow the examples of our Founding Fathers, such as George Washington, who stated in his farewell address that America should seek "commerce with all nations, alliances with none", or John Quincy Adams, who warned that America should not "go abroad looking for dragons to slay".