....between the Philadelphia Phillies and Ron Paul.
Rand Paul, the son of the Texas congressman who ran that so-crazy-it-just-might-work campaign-turned-revolution in the Republican primary last year, declared this week that he is going to run for a Senate seat from the state of Kentucky. Talk about trying to one-up your father.
Obviously, this is exciting news in and of itself. Rand has a pretty legitimate shot at the seat, and at the very least his odds are better than his father's run last year. Drawing on the nation-wide popularity that Ron Paul generated last year, Rand should be looking at a pretty solid pool of donations.
But with the election still well over a year away, I'll save the political posturing.
Here's the other exciting part of the story: the seat that Rand will be running for is currently held by two-term Senator, and former Philadelphia Phillies pitcher, Jim Bunning.
Bunning compiled an impressive record of 224-184, and was selected to seven All-Star games, during his major league career while pitching for four different teams. He actually played just three seasons in Philadelphia, but he is forever remembered as a Phillie because he threw the only perfect game in franchise history - on Father's Day in 1964 against the New York Mets.
Of course, the 1964 Mets were probably one of the easiest teams in history to throw a perfect game against (perhaps surpassed only by the 1962 and 1963 Mets), but it still counts the same as the other 17 perfect games in baseball history.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Obama's first love: the campaign trail
Mr. President, doing what he does best, at a rally of adoring fans yesterday.
I think Obama is very good at campaigning. He knows how to feed off people's excitement and stir up a crowd. He is the definition of a populist. Of course, when he's surrounded by people who already love him, it's not very difficult to work the room. I just think, you know, he's the President now....so maybe he should stop sounding like a high school football coach getting his team pumped up before the big Homecoming game.
I'd rather listen to Peter Finch.
I think Obama is very good at campaigning. He knows how to feed off people's excitement and stir up a crowd. He is the definition of a populist. Of course, when he's surrounded by people who already love him, it's not very difficult to work the room. I just think, you know, he's the President now....so maybe he should stop sounding like a high school football coach getting his team pumped up before the big Homecoming game.
I'd rather listen to Peter Finch.
End of an Era.
To be fair, it was a very brief era.
Today was my last day at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, where I've been working as a business intern while secretly pretending to be a real reporter. Overall, it was a great time, I learned a lot, and I feel like I have really improved as both a reporter and a writer. I've also had some great first-hand experience with one of the best papers in the country, and I got more than two dozen by-lines (the most recent ones are here). So, if anyone from the "D&C" is reading this (and I doubt you are, or I probably would have been told to stop posting from work a long time ago), allow me to say thank you once again.
The last eight weeks really flew by. It felt odd to be packing up my desk this afternoon because I guess there's a part of me that feels like I still have more I want to do here. For the first time ever, I think I might actually miss going to work next Monday.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that I have now joined the ranks of the unemployed. And soon I will be joining the ranks of the unemployed who are living in their parents' houses. So there I was, thinking that the future does not look too bright for me, when out of the heavens - like a shining beacon of hope and salvation, like water to quench my thirst, like a promise of better days to come and life over the rainbow and a million other lovely little things - came this: the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that says unemployment has actually DROPPED in the last month, from 9.5% to 9.4%.
Hallelujah, we are all soon to be making money hand-over-fist at our dream jobs. The recession is over and, probably by next weekend, prosperity will be raining down like so many golden coins from the skies.
Well, it's at least some kind of good news, right? Certainly better than the second-derivative effects that we were all trying to convince ourselves was really, truly, positive news about a month ago.
Also, kudos to Dave for calling this about a week ago. I guess I should believe a guy who works for a job search engine when he tells me stuff about the job market.
Today was my last day at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, where I've been working as a business intern while secretly pretending to be a real reporter. Overall, it was a great time, I learned a lot, and I feel like I have really improved as both a reporter and a writer. I've also had some great first-hand experience with one of the best papers in the country, and I got more than two dozen by-lines (the most recent ones are here). So, if anyone from the "D&C" is reading this (and I doubt you are, or I probably would have been told to stop posting from work a long time ago), allow me to say thank you once again.
The last eight weeks really flew by. It felt odd to be packing up my desk this afternoon because I guess there's a part of me that feels like I still have more I want to do here. For the first time ever, I think I might actually miss going to work next Monday.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that I have now joined the ranks of the unemployed. And soon I will be joining the ranks of the unemployed who are living in their parents' houses. So there I was, thinking that the future does not look too bright for me, when out of the heavens - like a shining beacon of hope and salvation, like water to quench my thirst, like a promise of better days to come and life over the rainbow and a million other lovely little things - came this: the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that says unemployment has actually DROPPED in the last month, from 9.5% to 9.4%.
Hallelujah, we are all soon to be making money hand-over-fist at our dream jobs. The recession is over and, probably by next weekend, prosperity will be raining down like so many golden coins from the skies.
Well, it's at least some kind of good news, right? Certainly better than the second-derivative effects that we were all trying to convince ourselves was really, truly, positive news about a month ago.
Also, kudos to Dave for calling this about a week ago. I guess I should believe a guy who works for a job search engine when he tells me stuff about the job market.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Craziest Woman in the World?
An 86-year old woman was arrested for shoplifting in Chicago on Sunday. What makes this unique, you ask? It was the 61st time she had been arrested since 1956 (which is more than once a year).
She has been convicted 13 times for shoplifting, and she has used more than 20 aliases during her lifetime. My favorite part of the story is the description of what she took this time:
"Ella Orko was arrested Sunday afternoon on the North Side after she allegedly stuffed $252 worth of groceries into her pants, including cosmetics, salmon, batteries and instant coffee."
I don't know what else to say, but she should win some kind of award.
She has been convicted 13 times for shoplifting, and she has used more than 20 aliases during her lifetime. My favorite part of the story is the description of what she took this time:
"Ella Orko was arrested Sunday afternoon on the North Side after she allegedly stuffed $252 worth of groceries into her pants, including cosmetics, salmon, batteries and instant coffee."
I don't know what else to say, but she should win some kind of award.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Thats One Way to Pay the Bills
Since a number of my friends are recent college graduates who are currently unemployed (and since I will be joining their ranks at 6pm on Friday), here's a suggestion. A New Yorker who recently graduated from Monroe College is suing her college for $70,000 because she has yet to get a job.
Where to start with this one? Let's let the plaintiff, Trina Thompson, speak for herself:
As Thompson sees it, any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record. But Monroe's career-services department has put forth insufficient effort to help her secure employment, she claims.
Apparently no one ever told this girl that sometimes life just doesn't go according to plan.
Where to start with this one? Let's let the plaintiff, Trina Thompson, speak for herself:
As Thompson sees it, any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record. But Monroe's career-services department has put forth insufficient effort to help her secure employment, she claims.
"They're supposed to say, 'I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right -- can you interview this person?' They're not doing that," she said.
Well, who wouldn't hire a graduate of world-renowned Monroe College who graduated with a 2.7 GPA? Being that she displays the kind of loyalty that makes you sue your Alma Mater less than 4 months after graduation, shouldn't employers be lining up to interview her? Oh, what's that? She has more crazy things to say? Ok, please continue:
Asked whether she would advise other college graduates facing job woes to sue their Alma Maters, Thompson said yes.
"It doesn't make any sense: They went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald's and Payless. That's not what they planned.Apparently no one ever told this girl that sometimes life just doesn't go according to plan.
Why "Clunkers" Failed
Enjoyable and informative article from Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi about the reasons why "Cash for Clunkers" is a failure, no matter how much Congress wants to make it look like a success. I'll pull out the best parts, beginning with this summery of the program:
"Here's an idea: Let's give $50,000 to anyone looking to upgrade to a brand-spanking-new, environmentally friendly home. All we ask in return is that you burn your previous residence into a heap of smoldering cinder."
There are two reasons why this bill was passed (and re-upped by the government this week): environmental benefits and economic stimulus. Harsanyi argues that it has failed on both fronts:
"Now, some of you radicals may have an ideological dilemma with a government handing out thousands of dollars to citizens making an average of $57,000 a year so they can upgrade their perfectly serviceable vehicles. Turns out, though, that by nearly any criterion, including the ones offered up by President Barack Obama, this populist experiment is an unmitigated fiasco.
To begin with, building a new car consumes energy. It is estimated that 6.7 tons of carbon are emitted in the process. So a driver who participates in the "cash for clunkers" program would need to make up for that wickedness."
So that covers the supposed environmental benefits. Here's why it does nothing to help the economy:
"As an economic stimulus, the plan is equally impotent. As James Pethokoukis, a columnist at Reuters, succinctly explained, 'The program gets much of its juice via stealing car sales from the near future rather than generating additional demand'."
The point of a stimulus should be to create new demand, not to move existing demand around to score political points."
The only potential benefit to shifting that demand forward would be to help the ailing American car companies right now (of course they will be hurt by the lack of demand in the near future, but I can buy the validity of the argument that they needed those purchases immediately to survive), but over 50% of the cars being purchased through the program are foreign. Additionally, even though the Ford Focus is the top-selling car purchased through the program, numbers two through five are made by either Toyota or Honda.
"Here's an idea: Let's give $50,000 to anyone looking to upgrade to a brand-spanking-new, environmentally friendly home. All we ask in return is that you burn your previous residence into a heap of smoldering cinder."
There are two reasons why this bill was passed (and re-upped by the government this week): environmental benefits and economic stimulus. Harsanyi argues that it has failed on both fronts:
"Now, some of you radicals may have an ideological dilemma with a government handing out thousands of dollars to citizens making an average of $57,000 a year so they can upgrade their perfectly serviceable vehicles. Turns out, though, that by nearly any criterion, including the ones offered up by President Barack Obama, this populist experiment is an unmitigated fiasco.
To begin with, building a new car consumes energy. It is estimated that 6.7 tons of carbon are emitted in the process. So a driver who participates in the "cash for clunkers" program would need to make up for that wickedness."
So that covers the supposed environmental benefits. Here's why it does nothing to help the economy:
"As an economic stimulus, the plan is equally impotent. As James Pethokoukis, a columnist at Reuters, succinctly explained, 'The program gets much of its juice via stealing car sales from the near future rather than generating additional demand'."
The point of a stimulus should be to create new demand, not to move existing demand around to score political points."
The only potential benefit to shifting that demand forward would be to help the ailing American car companies right now (of course they will be hurt by the lack of demand in the near future, but I can buy the validity of the argument that they needed those purchases immediately to survive), but over 50% of the cars being purchased through the program are foreign. Additionally, even though the Ford Focus is the top-selling car purchased through the program, numbers two through five are made by either Toyota or Honda.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Health Care Stuff
I don't really want to write too much about the whole health care reform thing going on right now, because, honestly, I don't understand enough of it to offer much. You might want to bookmark this page, because I'm not sure when I will make a statement like that again.
Anyway, I've been using all the attention on health care to educate myself a little bit and how and why the system works the way it does (or doesn't) and regardless of the outcome from Obama's plan, at least I've learned something. Either way, I still think the best plan for me is just to avoid getting sick/serious accidents/being within a mile of an emergency room.
My biggest single problem with the very idea of health care reform is that I'm not convinced that anyone understands the system well enough to reform it, let alone a bunch of politicians. I doubt the people in Congress who are going to reform the system actually understand the system any better than I do. Do we really want, as John Stossel writes, a bunch of people who have most likely never run a small business trying to overhaul one of the most complex markets in the world? What makes them think they are capable of doing it? They do understand that "Yes We Can" was just a campaign slogan, right?
Although there are plenty of well-informed opinions out there on the health care situation, I've found (not surprisingly) some of the most lucid and convincing arguments come from Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic. In particular, these two posts - though long - are worth a read:
A Long, Long Post About My Reasons For Opposing National Health Care
It's Adverse. But is it Selection?
Ron Paul also entered the blogosphere debate today with this post on the Campaign for Liberty site. He makes more good points for why this is a bad idea.
Anyway, I've been using all the attention on health care to educate myself a little bit and how and why the system works the way it does (or doesn't) and regardless of the outcome from Obama's plan, at least I've learned something. Either way, I still think the best plan for me is just to avoid getting sick/serious accidents/being within a mile of an emergency room.
My biggest single problem with the very idea of health care reform is that I'm not convinced that anyone understands the system well enough to reform it, let alone a bunch of politicians. I doubt the people in Congress who are going to reform the system actually understand the system any better than I do. Do we really want, as John Stossel writes, a bunch of people who have most likely never run a small business trying to overhaul one of the most complex markets in the world? What makes them think they are capable of doing it? They do understand that "Yes We Can" was just a campaign slogan, right?
Although there are plenty of well-informed opinions out there on the health care situation, I've found (not surprisingly) some of the most lucid and convincing arguments come from Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic. In particular, these two posts - though long - are worth a read:
A Long, Long Post About My Reasons For Opposing National Health Care
It's Adverse. But is it Selection?
Ron Paul also entered the blogosphere debate today with this post on the Campaign for Liberty site. He makes more good points for why this is a bad idea.
Omnibus
I haven't done much posting on here for the past few days, and since I updated you on my personal life below, here's some other important information that you might have missed during the past few days:
Jacob Sullum, a blogger for Reason, is apparently a beer snob - and I couldn't agree with him more. Really, Mr. President? Bud Light? What makes it even worse is that he obviously made that choice (or, more correctly, his image consultants did) because you want to look more appealing to the average middle class beer-drinking America: "Look, Obama isn't an Ivy League intellectual snob, he drinks crappy beer just like you!" The sad part is that they believe Joe the-middle-class-soon-to-be-out-of-work-beer-drinking-average-dude is more likely to say "I like Obama because he drinks Bud Light like me" than "I hate Obama's because he's raising taxes", and they are probably right.
***
The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the definition of a successful failure, and even if you knew nothing about it, I bet you could guess that only a government idea could become the epitome of an oxy-moron. I guess no one in Washington bothered to think that giving people free money for a new car would get an overwhelming response. Now they are all acting surprised that so many people took advantage of the offer, and riding in to rescue a program that was a mistake in the first place. Remind me again - why does someone else having a crappy car give them a right to my tax money so they can get a better car? Did they pay help pay for my car? I don't remember that happening.
***
Interesting fact about some new polls (and for the record, polls like this are crazy this far in advance of the next Presidential election): Mitt Romney is seeing both his "favorable" and "unfavorable" numbers decline. In other words, fewer people like him....and fewer people dislike him. How does that happen? Are people just completely apathetic about him? Maybe that's good for him, since every member of the GOP who gets attention is getting it for the wrong reasons (paging Jindal....Stanford....Palin....)
***
Arlen Specter, also known as that Senator from Pennsylvania who flipped parties after the Democrats took control of everything in January, got loudly booed this weekend in Philadelphia. I can't wait to help kick him out of office next November. I'd vote for just about anyone over Specter at this point.
***
Brand New is set to release a new album - so does that make Emo kids happy? or does it make them sadder? Does it make them happy to be feeling sadder, or sadder to be feeling happy? Will I ever understand Emo kids? Maybe the band is growing up a little, because there are 11 tracks on the album and only 19 words (total) in the 11 names. A few years ago, 19 words would get Brand New through about two song titles, if that. This is the band that has given us such verbose gems as:
"Good to Know That if I Ever Need Attention All I Have to Do is Die" (that's 16 words right there)
"Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't"
"I Will Play My Game Beneath the Spin Light"
Though I must give a little credit. I've been busting on Brand New for a long time (and mostly they deserve it) but "Play Crack the Sky" is a really good, haunting song.
***
The Dallas Cowboy's new stadium (which cost well over $1 Billion to build) will have luxury boxes where you can order pizza. The catch? That round slab of dough, cheese, and sauce (no toppings) will cost you $90. In my opinion, anyone who is paying that much for a pizza needs to seriously re-examine their lives.
Of course, to even rent one of those luxury boxes you have to pay $800,000 a year (and that doesn't actually include tickets to games), so maybe $90 for a pizza, $66 for a 12-pack of beer, and $22 for four Red Bulls is just small change. All I know is that if I had $800K to spend, I wouldn't use it to go see the Dallas Cowboys.
***
Cab drivers in New York City are pretty much openly ignoring the cell phone use ban. This isn't much of a surprise though, since they already ignore most other traffic laws.
***
This is pretty cool (even if it did come from the New York Times), a chart showing what people are doing at any given time during the day. It also makes a pretty background for your desktop.
***
Let the countdown begin - exactly 2 weeks until Third Eye Blind's new album is finally released.
Jacob Sullum, a blogger for Reason, is apparently a beer snob - and I couldn't agree with him more. Really, Mr. President? Bud Light? What makes it even worse is that he obviously made that choice (or, more correctly, his image consultants did) because you want to look more appealing to the average middle class beer-drinking America: "Look, Obama isn't an Ivy League intellectual snob, he drinks crappy beer just like you!" The sad part is that they believe Joe the-middle-class-soon-to-be-out-of-work-beer-drinking-average-dude is more likely to say "I like Obama because he drinks Bud Light like me" than "I hate Obama's because he's raising taxes", and they are probably right.
***
The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the definition of a successful failure, and even if you knew nothing about it, I bet you could guess that only a government idea could become the epitome of an oxy-moron. I guess no one in Washington bothered to think that giving people free money for a new car would get an overwhelming response. Now they are all acting surprised that so many people took advantage of the offer, and riding in to rescue a program that was a mistake in the first place. Remind me again - why does someone else having a crappy car give them a right to my tax money so they can get a better car? Did they pay help pay for my car? I don't remember that happening.
***
Interesting fact about some new polls (and for the record, polls like this are crazy this far in advance of the next Presidential election): Mitt Romney is seeing both his "favorable" and "unfavorable" numbers decline. In other words, fewer people like him....and fewer people dislike him. How does that happen? Are people just completely apathetic about him? Maybe that's good for him, since every member of the GOP who gets attention is getting it for the wrong reasons (paging Jindal....Stanford....Palin....)
***
Arlen Specter, also known as that Senator from Pennsylvania who flipped parties after the Democrats took control of everything in January, got loudly booed this weekend in Philadelphia. I can't wait to help kick him out of office next November. I'd vote for just about anyone over Specter at this point.
***
Brand New is set to release a new album - so does that make Emo kids happy? or does it make them sadder? Does it make them happy to be feeling sadder, or sadder to be feeling happy? Will I ever understand Emo kids? Maybe the band is growing up a little, because there are 11 tracks on the album and only 19 words (total) in the 11 names. A few years ago, 19 words would get Brand New through about two song titles, if that. This is the band that has given us such verbose gems as:
"Good to Know That if I Ever Need Attention All I Have to Do is Die" (that's 16 words right there)
"Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't"
"I Will Play My Game Beneath the Spin Light"
Though I must give a little credit. I've been busting on Brand New for a long time (and mostly they deserve it) but "Play Crack the Sky" is a really good, haunting song.
***
The Dallas Cowboy's new stadium (which cost well over $1 Billion to build) will have luxury boxes where you can order pizza. The catch? That round slab of dough, cheese, and sauce (no toppings) will cost you $90. In my opinion, anyone who is paying that much for a pizza needs to seriously re-examine their lives.
Of course, to even rent one of those luxury boxes you have to pay $800,000 a year (and that doesn't actually include tickets to games), so maybe $90 for a pizza, $66 for a 12-pack of beer, and $22 for four Red Bulls is just small change. All I know is that if I had $800K to spend, I wouldn't use it to go see the Dallas Cowboys.
***
Cab drivers in New York City are pretty much openly ignoring the cell phone use ban. This isn't much of a surprise though, since they already ignore most other traffic laws.
***
This is pretty cool (even if it did come from the New York Times), a chart showing what people are doing at any given time during the day. It also makes a pretty background for your desktop.
***
Let the countdown begin - exactly 2 weeks until Third Eye Blind's new album is finally released.
Epic Road Trip 2009, Part III
I've been away from here for the better part of a week, but I doubt anyone has been let down by my lack of recent blogging. To be fair, I had a good excuse for not posting anything this weekend - it was Epic Road Trip 2009, Part III.
The stated purpose of Part III in this series was the All Points West music festival in Jersey City, but the date and location also coincided with the 3rd anniversary of the start of my relationship with Megan.
Personal details aside, here is my advise to you:
If you ever get a chance to see Coldplay perform live, and cost of the ticket does not include your first born, take it!
Yes, it was that good. Even if we had to stand in roughly two feet of mud (ok, maybe like two inches) to see them, Chris Martin and Company know how to put on one hell of a show. You know how awesome the crescendo in "Fix You" sounds when you're playing it in your car? This was like that, except it lasted for more than an hour.
While trench foot was definently a concern for a little while, it seems that I'll make a full recovery. Now I know how those guys fighting in WWI must have felt (opps, I just Hoekstra'd myself!)
Seriously though, it was a great concert. Martin really knows how to play to the crowd and that makes the whole thing even more enjoyable. He's not just playing music with his buddies and singing, but you get the feeling that the entire band really LOVES being there with you. Even if its a act, they really sell it.
I never thought of Coldplay as a band that would crack onto the list of my favorites, but I'm pretty sure they have. On Sunday night they played just about every song you could possibly want to hear (except for Glass of Water, and I did want to hear that one), and even a few that you never expected to - such as Chris Martin's piano acoustic cover of The Beastie Boys' "Fight For Your Right (To Party)".
It might not go down as my favorite concert ever, but that's mostly because when I saw Third Eye Blind it was in a smaller venue, I was closer to the stage, and I didn't have to throw my shoes out afterwards. Even considering all that, this show is a close second.
Sadly, the other band I was really looking forward to seeing - The Gaslight Anthem - did not get to play because of a massive thunderstorm that rolled through and forced the cancellation of a number of acts. But was the 12 hour round trip and the $90 ticket still worth it? Absolutely.
And don't worry, I'll make sure to be more consistent with my blogging this week.
The stated purpose of Part III in this series was the All Points West music festival in Jersey City, but the date and location also coincided with the 3rd anniversary of the start of my relationship with Megan.
Personal details aside, here is my advise to you:
If you ever get a chance to see Coldplay perform live, and cost of the ticket does not include your first born, take it!
Yes, it was that good. Even if we had to stand in roughly two feet of mud (ok, maybe like two inches) to see them, Chris Martin and Company know how to put on one hell of a show. You know how awesome the crescendo in "Fix You" sounds when you're playing it in your car? This was like that, except it lasted for more than an hour.
While trench foot was definently a concern for a little while, it seems that I'll make a full recovery. Now I know how those guys fighting in WWI must have felt (opps, I just Hoekstra'd myself!)
Seriously though, it was a great concert. Martin really knows how to play to the crowd and that makes the whole thing even more enjoyable. He's not just playing music with his buddies and singing, but you get the feeling that the entire band really LOVES being there with you. Even if its a act, they really sell it.
I never thought of Coldplay as a band that would crack onto the list of my favorites, but I'm pretty sure they have. On Sunday night they played just about every song you could possibly want to hear (except for Glass of Water, and I did want to hear that one), and even a few that you never expected to - such as Chris Martin's piano acoustic cover of The Beastie Boys' "Fight For Your Right (To Party)".
It might not go down as my favorite concert ever, but that's mostly because when I saw Third Eye Blind it was in a smaller venue, I was closer to the stage, and I didn't have to throw my shoes out afterwards. Even considering all that, this show is a close second.
Sadly, the other band I was really looking forward to seeing - The Gaslight Anthem - did not get to play because of a massive thunderstorm that rolled through and forced the cancellation of a number of acts. But was the 12 hour round trip and the $90 ticket still worth it? Absolutely.
And don't worry, I'll make sure to be more consistent with my blogging this week.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Monday, July 20, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, July 17, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
