Meditations - ta eis heauton

The Source of our country's problems?

2006-09-17T23:03:00.000-07:00

Our President is delusional. He has a tendancy to think he cannot be unsuccessful and if the evidence suggests otherwise he rejects the evidence. That is the first thing that came to my head reading this New York Times article about how rich people end up in bancruptcy:

“The rich are different from you and me: they are more egotistical,” says Theodore R. Aronson, managing principal of Aronson Johnson Ortiz, an investment firm in Philadelphia. “Psychologically, I think the rich, because of their egos, think they know everything. Well, they don’t, and many of them repeatedly make horrible investments — because they can.”

Financial success can breed its own peculiar set of vulnerabilities. “People who are very successful develop elevated sensibilities about their skills, and when things turn on them they won’t admit they’re wrong because their self-confidence has held them up so long,” says Arnold S. Wood, chief executive of Martingale Asset Management in Boston. “In the face of evidence, even subjective evidence, that suggests that something bad is about to happen to someone, a funny thing happens: They reject the evidence.

“These kinds of people just continue spending because they think the money will keep coming in because they’re so successful,” adds Mr. Wood, who says he is fascinated by the possible neurological and social underpinnings of financial delusion and decision-making. He believes that gender plays a strong role in financial ruin because, he says, women tend to be more risk averse than men when it comes to money. Some interesting research backs this up.

Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean, two business professors at the University of California, Berkeley, noted in an analysis in 2001 of stock trading, “Boys Will Be Boys,” that psychological studies demonstrated that men tended to be more overconfident than women. Financial data supported the same point. “Models of investor overconfidence predict that men will trade more and perform worse than women,” the professors’ study concluded.

....

“Someone who goes broke, or someone who goes into debt, is really somebody who isn’t comfortable having their money,” Ms. Gurney says. “Yes, it appears as a lack of discipline. But the lack of discipline comes from an emotional place that causes them to be undisciplined. It’s not about the money. It’s about our emotional relationship to money.

“The people who are out there just running through money have failed because they haven’t come to terms with who they are and what they want the money to do for them,” she adds. “I see a lot of baby boomers beginning to panic because they haven’t figured this out.”

Does this sound at all like the guy who is running the company right now? The guy who was never a successful businessman yet, thanks to help from Daddy's friends, always ended up in better shape after his failures.

Faith vs. Science

2006-08-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with willful ignorance. An essay in today's New York Times by Lawrence M. Krauss makes this point well:

But perhaps more worrisome than a political movement against science is plain old ignorance. The people determining the curriculum of our children in many states remain scientifically illiterate. And Kansas is a good case in point.
The chairman of the school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this month as saying that his personal faith “doesn’t have anything to do with science.”
“I can separate them,” he continued, adding, “My personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.”
A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams’s religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.
I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.

The reason why people of science and reason struggle against such ignorance is not because we hate religion. It is because we are disgusted by the idea that willful ignorance is not only acceptable, but should be promoted by schools and society. Have faith if you wish, but recognize that it is faith, not proof, not evidence, not truth.
faith:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
....

Religious faith is truthiness not truth.

Is Ken Lay really dead?

2006-07-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

I posed this question at our ritual Starbucks stop after lunch and the barrista immediately said "No way". I wonder. I am not saying I actually think it happened, but I think the concern is legitimate. Lay had the financial resources and social/political connections to accomplish such a thing. He had enormous incentive. It would be a fairly amazing step for him to have faked his death, but he was looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, a very scary thing, especially for someone with his background and lifestyle. A number of checks should be done to prove that the body autopsied is really his.

Apparently this 'conspiracy theory' exists far and wide (It occurred to me when I read first read the news). This CNN article suggests there are extensive and varied the conspiracies about Lay's death. Of course, if he is dead all of this speculation must make the suffering of his family that much tougher...

Immigration and the Economy

2006-05-18T16:15:00.000-07:00

I had a couple of conversations over the weekend about immigration and its effects on the economy. Unfortunately none of US were economists so everything was hearsay. That is why I am so glad the Freakonomics blog pointed me to this blog post from they guys over at Marginal Revolution. The post is basically an open letter about what many economists believe are the effects of immigration. Read the whole thing.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countriesÃ—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

Republican Craponomics

2006-05-15T13:01:00.000-07:00

For over two decades Republican politicians have argued that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues. As stupid as it sounds on its face this argument is based on supply-side economics theory, specifically the Laffer Curve. I call this a theory although, to the best of my knowledge, the evidence to back up the "theory" is so marginal it would more appropriately be called a hypothesis. Regardless, as this Washington Post editorial describes, some research has been done by conservative economists on just how much increase in revenue could be expected from giving a tax cut. The answer, not much:

... N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."

How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.

But, wait there is more!

...Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office.

In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up.

Hat tip to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly.

You are either with us or against us

2006-05-10T10:04:00.000-07:00

This is disgusting:

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

...

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Had Enough? Vote Democratic!

2006-04-30T13:38:00.000-07:00

I totally agree with the Tim Roemer op-ed in the NY Times today.

AMERICANS have clearly had enough of the Bush administration's record: 7 in 10 say the nation is headed in the wrong direction. But with the 2006 Congressional elections fast approaching, Democrats must not get so irrationally exuberant that they lapse into old, bad habits.

...

In 1946, Karl Frost, an advertising executive, suggested a simple slogan to the Massachusetts Republican Committee: "Had Enough? Vote Republican!" Frost recognized that these simple words could unite his national party and blame its opponents, who controlled Congress, for causing or failing to solve the many problems facing the country, including meat shortages, economic difficulties and labor unrest. The strategy worked: in 1946, both houses of Congress flipped.

Sixty years later, Democrats would be smart to turn Karl Frost's slogan on Karl Rove's strategy.

"Had Enough? Vote Democratic!" is a slogan that spotlights the many mistakes in Iraq, the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and the mangling of fiscal responsibility with "bridges to nowhere."...

...

"Had Enough?" also pre-empts Democrats' worst habits. Too often we've made campaigns complicated and policy-heavy. We love to unveil 40-page position papers and wonky diagrams. "Had Enough?" clears a broad path through such minutiae. "Public sentiment is everything," Abraham Lincoln said 150 years ago. "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

Karl Frost's simple words can serve as the cavalry charge to help win the coming electoral battles — something Democrats are in an incredibly strong position to do. But make no mistake: new ideas matter. Democrats will also need the artillery of a disciplined, focused set of core proposals to complement their criticism of Republican excesses.

As we head into the midterm elections, Democrats should finally understand, as Lincoln and Frost did before, that you must win the majority before you can make public policy.

Where do I get my t-shirt and bumper sticker?

Futurist blogging

2006-04-27T12:23:00.000-07:00

Futurist David Houle has a new blog Evolution Shift and has some interesting preditions out there for all of us to pick through. One of his most recent "Remember When Gas Was Cheap" is an interesting look at the world from the year 2009 discussing the effects of increased oil and gas prices on the economy and politics. As I mention in my comment to the post I generally think most of the predictions for the next year are pretty accurate based on what we know at this point, but I think he gets a bit unrealistic starting in April 2007.

April 2007 Congress overwhelmingly passed an energy bill that had several key components: a gasoline tax that started at $.25 a gallon, increasing to a $1.00 over four years, new stringent guidelines on average mpg for all automotive manufacturing companies, and investment tax credits for practically any type of alternative energy ideas and companies. At the last minute, the $2.500 surcharge on all SUVs and non-commercial use pick-up trucks were taken out of the bill, as GM said that it would have no recourse but to enter bankruptcy and immediately lay-off 50,000 workers, and few politicians had stomach for the economic impact of that probability. So many Republicans, getting the message from the fall elections, voted for these bills that it was clear that a Bush veto would be easily overridden.

I just don't think the country will have moved that far politically in a year. Not without a major oil shock (like prices shooting to over $125 a barrel, gas at say $5-$6/gallon for at least a few weeks).

I would actually like to see some of his preditions come to pass since I think in the long run they would be good for the country and the planet. I just don't think they can happen with out a significant "shock" like event. A 9-11 for energy policy. Anything less will just be seen as the something political leaders shouldn't expend effort on when the results will be so hard on the economy.

Bush leaking Classified information for political purposes

2006-04-07T15:17:00.000-07:00

Articles yesterday and today in the NY Times tell us that President Bush approved the leaking of classified information to reporters for political purposes. I realize that according to executive orders the President can declassify anything he wants, but the timeline is the problem here. If I understand it correctly the President said it was ok to leak the information around July 8th, ten days before the document was officially declassified. Not to mention the fact that the only logic behind the declassification was political.

Maybe I am too much of a freedom of information fan, but it seems to me that there are only two reasonable states that a government document should be in, publically available or classified and only available to those with the appropriate authorization. In my opionion all documents should be assumed public and should have to be proven to need classification. Even at that point I feel like only the portions of the document that relate to national security (or other confidentiality requirements) should be excised and the rest should continue to be public. I will certainly grant that this would be a complex process, but it would put the situation in the right perspective. Any document produced by the goverment was produced using my tax dollars and was made by people either elected by or appointed to serve me. I should have access to their work.

Update: Apparently the judge in the Moussaoui case has similiar feelings about classified documents.

Go Horns!

2006-03-24T12:28:00.000-08:00

Wow, what a great end to the Texas-West Virginia Sweet 16 matchup. Texas dominated the first half getting ahead by as many as 15 before leading by 12 at the half. West Virginia came out in the second half shooting great and breaking down the Texas defense. Texas regained its composure shortly after West Virginia took a late lead and the game went back and forth until West Virginia tied it on a 3 point shot with around 8 seconds left. AJ Abrams tore down the floor and found Kenton Paulino a solid 3 feet outside the 3-point line on the left side. Paulino put up the shot with less than a second left and it rattled home as the clock expired. Awesome.

Amazingly that wasn't the only great game last night. The top ranked Duke team was overwhelmed by a stifling LSU defense and Gonzaga's win was snatched from their grasp by poor ball-handling (and IMHO poor officiating). I'm not terribly interested in the other side of the bracket although I have always like Georgetown. My Final Four matchup assumes the #1s, UConn and Villinova, win out so I hope that happens, but after the loss of Duke and Gonzaga some of the best storylines of the tournament have lost their thread.

Then again I think it would be a great storyline to talk about Texas holding the National Championships in Baseball, Football and Basketball all at the same time. That has never happened before. :-)

Hook'em Horns!

Arresting drunks.. in the bar

2006-03-23T15:52:00.000-08:00

A friend sent me an article on CNN's website about how the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is now sending undercover agents into bars to arrest people for public intoxication:

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

My gut reaction is I don't like it, but I understand the logic behind it. As they mention in the article:

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

I think this is an abuse of power. Bars are public places and thus drunks in them fall under the public intoxication statutes, but I think it is just wrong. Unless the management of the bar (or other patrons) complain, the individual should be left alone. Obviously measures should be taken to ensure that the individual doesn't leave the bar drunk and certainly doesn't drive drunk, but pre-emptive action seems unjust.

A more reasonable action, IMHO, was Austin police asking drunken driving suspects where they last drank, then if over a long period of time specific bars showed up again and again work to reduce that problem from the specific "trouble" locations and if necessary consider specific undercover actions at that location. Care must be taken to recognize that the number of patrons at the bar will cause this number to naturally be higher for a bar that holds 500 than a bar that holds 50.

Defenders of the Faith

2006-03-14T15:55:00.000-08:00

A cool editorial in the NY Times by Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of "The Parallax View." The editorial is primarily about the importance of the atheist legacy in Europe and how that legacy can inform the concerns about Muslim integration in Europe and the rest of the world:

During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.

Whitlock is witless

2006-03-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

This idiotic hit piece on the espn website is annoying me. In the article Jason Whitlock, a columnist for The Kansas City Star, basically rips into Vince Young who, if you follow Whitlock's logic, should probably not even be drafted. Whitlock argues that Vince's choice of Agent and Wonderlick score are evidence that Vince lack's "humility", shows questionable "willingness to prepare", is "arrogant", "foolish", and has questionable "decision-making and maturity".

I do think the Whitlock article makes a few salient points. Vince's choice of agent that is a family friend and not an experienced professional might be a poor decision. However, Major Adams is a family friend, a lawyer and someone Vince trusts. He is not some idiot entertainer/businessman/promoter like Master P who's disastrous agent work is still affecting Ricky Williams career. Vince's choice at least makes sense. He knows he can trust his agent, something someone with his fame will have a hard time with for the rest of his life.

I also think Vince's Wonderlic troubles are unfortunate, mostly because of notoriety rather than the actual score he ended up with. Hopefully he will study for it more and end up with a decent score.

For a little more detail about Wonderlic scores:
NFL past and present quarterback prospect Wonderlic scores
Taking your Wonderlics
A true look at Wonderlic results

The rest of Whitlock's column is crap. "Humility is the No. 1 ingredient." to being a great NFL quarterback? Tell that to Joe Namath.

"Young's success in the NFL will hinge almost exclusively on his willingness to prepare." Does Whitlock know anything about Young's training regimen and preparation for the game? Does he mention quotes by anyone that does? Then he should shut up about it.

"Didn't Redskins running back Tim Smith and Cowboys cornerback Larry Brown have big games on football's biggest stage and later prove to be frauds?" This line is proof that Whitlock knows nothing about Vince Young. What about the Ohio State game? What about Michigan? What about Oklahoma State comebacks? This guy seems to have zero knowledge about Vince's actual experience and success.

Whitlock was doing a hit job on Vince Young. I wonder how much Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler's agents are paying him. Or is it just ESPN trying to bring down Young since they desperately wanted USC to win the Rose Bowl (Threepeat!). What a load of crap.

Because it is not funny.

2006-02-06T23:42:00.000-08:00

In an editorial today Kathleen Parker spends her entire column ranting about the fact that Hillary didn't laugh at the President's joke last night.

Bush was discussing stresses to the Social Security system and mentioned that the first baby boomers were turning 60, including two of his father's favorite people. We're waiting to hear George and maybe Jeb Bush when he says, "Me and President Bill Clinton."

Badaboom! Pan to Hillary.

Nothing, nada, zip. Cheekbones bouncing light back to the fluorescent gods, her ruby lips a door slammed shut for all eternity to the minions of mirth. My mind immediately free-associates to the ancient vampires in Anne Rice's "Vampire Chronicles," who, cold and bloodless through the ages, had turned to stone. Clinton was the sphinx the joker couldn't budge. If eyes could emasculate, Hillary's would send a man into the high octaves.

First, I have seen video of the event and Hillary didn't laugh, but did give a mild smirk. You know the kind of bored smirk that someone who had access the speech long before the President gave it and knew the lame joke was coming? Yeah, that kind of smirk.

Second, who gives a crap whether or not Hillary smiles at a lame joke? Why should anyone care about this? Parker seems to suggest that this inability to laugh at lame jokes is a character defect that couldn't be tolerated in a President:

Truthfully, I'm pulling for everyone deep down. I have no bone to pick with Hillary Clinton, no wish to see her stumble. But I admit to being fascinated, and I watch her closely. I especially watch her when she's out of sight; listen when she's quiet. You learn a lot about people not just by what they say, but by what they don't say.

Or by what they don't do, where they don't show up. With a Clinton, no move is accidental. And she is, of course, considered the most likely Democratic candidate for president in 2008. Could she win?

... snip ....

I don't know what was going through Clinton's mind in that moment, but her expression said, "Bug off," or sentiments to that effect. What we do know is that Bill Clinton would have loved it. And laughed. And reminded Americans of his humanness and his ready sense of humor. His wife, by defining contrast, showed the world that she is something else. That thing -- what is it? It is what she isn't: human, gracious and humorous.

Is she serious? Clinton doesn't laugh at a mediocre scripted joke and suddenly she is inhuman, ungracious and humorless? Give me a break!

Conservatives hated Bill Clinton's affable charm. Liberals hate Bush's folksy friendliness. The other side always feels that the opposition leader is faking it. Maybe we should be thankful that Hillary isn't quite so fake?

To make a long commentary longer, my biggest problem with this column -- it was a giant waste of space. There are many much bigger problems in the world we should be worrying about. In response I wrote the following letter to the Statesman:

In Tuesday’s editorial “The night Hillary's funny bone went missing”, Parker spends 732 words on Hillary Clinton not laughing at the President’s joke that President Clinton and he are his father’s favorite people.

Over 2,250 US soldiers have died in a war that is projected to cost the country between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. The most recent CBO estimate says the budget deficit will climb to $423 billion this fiscal year, on top of the over $8,000,000,000,000 ($8,000 billion) national debt already earning interest. The President has basically admitted to breaking a law he didn’t like, Congressional statutes be damned. Muslims are rioting around the world about a cartoon. Nearly 46 million Americans live without health insurance. The hurricane ravaged gulf coast is being ignored. Kathleen Parker, however, felt the best use of her syndicated column’s 732 words was to quibble about Clinton’s reaction to a scripted joke.

Step 3 - Profit $$$$

2006-01-30T03:03:00.000-08:00

I just got an AdSense account and added a banner to the blog (right at the top above the first post. I fully expect to make millions and move to some beautiful ocean front property where I can live off my fortune.

Step 1 - Add AdSense to blog
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Profit!

Yay!

September 11th's place in history

2006-01-30T01:13:00.000-08:00

September 11th was a powerful event in every living American's life. It was a unique experience for all of us and I certainly hope nothing more traumatic occurs in my lifetime. But, as this interesting NY Times essay suggests, in the broad scheme of US history it will probably be viewed as much less important than it still feels.

My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.

Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

Good Republicans

2006-01-30T00:16:00.000-08:00

Most of our existing government is run by right-wing extremists who seem to feel that their only obligation is to filling their corrupt pockets and the pockets of their special interest friends. It wasn't always that way. There used to be lots if intelligent honest Republicans out there. In case you were wondering this is what a good Republican sounds like.

So here it is in a nutshell: employees are goaded into investing a big chunk of their wages and benefits in UAL stock. They lose that. Then they lose big parts of their pay and pensions. They become peons of UAL. Management gets $480 million, more or less. "Creative destruction?" Or looting?

Wait, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bankruptcy Judge. The employees were the owners of UAL. They were the trustors, and Mr. Tilton and his pals were trustees for them. How were the trustors wiped out while the trustees, the fiduciaries, became fantastically rich? Is this the way capitalism is supposed to work? Trustors save up, and their agents just take their savings away from them?

If the company is worth so much that management has hundreds of millions coming to them, shouldn't the employee-owners get a taste? Does capitalism mean anything if the owners of the capital can be wiped out while their agents grow wealthy? Is this a way to encourage savings and the ownership society? Or is this a matter of to him who hath shall be given?

Read the whole article.

2006-01-27T08:46:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure if I am happy about this or not. I mean Demi Moore is a hottie and all, but still:

According to the Movies.com Which Movie Star Are You Like? quiz, you're:

Ashton Kutcher

You might be goofy, but you're also the pretty young thang that has hooked up with someone twice your age. Those who dismiss you too quickly should realize that there's a bit more to you than meets the eye … the pretty ones, after all, can be pretty smart in ramping up those restaurant/TV series/production company side gigs.

Take this quiz at Movies.com

False analogies matter...

2006-01-16T22:41:00.000-08:00

In a recent editorial Austin Bay laments the current state of rhetoric:

Take the Rev. Pat Robertson as a recent example of "failure to reflect." When Robertson said that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's tragic stroke might be a divine rebuke for "dividing God's land," a wave of deserved scorn and ridicule swamped the silly man. The White House and The New York Times blasted Robertson, a right-left political condemnation of a right-wing ayatollah.

Idiocy isn't illegal, nor is lying at least, not if one lies in U.S. Senate hearings. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy provides the recent example of hot, emotion-stoking rhetoric untethered by truth. On opening day of Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Kennedy opened up with a faith-based fire Robertson might envy: "Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. In 15 years, not one."

Kennedy's statement is completely false. Alito found for plantiffs alleging racial discrimination on the job in several cases (for example, Zubi v. AT&T Corp. and Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Medical). Kennedy, possibly because of his status as a left-wing political ayatollah, has avoided Robertson's mass condemnation. His snake dance and sanctimony is as poisonous as Robertson's, however, and perhaps more venomous, since his fib slanders Judge Alito.

This is just stupid. These two mistakes are not even remotely ananlogous. I sent the following letter to the Statesman that says everything I want to say on the matter. Hopefully they will print it:

Austin Bay (Words matter - as Robertson and Kennedy should know) argues that Pat Robertson and Sen. Ted Kennedy made similar mistake in recent comments. Robertson stated, idiotically, that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's tragic stroke might be a divine rebuke for "dividing God's land". Kennedy stated, incorrectly, that Judge Alito had never found for plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination. These are NOT similar mistakes. Bay, by suggesting they are, does a huge disservice to his readers.

Robertson made a heartless statement that presumed to know the mind of God. Kennedy's statement, even if intentionally incorrect, was a factual mistake easily refuted by any of the other Senators in the hearing or Judge Alito. It is not in the same ballpark as RobertsonÂs statement.

Bay complains, "In contemporary politics, it seems flame raises more money than fact, and thus fund-raising trumps truth, decency and common sense." His solution might begin at the mirror.

I also sent the letter above to Mr. Bay himself. I wonder if he will respond.

Go Horns!

2006-01-04T22:51:00.000-08:00

Vincent Young is one of the greatest athletes in the history of college football. His performance in this game was amazing. USC was promoted as the greatest team in history by ESPN and others before this game. VY proved them all wrong.

Texas Longhorns National Champions 1963,1969, 1970, 2005,...

Happy to have evolved

2006-01-02T12:05:00.000-08:00

The NY Times has a nice editorial of observations about being an evolved species.

Some people want to think of humans as the product of a special creation, separate from other living things. I am not among them; I am glad it is not so. I am proud to be part of the riot of nature, to know that the same forces that produced me also produced bees, giant ferns and microbes that live at the bottom of the sea.

For me, the knowledge that we evolved is a source of solace and hope. I find it a relief that plagues and cancers and wasp larvae that eat caterpillars alive are the result of the impartial - and comprehensible - forces of evolution rather than the caprices of a deity.

More than that, I find that in viewing ourselves as one species out of hundreds of millions, we become more remarkable, not less so. No other animal that I have heard of can live so peaceably in such close quarters with so many individuals that are unrelated. No other animal routinely bothers to help the sick and the dying, or tries to save those hurt in an earthquake or flood.

A win for science, and American children

2005-12-20T12:03:00.000-08:00

Today a federal judge ruled that Intelligent Design was "not science" and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". For most people with a firm understanding of the primary definition of science this was not surprising, but very gratifying. I haven't had a chance to read the opinion (warning PDF) yet, but I look forward to it. Today is a good day.
Update: I found an interesting article about the verdict in Time Magazine.

Human Intelligence

2005-12-12T07:22:00.000-08:00

Through a meandering of a couple of different websites I found an excellent site that summarizes the hot topics and various controversies surrounding human intelligence. An interesting resource for those of us who are fascinated by how intelligence is analyzed and the correlations and causation of intelligence.

Science, Religion, Truth and Knowledge

2005-12-12T04:48:00.000-08:00

An interesting article in the NY Times magazine mentions the woeful state of the average American's scientific knowledge:

Only one in five has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven't heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy.

The article also mentions the inverse relationship between belief in God and scientific knowledge/experience:

As an empirical matter, however, that does not seem to be true. On the whole, around 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in a personal God. When scientists are surveyed, that figure falls to 4 in 10. Among the scientific elite - members of the National Academy of Sciences - fewer than 1 in 10 say they believe in God, with the biologists in particular professing agnosticism or atheism at a rate of 95 percent.

There are also interesting paragraphs about the Bush Administrations misuse of scientific knowledge and the complex relationship between religion philosophy and science.

Fashion blogging

2005-12-07T23:44:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder why you can't get cordory clothes that go horizontal instead of vertical? Well now you can: http://www.cordarounds.com/

In fact, due to high demand you can now get them in burnt orange ("rust").

It would be nice if I got one of these for Christmas

2005-12-06T11:38:00.000-08:00

Because it would mean that Vince Young won the Heisman Trophy. Order one for yourself!

Oh the weather outside is frightful.....

2005-12-06T06:40:00.000-08:00

Well, according to the Statesman we are going to have some very cold weather this week, including some possible snow Wednesday night into Thursday. Looks like we picked the right week to have a Winter Warm-up party!

We haven't had snow since Valentine's day 2004, and it was like 10-12 years before that! Snow is rare in these parts.

The pic is of me from last time it snowed.

Greatest Bowl Season ever?

2005-12-05T04:37:00.000-08:00

ESPN has an article up today about how this seasons college football bowl matchups look awesome. Of course I am excited about my Longhorns going back to the Rose Bowl to play for the National Championship against arguably one of the greatest college football teams ever, consecutive National Champion and 34 consecutive game winner USC.

Granted, I view the world through burnt orange glasses, but if Texas can play on Jan 4th like they did on Dec. 3 I don't see USC staying with us. My prediction (assuming Vince Young is not injured between now and the final minute) Longhorns 42 Southern Cal 30. Sure they will score more on the Texas D than anyone else this season, but our D will hold them well below their 50 point average. Defense wins championships, right?. Hook'em!

How to respond to accusations of racism

2005-12-03T12:06:00.000-08:00

A very interesting blog post from Alas, a blog about how (white) people should respond to accusations of racism. Some very sound advice, however, I don't think he/she sufficiently emphasizes the second point about taking the criticism seriously. Painful as it may be, all of us have sublte (and maybe not so subtle) prejudices and stereotypes that effect what we think, say, and do.

Wow, that sucks

2005-11-22T23:05:00.000-08:00

Cesar Garcia was trying to help a lady move her car out fo the middle of the road. He was pushing the car from behind and she was steering it. An SUV driver (accidentally?) slammed into the back of the car and sandwitched him in between the two cars. He is in critical condition. His wife is eight months pregnant, they have a 14 month old daughter.

The Austin District of the Texas Department of Transportation has set up a fund to help Garcia's family pay medical costs. Send checks to the Caesar Garcia Fund c/o the Texas Department of Transportation, 7901 Interstate 35 North, Austin, TX 78753, or call 832-7000.

Excellent coverage by Knight-Ridder

2005-11-18T06:16:00.000-08:00

An excellent bit of news analysis by the reporters at Knight-Ridder helps breakdown some of the confusing he-said she-said going on between the White House and critics of the president and the war in Iraq.

Hawkish Democrat says we should pull out of Iraq

2005-11-17T13:57:00.000-08:00

Representative John Murtha (D-Pa) has serious credibility in military issues and will be hard to ignore when he says that the US needs to redeploy all of our troops away from Iraq in the next six months.

Some interesting paragraphs of note:

"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."

....

In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a "cut and run" strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Referring to Bush, Murtha added: "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

....

Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 but in recent months has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said.

Here is a transcript of the press conference.

Scalito

2005-11-16T15:55:00.000-08:00

An editorial in today's NY Times really lays out why (IMHO) Democrats should be working much harder to block Alito from getting on the Court. He is a wolf (wingnut) in sheep's clothing.

Right to Privacy

2005-11-16T13:09:00.000-08:00

A very nice op-ed in the NY Times today about adding a Right to Privacy in the constitution. The author makes the very good point that since much of the foundation of various legal precidents that most Americans hold dear rely upon finding this right in the constitution it should be added explicitly in an amendment.

Problematically, however, a right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The majority in Griswold held that it was among the unenumerated rights implied by the Constitution's "penumbras" (which sound like something a sodomy law might keep you away from). The Griswold case didn't settle the matter, and the right to privacy quickly became the Tinkerbell of constitutional rights: clap your hands if you believe.

Liberals clap. We love the right to privacy because we believe adults should have access to birth control, abortion services and pornography as well as the right to engage in gay sex. Social conservatives hate the right to privacy for the very same reason, as they seek to regulate private behaviors from access to birth control to masturbation. (Think I'm kidding about masturbation? In Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he wrote that the majority's decision called into question the legality of state laws against "masturbation, adultery, fornication.")

...

If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, why can't the Democrats propose a right to privacy amendment? Making this implicit right explicit would forever end the debate about whether there is a right to privacy. And the debate over the bill would force Republicans who opposed it to explain why they don't think Americans deserve a right to privacy - which would alienate not only moderates, but also those libertarian, small-government conservatives who survive only in isolated pockets on the Eastern Seaboard and the American West.

If done correctly it could be an elegant way of attacking conservative ideology. Sweet.

Ticking time bomb excuse for Torture

2005-11-15T10:27:00.000-08:00

Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly does a nice job (with help from Alex Tabarrok) of taking down the argument that is the ticking time bomb scenario as an excuse for legalized torture. Basically the argument is that in that extreme scenario the president could use pardon power (and a jury would probably acquit the torturer regardless).

Interestingly I think John McCain said essentially the same thing in a Newsweek opinion piece..

Instant library

2005-11-14T04:25:00.000-08:00

I don't know if it was coincidence or if he had just read a related article, but my best friend mentioned the idea of buying the entire Penguin's classics library from Amazon last night (as a joke since the 1,082 title collection costs $8,000) and then today I read this article in the NY Times about a woman whose husband bought the collection for her when her personal library was destroyed by a forest fire.

Foundation Communities

2005-11-14T03:27:00.000-08:00

The Statesman has a long article about how some victims of Hurricane Katrina are rebuilding their lives in Austin. The article highlights a great local charity I had never heard of Foundation Communities. Primarily focused on affordable housing the organization has all kinds of other programs to help low-income families. Check it out if you have a few extra bucks lying around or want to Volunteer.

Gerin oil

2005-11-14T01:31:00.000-08:00

On my way through reviewing the winners of the Prospect poll of top public intellectuals and related articles I found an interesting article by Richard Dawkins about the dangerous drug Gerin oil. A disturbing and fascinating read. :-)

Perjury Technicality...

2005-10-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

When I read over the weekend that Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said that she hoped Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would indict Rove or Libby with "..an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality.." I was annoyed. I figured that Hutchison was smarter than that. Perjury was the only crime that President Clinton was ever shown to have done. I was confident that Hutchison had said something completely opposite during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Turns out the Statesman found the quote and published a nice editorial about her hypocrisy.

More Google Maps

2005-10-20T12:57:00.000-07:00

Another article about the interesting ways people are using Google Maps. This one in the NY Times.

Ouch

2005-10-20T12:48:00.000-07:00

I was watching Charlie Rose last night on my local PBS station. Charlie was interviewing Michigan Congressman Jonh Dingell (D). It was an interesting interview about lots of topics (the need for National Health Care being a primary focus). At the end of the interview Charlie asked Rep. Dingell what he thought of the Bush Administration. His response, "I think this is the worst administration since Caligula". LOL!

Must learn Chinese, prepare for new overlords!

2005-10-18T08:48:00.000-07:00

Wow, I don't get out enough. I always thought NYC was the world capital of skyscraping residential buildings and office towers. Wrong. Apparently that title is now firmly held by Shanghai, China. According to an article in the NYT China is in a building frenzy:

This year alone, Shanghai will complete towers with more space for living and working than there is in all the office buildings in New York City.

That is in a city that already has 4,000 skyscrapers, almost double the number in New York. And there are designs to build 1,000 more by the end of this decade.
...
This may just a suggestion of what is ahead. China expects 75 million more farmers to move to cities over the next five years, amounting to one of the biggest mass migrations in history, according to CLSA, a brokerage house specializing in the Asia-Pacific region.
...
It is not surprising that in a country where 170 metropolitan areas have more than a million people, according to government figures, everyone seems to want to be a developer. State-owned oil and steel giants, automobile companies, shipbuilders and even Communist Party newspapers are creating real estate subsidiaries.

A Katrina wrapup

2005-10-05T00:00:00.000-07:00

After receiving a few emails recently about Federal gov vs. State/Local gov on who is to blame for the mess after Katrina hit I decided to post some thoughts.

First, School buses. Various pundits and others have wondered why the flooded school buses shown in a famous AP photo weren't used to evacuate people. There are some fairly simple answers:

Numbers: There weren't enough of them: You would have needed about 2000 buses to evacuate the 100,000+ New Orleans residents without cars. The city only had (at very best) 700 buses available to them.
- http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1120800316204660.xml
- http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005?is_gsa=1&final=1
- http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/buses.asp
Logistics: Even if you had 2000 buses you would still have a logistical nightmare. You would need 2000 drivers able to drive the buses around the city to pick people up, and then drive them at least 50-100 miles to some shelter outside the city. Where are you going to shelter 100,000 people brought by bus? Where are you going to gas up 2000 buses? How are the buses going to get to the shelters outside of town on the already gridlocked highways?
- http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/buses.asp
Money: Evacuating 100,000 people on 2000 buses with paid drivers going 50+ miles to temporary shelters on short notice would be extremely expensive. Especially if the storm turned and didn't hit the city. Or weakened significantly before landfall (see Hurricane Rita). Not only would this be a massive financial loss for a city in already terrible financial shape it would have been political suicide for the mayor and governor. In the wake of Katrina the mayor of Corpus Christi and others down the Texas coast ordered mandatory evacuation of their cities about 2 days before Rita was expected to hit. It made landfall over 200 miles away.

Another issue that has been brought up was why the Mayor didn't call for a mandatory evacuation earlier. There are two simple and related answers to this, both mentioned above:

Money: Ordering a mandatory evacuation is extremely expensive for a city of any significant size. Especially one with a large population without access to transportation. The costs include, but are not limited to: transportation (gas, drivers, vehicle maintenance), food and food preparation for those evacuated to shelters, shelter maintenance (including on-site security, water, electricity), city services (overtime for city emergency workers and security personnel), Legal liability from closing hotels and other businesses, etc. I'm sure one of the reasons why the mayor used the Convention Center and SuperDome as shelters was to mitigate these costs.
Politics: There are lots of political risks associated with calling for a mandatory evacuation. First,the financial considerations above. Second, the fear,frustration, and anger created by evacuation orders to the average citizen with a car and means to evacuate themselves. The inevitable mistakes that will occur when something this complicated occurs (see Texas evacuation issues with Rita). Imagine if they were wrong, like the Mayors of the south Texas coast were with respect to Rita. If an evacuation were ordered and the hurricane hit far away, or weakened sufficiently to be much less damaging, it would be a political disaster for officials involved. Remember the traffic coming out of Houston when Hurricane Rita was bearing down on them? People don't like having their whole lives upturned, especially for no good reason.

Finally, there is a myth about the governor not asking for National Guard help early enough.

The gulf states governors asked for additional troops at least 2-3 days before the storm hit.
- http://mediamatters.org/items/200509080001
- http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

I think the NY Times hit the nail on the head:

The New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, and the former police chief, Edwin Compass, share blame for Katrina's dreadful aftermath. But at the moment of crisis, the buck stops at FEMA. The quality of help that victims of a disaster receive cannot be determined by their location, or their incomes. If Mr. Brown was so dedicated to coordination, he should have been coordinating the effort to get those refugees to safety, not waiting for the church ladies and the Rotarians - who were also flooded out of their homes.

Here are two pretty good timelines of the event:
Think Progress
Wikipedia

Interesting Essay

2005-09-24T00:49:00.000-07:00

I just came across an interesting essay by Salmon Rushdie about atheism. Check it out.

Why can't I own a Canadian?

2005-09-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

I found this while Stumbling around the internet. Great stuff for dealing with biblical literalists.

Fun Facts

2005-09-21T14:59:00.000-07:00

I was looking for a listing of the names of the powers of 10 over trillion and came across this page from the Austin Public Library. Turns out they have a whole site of Fun Facts. Cool.

Hookem Horns

2005-09-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

Wow, what a great game. Maybe it didn't have the last second intensity of the Michigan game in the Rose bowl, but it was awesome. Coming out and taking a quick 10-0 lead then falling down to 16-22 before rallying back to lead 23-22 then to put the icing on the cake the stellar defense gets a safety to put the game away. Texas 25, Ohio State 22. Awesome.

Scary blacks thinking of staying in Texas!

2005-09-07T20:38:00.000-07:00

yes, I'm joking, but Barabara Bush wasn't. I guess that explains why W. is such an elitist asshole. He was raised badly, from poor stock.

Blame Game

2005-09-07T14:06:00.000-07:00

Over the last few days there has been ongoing speculation about who is to blame for the slowness of the response to the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina. Everyone agrees that it took far too long for help to arrive to survivors of the storm. Well this Timeline from Think Progress gives you a clear rundown of the events (with links) and as far as I can tell this is a FEMA FUBAR. The people running FEMA f*cked up bigtime. Of course when you discover that all three of the top people at FEMA are just political cronies with no experience in emergency management you can see why this might have happened. Worst President Ever.

A Failure of Leadership

2005-09-05T17:06:00.000-07:00

In a Monday editorial for the times Bob Herbert states it best:

Like a boy being prepped for a second crack at a failed exam, Mr. Bush has been meeting with his handlers to see what steps can be taken to minimize the political fallout from this latest demonstration of his ineptitude. But this is not about politics. It's about competence. And when the president is so obviously clueless about matters so obviously important, it means that the rest of us, like the people left stranded in New Orleans, are in deep, deep trouble.

Sharp Contrast

2005-09-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

While reading Frank Rich's excellent editorial from the Sunday NY Times I found this paragraph:

But a president who flew from Crawford to Washington in a heartbeat to intervene in the medical case of a single patient, Terri Schiavo, has no business lecturing anyone about playing politics with tragedy. Eventually we're going to have to examine the administration's behavior before, during and after this storm as closely as its history before, during and after 9/11. We're going to have to ask if troops and materiel of all kinds could have arrived faster without the drain of national resources into a quagmire. We're going to have to ask why it took almost two days of people being without food, shelter and water for Mr. Bush to get back to Washington.

I had totally forgotten about the way Georgie and jumped to do the right(white)-wing's bidding in the Schivo case. It is stunning when we are reminded of these actions in juxtaposition. Bush flew from Crawford in the early hours of the morning (disturbing the usual 8-10 hours he gets a night) in order to sign a bill that would force action on the Terry Schiavo case. Yet, as New Orleans was still filling with water he was sleeping in Crawford.

Failing upward

2005-09-05T15:05:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush failed upward. He has never been successful at anything. He would come out fine personally, but every organization or company that we was in charge of would be in worse shape after he was there than before. This pattern is, obviously, being repeated on a much larger scale in the U.S. today. The higher the post the bigger the failures.

Unfortunately, Bush isn't the only member of his administration to fail upward. One example, FEMA director Michael Brown. Yeah, the guy in charge of disaster relief for Katrina has failed upward, very upward. After all, a guy who gets fired from being the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association (his full-time job!) really shouldn't have been elevated to deputy director of FEMA (and later elevated to director). This is just sad.

People complain about affirmative action suggesting that a less qualified minority candidate may be put in a position that they are not prepared for and thus underperform. Certainly a point to consider if evidence were to show it to be true. However, I think the Bush administration's cronyism has proven to be worse than could have been imagined.

Update: Maureen Dowd says it elequently in the Saturday Times:

Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.

I guess she didn't know the horse lovers fired his ass.

Update 2 : Krugman does an even better job on Monday:

But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael Brown as Mr. Allbaugh's successor.

Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of FEMA; The Boston Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown became the agency's director. The raw cronyism of that appointment showed the contempt the administration felt for the agency; one can only imagine the effects on staff morale.

Wow, that is a bit excessive

2005-09-03T10:52:00.000-07:00

There is an article in the Saturday NY Times about the outrage across the U.S, and the world at the government's response to Katrina. One paragraph that I thought was interesting (if a bit overstated):

"I am absolutely disgusted," said Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, watching a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka, according to the Reuters news agency. "After the tsunami, our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help the others who were suffering. Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S., we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."

Could we lose New Orleans entirely?

2005-09-01T12:31:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking about the fact that the Atlantic hurricane season is just hitting its stride, it doesn't end until November 30th. Most of the worst US hurricanes have come in September and according to forecasts this season is expected to be particularly violent. It is entirely possible that another hurricane could hit the Gulf coast region and make reconstruction efforts impossible along with wreaking additional havoc.

If you think things are bad in those places now, imagine if another hurricane hits while we are still trying to do the basic reconstruction efforts (like reinforcing the levees around New Orleans). Scary thoughts...

His pet Goat

2005-08-31T09:33:00.000-07:00

An Austin man was in violation of a city ordinance because his pet goat was too close to his neighbors house. So the Mayor changed the law for him. Although I don't think Nik the goat should have been forced away I think the Mayor should have amended the law so that all "livestock" less than say 40 lbs be allowed. After all, what about the guy down the street with the pet pig?

Maybe God just hates George W. Bush?

2005-08-30T21:56:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading this Pandagon post by fellow Austinite Amanda Marcotte about how some moronic anti-choice group decided that hurricane Katrina looked like a fetus and thus was an obvious sign from God that abortion was bad.

Using this same kind of logic, simpler actually, I have deduced that God hates George W. Bush and wants to punish him. Look at the evidence:

First, God doesn't give Bush a legitimate election win in 2000, forever tarnishing his presidency. Then WHAM 9/11 and God makes him look like a complete ass by having him sit their and read a children's book for like 20 minutes after learning it is going on. The stock bubble bursts and the country slides into recession which along with falling revenue (partially due to stupid tax cuts) leads the country into the worst fiscal state in decades. God keeps Bush's popularity high so that he can attack Iraq and come 2004 he just barely squeaks by with a win for re-election. Once the election is over BAM-BAM, his ratings tank to Watergate levels thanks to the total FUBAR going on in Iraq, high gas prices, and a pissed off Mom protesting him. Then, just to show who is in charge and making all of this shit go down God sends a bad-ass hurricane to create the Worst National Disaster in US history! And he/she/it does this while Bush is on VACATION.

I don't know what Georgie did to piss God off but I sincerely hope God decides to forgive and be merciful soon or the whole damn country may be destroyed by earthquakes, tornados, flooding and probably locusts.

Please donate to the Red Cross. Maybe God will spare the rest of us for being charitable.

P.S. Being an atheist I have no idea what "God" thinks. But since I don't believe any God exists I don't believe anyone else knows more about it than me.

Atrios is right

2005-08-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

This Washington Post article is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I am going to give Ms. Jenkins the benefit of the doubt, since she has written some intelligent articles before, but she clearly doesn't know what she is talking about when it comes to intelligent design.

It took an Editorial to do it...

2005-08-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

...but the Sunday NY Times finally has a decent article about Intelligent Design that basically calls it out for what it is, religion confused for science. The editorial is spread over a couple of pages so that all of the points can be laid out. One nice paragraph:

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

And another:

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

Read the whole thing.

Another interesting comment by Justice Stevens

2005-08-25T15:24:00.000-07:00

I was reading through the text of the speech that Justice John Paul Stevens delivered to the American Bar Association and came upon this excellent paragraph:

When gerrymandering tactics are successful, instead of having the voters choose their representatives, the legislators choose their constituents. In my judgment the ever-increasing use of such tactics has had an insidious effect on the quality of the legislative process, making primary elections more important than general elections, favoring extremists over moderates in both parties, and generally making confrontation seem more acceptable than compromise. I remain convinced that the Supreme Court was not faithful to the principles that produced the decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims when it perversely concluded that political gerrymandering, unlike racial gerrymandering, is nonjusticiable. In the long run, however, the most effective response to gerrymandering must be provided by voters, and by candidates like Abner Mikva.

Supreme Opinion

2005-08-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

Most people realize that the Supreme Court is important, but few people really recognize how amazing the power of the nine is. These individuals are nominated for life (or very close to it, resigning anywhere from a few years to mere months before death) leading to 30+ years terms for many of these individuals. In the Thursday NY Times there is an interesting article covering the speech made by Justice John Paul Stevens to the American Bar Association.

In the article they describe how Justice Stevens felt torn about some of the most recent opionions on wrote for the majority:

The outcomes were "unwise," he said, but "in each I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator."

In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional attack.

His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.

Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."

Religious Fanatics

2005-08-23T21:45:00.000-07:00

How would the US respond if some Iranian cleric proposed assassinating President Bush? Not some random cleric either, one that had actually run for President! Well, Pat Robertson suggested the US should kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Sure he is a rough leftist populist who wields his country's oil like a stick, but at least he was properly ELECTED (unlike say the "President" Musharraf of Pakistan). I can only hope that this idiot's ideas are not followed in our government anywhere. The US assasination policy never did us much good and did a great deal of harm (see Iran for examples).

Libruls rule Conservatives drul

2005-08-22T10:55:00.000-07:00

They finally posted the results from the study and it shows that Liberals are clearly far and away better than Conservatives. No doubt. Cheers!

Discovery Institute tool of Christian conservatives!

2005-08-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

Not that this should shock anyone. The NY Times has a reasonably good investigative piece about the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute for those of you who don't know is the primary engine behind the idea of Intelligent Design. I have written about ID before here and here.

The article in the Times is pretty good, but doesn't do a good enough job of pointing out that they are basically promoting teaching religion instead of science. Intelligent design is not science. It is not science based. It has no scientific theories. It is philosophy. It makes false claims about what evolution is and what evidence exists for evolution. It is making people dumber, less analytical, and attacking real science. They may have good intentions (in their own minds), but they are hurting America.

Cops Iraqi style

2005-08-22T03:38:00.000-07:00

I don't know much about the real situation on the ground in Iraq, but it is always nice to read something positive about the situation. This AP article about a "Cops" style program in Kirkuk makes you hopeful that some good things have come with the bad that has happened in Iraq over the last three years.

Intelligent Falling

2005-08-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

As if the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate wasn't enough, now there is the debate between Gravity and Intelligent Falling! Where will it all end! ;-)

Krugman swings hard

2005-08-19T14:48:00.000-07:00

In today's NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman swings hard at the Republican party. Specifically he argues that they have been and will continue to attempt to suppress Democratic voters during elections. He doesn't mention that the increasing pressure to use electronic voting machines without paper receipts will make this easier...

More Housing Buble

2005-08-16T00:15:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I mentioned how I thought it was strange that the NYTimes mentioned Austin in an article about the impending bust of the housing bubble. Well, today CNN reported that the bubble continues to be frothy with "U.S. home prices rose at an annual rate of 13.6 percent, to a median price of $208,300." Additionally, they provide a list of over 150 metropolitan markets.

What about the Austin-Round Rock market you ask? Well, according to the report we have a year-to-year increase of 5%, yeilding a median home value of $166,800. That is a nice rate, (I have read that 3-5% annually is about average) but nothing special. Particularly during a "boom" in the housing market. For comparison here the Texas Metropolitan Areas mentioned, in order of growth:

Metropolitan Area	Growth	Median Price
El Paso	13.4%	$108,900
Amarillo	11.4%	$107,400
Corpus Christi	10.3%	$123,000
San Antonio	7.5%	$134,000
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington	5.7%	$149,100
Austin-Round Rock	5.0%	$166,800
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land	2.4%	$142,500
Beaumont-Port Arthur	0.6%	96,500

By the way, yes Austin does have the highest median home price, but that has been true for almost a decade now and isn't really related to the boom (at least not this one).

Iraq smackdown

2005-08-14T01:01:00.000-07:00

Wow, Frank Rich provides W. with a smackdown on Iraq in his NY Times editorial today. Someone Tell the President the War is Over. This paragraph makes the most salient point in my view:

The endgame for American involvement in Iraq will be of a piece with the rest of this sorry history. "It makes no sense for the commander in chief to put out a timetable" for withdrawal, Mr. Bush declared on the same day that 14 of those Ohio troops were killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha. But even as he spoke, the war's actual commander, Gen. George Casey, had already publicly set a timetable for "some fairly substantial reductions" to start next spring. Officially this calendar is tied to the next round of Iraqi elections, but it's quite another election this administration has in mind. The priority now is less to save Jessica Lynch (or Iraqi democracy) than to save Rick Santorum and every other endangered Republican facing voters in November 2006.

Housing market bubble- Why mention Austin?

2005-08-13T16:33:00.000-07:00

I find it strange that this article in the NYTimes mentions Austin as one of the markets where home price appreciation has slowed. Slowed? Austin hasn't had price appreciation like most of the other markets they mention since 2000. This article in the March 2, 2005 Austin American Statesman makes the point that the PMI group thinks there is only about a 16% chance of a significant decline in the Austin home price market (as compared to a 21% chance on average across the country). You can see this laid out in the PMI group's Economic and Real Estate Trends (ERET) from March. General info can be found here.

Best cities for Singles

2005-08-13T15:36:00.000-07:00

I had an argument last night with some friends over whether Austin was a good city for singles or not. We all agree that Austin women are HOT, but I said unfortunately Austin isn't a great city for single guys since there are more of us than single women. My friends disagreed and said that Forbes magazine had ranked Austin #1 best city for singles. They were right.

Unfortunately, when you look at the methodology for the ranking you see this:

Singles: The number of singles is based on the percentage of a metro's population above the age of 15 that has never been married. Data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Nothing about male/female ratios which is where the problem in Austin comes in. Austin is a great town for single WOMEN. Because there are 30K more men! For men on the other hand I think NYC would be a better option where there are 420K more women. I'll grant that the census bureau factsheets don't breakdown the singles for you in any easy way. I would love to have the number of singles between the ages of 21-45 to compare. But just on raw numbers I am going to argue that NYC is a better bet for a single guy than Austin.

Heck even Spokane, Washington has 10K more females than males!

Iraq

2005-08-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

There is a very disturbing article in Sunday NY Times about the state of affairs in Iraq. Scary stuff.

Texas a Majority Minority State

2005-08-12T16:18:00.000-07:00

Another interesting article in the Times. This one about the changing demographic landscape of the US. The article is spurred by the fact that according to the most recent information from the US Census Bureau Texas has become a majority minority state (along with California, Hawaii and New Mexico). Hopefully this will have the effects that Democrats have been talking about for years and swell the number of Democrats in the country.

Internship in India

2005-08-12T16:13:00.000-07:00

An interesting article in the NY Times about how MBA students are starting to take their summer internship (between the 1st and 2nd year) and go work for companies in India. This makes lots of sense (for reasons they outline in the article) and indeed is something I would like to do someday. My best friend is Indian so I already have a bit of comfort with the culture, but I'm sure there would be some interesting experiences.

More ID commentary

2005-08-11T22:51:00.000-07:00

Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog has a post up about some recent article on Intelligent Design. Kevin links to a long article in The New Republic that describes some of the history of ID and "Scientific" Creationism as well as modern context. It is very good. If you want to get behind the subscription wall I recommend going to BugMeNot.com.

One of the more interesting paragraphs in the New Republic article is this one explaining the definition of a scientific theory is:

It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not "just a theory." It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate "theory" with "hunch" or "wild guess," the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of "atomic theory" and "gravitational theory" as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the factuality of gravity.

Maybe, due to the linguistic disadvantage that "theory" produces, people should simply stop referring to "Evolutionary Theory" and refer instead to the "Evolutionary Model". That removes the weak term theory, while retaining all of the important intellectual components. Additionally it allows for the use of the question, "Do you have a better model than evolution for explaining all the facts in genetics, geology and biogeography?" ID has no honest answer to that question.

Journalism: not just what you want to hear, what you need to know

2005-08-10T23:16:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting post at the Statesman's editors blog about the role of the newspaper and coverage of the war in Iraq.

Of course I couldn't stop myself from posting a comment.

Can You Believe in God and Evolution?

2005-08-08T05:08:00.000-07:00

I came across this article in this week's Time magazine about the Evolution Wars The article quotes four different authority figures, each with a different answer to the question "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?".

This is typical of the he said/she said crap you see about most complex issues nowadays, but this is an opinion piece and I can't read the cover story due to the subscription wall so maybe they did a better job there. This type of article simply allows readers to confirm their own bias by associating it with an authority figure. So here is my bias, I liked this one by Steven Pinker, Psychology professor, Harvard University:

It's natural to think that living things must be the handiwork of a designer. But it was also natural to think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming naive impressions to figure out how things really work is one of humanity's highest callings.

Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.

The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.

The theory of natural selection explains life as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it is capable of producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer).

Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.

The Time coverage does include this well written opinion piece by Dr. Charles Krauthammer that points out how Intelligent Design is NOT science.

For a scientific view of the Intelligent Design questions: Read this article at Panda's Thumb. This entry at the Skeptic's dictionary. And check out the TalkDesign and TalkOrigins websites.

What's next an internship with Nike?

2005-08-04T12:05:00.000-07:00

Read this fluff story on CNN about two young Massachusetts boys who were reported to police for not having a vendors license to sell lemonade. Apparently a worker at a nearby sausage and lemonade vendor reported them and the police were forced to shut them down for lack of a vendor's license. The mayor steps in for the Public Relations coup and gets the owner of the business to allow the boys to work as subcontractors on his vending license.

It is a cute story, but it makes me wonder. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but what about child labor laws? What about the owner's liability if one of his "subcontractors" is hurt on the job, or a customer gets ill. It seems to me this thing opens all kind of ugly legal windows. Of course, the Mayor comes out clean as a whistle and the vendor had to do something to restore his name in the community (for the sake of his business).

2005-07-28T14:15:00.000-07:00

After re-reading the second Statesman post on the "turd-blossom" issue I wanted to make an additional comment. Censorship is not just " function of the state, not a newspaper", that is simply a more well known form. The first definition according to the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2004 for censor:

A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

This case would obviously apply.

To Pledge or not to pledge

2005-07-28T13:45:00.000-07:00

There is an article in Wednesday's Statesman about a Wimberly city council member that does not recite the pledge to the Texas flag. They mention in the article that in "2003 the Legislature required all public school students to say the U.S. and Texas pledges daily". This annoys the heck out of me. What is the point of performing these pledges? This just wastes valuable teaching time. We should be using those 2-5 minutes everyday to teach something about US government or Texas history. Wouldn't that be more valuable. I bet the kids in India and China that our kids are going to be competing with aren't wasting time on such jingoistic clap-trap. Don't get me started on the idiocy of the Moment of Silence that is mandatory as well.

2005-07-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

The Austin American Statesman has decided to pull the two most recent Doonesbury comic strips due to their use of the term "turd-blossom". The Statesman is not the only paper that decided not to run the strips. See this post on the Editor's blog for more info. They ask for comments in the blog on the issue and I posted a note:

I would have published the strip, but I don't think "turd" is profanity. I must have a degraded sense of the language.

Has anyone done a lexis-nexis search on the use of the word in the Statesman and print generally? I would be very curious to see the results. I know the name was mentioned in a Time magazine profile of Rove.

This isn't something that would be difficult for someone on the staff to do. Almost every reporter and certainly every major news paper has a subscription to the Lexis-Nexis service and would be skilled enough to perform just such a search to determine what number of actual uses of "turd" there have been in their paper in the last 5/10/25 years and do a similar search amongst all newspapers and then generally in print media. At least I think this is easy. I haven't done a Lexis-Nexis search in about 8-10 years, but it seemed pretty easy to use back then.

Note that according to dictionary.reference.com turd is considered vulgar.

Update: The Statesman Editorial Blog has put up another post on the issue. Apparently most of the readers disagree with their action.

Letter printed!

2005-07-19T12:25:00.000-07:00

My letter to the statesman was printed on Saturday. See this post for background. They took their sweet time posting it, but who cares. I had to pare down my original version from about 350 words to 150, but amazingly it took very little away from my letter (which shows it was much too long to begin with). Anyhow if you are interested here it is posted in the Statesman's Letters to the Editor website. It is the 4th letter, about half way down the page with the title "Blame was premature", which isn't nearly as good as my title,"When you assume...", but whatever. ;-)

Letters...

2005-07-14T14:56:00.000-07:00

I have read media reports of both my Senators showing support for Karl Rove in his revelation of a NOC CIA agent. This bothered me so I sent Senators Hutchison and Cornyn a letter:

I am very disturbed that you felt it appropriate to defend Karl Rove for his actions in revealing the identity of a NOC CIA agent. Regardless of Mr. Rove's intentions in this matter, and I am not certain they were ethical either, the revelation of this information borders on treason. Mr. Rove put the CIA operative, her family, other agents using the same cover and US allies with whom she had contact in danger by revealing this information. Additionally, he made it much more difficult for other agents to recruit informational assets in the future, and made it more difficult to recruit and keep NOC agents for the CIA itself. This is an enormous amount of damage that goes directly to the heart of US national security. I hope you will reconsider your support of Mr. Rove in this affair and will instead call for his dismissal and possible criminal prosecution. In light of 9/11 America's national security must be protected.

If you agree send your Senator a letter as well. Texans should start here.

When you assume...

2005-07-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

After reading this editorial in Friday's online Austin American Statesman, I felt it deserved a letter in response, so here is what I sent:

After reading today's editorial "Britain won't be defeated by terrorists" I am concerned that you jumped to conclusions about the source of the attack and the goals of its vicious perpetrators.

In the editorial you specifically cite al Qaeda as the perpetrator and then go as far as to assume the goal of the bombing. Most suspected al Qaeda when the bombings occurred in Oklahoma City too. We were wrong. We shouldn't assume we know the perpetrator of this incident until an investigation leads to evidence giving us a basis to make such claims. Accusations before that time only serve to muddy the waters. Also, please remember just because some group makes a claim to have done this doesn't mean it is true. We should follow the evidence, and then make educated decisions about who is the culprit.

After making the assumption that al Qaeda is the culprit you write, "Terrorists might be disappointed if they expect the government in London to react like Madrid's did last year and pull its troops out of Iraq.", and, "If all foreign troops left Iraq today, al Qaeda would make other demands..." We don't know what the perpetrators goal was. It is not illogical to assume that this attack could have been performed for demented reasons that have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It is even possible that this attack was intended to refocus us on Iraq, to keep us from focusing on North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan. Making such assumptions is a serious problem. It tempts people to respond to ideas that might otherwise be reasonable with the response, "We can't do that because that is what the terrorists want!" It encourages everyone to play pop psychologist guessing what the terrorists want us to do, so we can do the opposite. It makes rational debate impossible.

Neither Britain nor America will be defeated by terrorist. We will respond to this attack by finding those responsible, holding them accountable, and working to prevent such attacks in the future. Throwing out unfounded accusations and making assumptions about the purpose of the attack only makes that job harder. You may turn out to have been correct on both counts, but that will not justify the mistakes made in the editorial.

I don't care if they print it or not, I just hope they read it and realize the mistake.

Update: Minor spelling mistake fixed and one sentence added.

Hitched to Idiocy

2005-06-28T15:02:00.000-07:00

I read this post on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, then read the Slate article. Here are some thoughts:

1) The armed forces should be open to any who are willing and able to serve regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality or nationality. As a liberal this is what I believe and what most liberals I know believe. This is an entirely separate issue from how people feel about the conflicts we are involved in.

2) There is good reason why people (liberal or not) bring up the point about pundits and leaders sending their grown children off to war. These people argue for sacrifice of other people's children (usually lower income, often minorities) to fight and die in these battles. These chicken hawks have no investment in the battle themselves. They don't go to the funerals. They don't visit the hospital rooms of the wounded. They speak blithely about the greatness and honor of our soldiers, but do little to actually show respect or help them. The calls for them to send their children or themselves is a rhetorical tool to provoke thought about the fact that other people, OUR TROOPS, DID make that exact choice. Our soldiers did chose to enlist and make that sacrifice, but these chicken hawks have shown none of that integrity. In fact, not only do they not choose to enlist themselves or suggest it to their families they don't attempt to encourage ANYONE in their spheres of influence to enlist. It is that arrogance and hypocrisy that induces the "send your son or yourself" response.

3) Everyone has the right to speak about the war however they wish. I have never served in the armed forces, that shouldn't exclude me from the discussion either. It is as much my country as theirs. But I am not calling for the sacrifice of lives. The hypocrites being attacked are and there is an exception in 1st amendment rights about fighting words that goes to the basis of my concern. Chicken hawks urge and incite people to support an action, but they run away from the consequences.

4) Hitchens flails his hands with an argument about how people didn't send their children into the twin towers. The number of differences between that tragedy and the war in Iraq are so numerous as to make comparisons ludicrous.

5) Hitchens mentions the sons of Stalin and Moa. He is right that the actions of those children do not spur endorsement of Communism. Rather, it shows the intellectual honesty of those men. They believed in their ideals and encourage those closest to them to make the ultimate sacrifice for those principles. The principles were wrong, but at least they weren't hypocrites sending other peoples children to die for what they professed.

6) Note that Hitchens attempts the disgusting strategy of conflating Afghanistan and Iraq in his final paragraph. He notes that nobody is asking for an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan. What idiocy! We have literally one tenth the number of troops in Afghanistan. For all practical purposes we have already exited (see Korean troop levels for comparison). Iraq on the other hand looks to be a *very* long term engagement. Rumsfeld has mentioned, "[I]nsurgencies tend to go on 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 years". Rice has said, “[T]he Administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq,". These are unbelievably different scenarios and the fact Hitchens attempt to connect the two (and thus Saddam = Terrorists, despite zero evidence) is Orwellian.

Houston ISD, helping move Texas back to the third world

2005-05-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

After reading this Lasso post and the Houston Chronicle article I am disgusted. The Houston ISD superintendent wants to rollback the Math and Science requirements for High School students. At a time when America is soundly beaten by most of Europe and Asia in national science exams he wants to decrease the amount of education that students receive in these disciplines. Why is he in education? The only logic for this that I can think of is that it might increase graduation rates. Which, from what I have read, are pretty terrible in Houston. The logic therefore goes, "Many of our students aren't graduating, lets lower the bar so it is easier for them to get a diploma, even if they are less prepared for a job or life for that matter." despicable.

As a side note I noticed at the end of the Chronicle article that AISD only requires two math and science courses to graduate and I certainly think that should be upped to 3 if not 4. I took science and math courses every semester for all 4 years of high school and I still feel I wasn't terribly well prepared for the courses at UT. I can't imagine how tough it would have been if I hadn't taken all of those courses and had continuous exposure to the disciplines.

Austin City Limits Festival

2005-05-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

The Austin City Limits festival looks to be excellent in its 3rd year. The lineup is great and includes Coldplay, Widespread Panic, Oasis, The Black Crowes, The Allman Brothers Band, Wilco, Jimmy Cliff, Robert Randolph & The Family Band, Lyle Lovett, John Prine, Lucinda Williams, Robert Earl Keen, Jason Mraz, Asleep at the Wheel, Blue October, Groupo Fantasmo, etc...

This article in the Austin American Statesman gives a nice rundown of the situation.

They lowered the number of tickets available this year from 75K to 65K so it won't be so crowded. The tickets are going for $105 for a 3 day pass at this point but according to the Statesman article they expect to sell out in either June or July. So buy your tickets now and mark down the date:

September 23-25, 2005 - Zilker Park - Austin, TX

Statesman posts my letter

2005-05-11T14:03:00.000-07:00

They posted it last week actually, but I was in New Orleans for my older brother's bachelor party so I didn't have a chance to post about it. Here is the post on the Editor's blog.

Shut Up, Stupid

2005-05-04T22:12:00.000-07:00

I was reading the Austin American Statesman's editors blog and came along this post describing the complaints and concerns that a reader had about an article the Statesman posted about terrorists attacking our food supply. This reader thought that articles about such topics were "stupid" and that they should just "shut up". This (along with similar concerns voiced in other posts on their blog) annoyed me so I wrote him a letter:

Fred,

I just finished reading your post "Shut Up, Stupid" on the Rich & Fred blog. I think this caller represents a constant challenge to journalists and information managers generally. A significant segment of our population feels that negative news or complete information about certain topics should simply not be voiced.

These people have many reasons ranging from hurting morale to endangering children. These people feel that mere knowledge of facts and figures is dangerous or bad. Certainly, as you mention in your post, some information is dangerous and should not be made easily accessible. There is no need for the Statesman to run an article and diagrams on how to make a bomb out of household goods. Having said that, very little information should be placed beyond easy public reach. Articles about "Contractors running amok in Iraq", photo tributes to soldiers lost in war, and articles about possible terrorist threats are exactly the kind of information the public needs.

These examples provide context and important information about complex topics that effect our lives. Individuals who wish to hide this information follow some sort of panglossian ethic that ignoring information will make it go away or prevent more negatives from occurring. There is a particular arrogance to these people believing they know what is best for the public to know.

I think, and I believe history shows, it is the highest and most important job of a journalist to report on these topics. It is vitally important that the public have *all* the relevant information so that they can make informed decisions about how to spend their money, elect their leaders, and educate their children. The world is a complex, nuanced, good with the bad, shades of gray place and adults should be able to deal with that fact.

Thank you for your time. Keep the good work.

Sincerely,

William J. McKenna

p.s. Although all of my examples reference war related topics, the same concerns show up when reporting on sex education in high school, homosexuality, abortion, etc...

The cool thing is he replied back and said, "Your eloquence is powerful." That is just about the best compliment I have ever gotten for something I wrote. Sweet!

Google fascinates once again

2005-04-18T12:12:00.000-07:00

This post on the Washington Monthly blog got me clicking all kinds of interesting links. It is amazing to discover the uses people are able to come up with for large databases of information. The google maps satellite photo database has spurred all kinds of interesting uses and made looking at a map much more interesting. Looking at the Washington Monument and the White House on a regular map can be interesting, but looking at a photo of it from a birds eye view is fascinating. Check out the interesting Wired Magazine article that discusses some of the fascinating things that have been caught in satellite photos. Then look at the Google Sightseeing blog and check out some of their amazing links.

Title Insurance

2005-04-13T14:53:00.000-07:00

My Future Sister in law sent me an email joke today about a lawyer attempting to get a home loan for his clients:

A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down. After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply

(Actual letter):

"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."

Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter):

"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S., from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella.

The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus' expedition. Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God,it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called Louisiana.

God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back, to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it AND the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our damn loan?"

The loan was approved.

I just thought this begged for a follow-up. Assuming that you remove the last line from the joke, I think this would have been a nice reply letter:

"Dear Sir:

We appreciate your further explanation as to the title history of the property, however, after reviewing the title history on record with the state it appears there is an alternate claim to the property.

According to the counter claim the property was taken from the claimants unlawfully, without contract or title transfer, by the Spanish and French. Turns out there are numerous records for their claim.

These claimants state that they had held the land continuously for over 2,000 years prior to the arrival of Captain Columbus. According to their claim they had been a nomadic tribe for some time and decided to settle down. The chief and medicine man consulted the Spirits. They were directed by the Spirits to the described property and told that they were to care for the land until the end of time.

As there claim appears to have an equal basis to yours, title passage by Right of Supernatural Delegation, and a much longer history. They appear to have the stronger claim. Therefore, in order to verify your claim we need a sworn statement from God that he gave it to the Pope and not to the Indians. We await your reply.

Sincerely,

Joseph AngryBear
FHA Loan Director"

Update: Columbus was not a "Spanish sea Captain", he was an Italian sea Captain sailing under the Spanish flag. See comments for context. Other minor grammatical errors also fixed since I was messing around anyhow.

Dance Monkey Dance

2005-04-10T02:04:00.000-07:00

This is really funny. At the same time I think it actually make a good philosophical point.

2D:4D finger length ratio

2005-04-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

I read a couple of different news articles over the last year or so about the interesting correlations between the ratio of your index finger(2D, second digit) to your ring finger(4D, fourth digit) and various primarily male traits. Researchers don't know exactly what causes the ring finger to be longer than the index finger (as measured from the basal crease, the crease at the bottom of the finger where it attaches to the palm). It is theorized that it has to due with pre-natal testosterone levels in the womb. Men have a lower ratio than women across all populations and the ratio is not believed to change over your lifetime. Additionally research has shown that the ratio is a better predictor when using the right hand instead of the left (although I am curious if they adjust for hand dominance).

Anyway it turns out that a bunch of interesting studies have been done on this and all kinds of fascinating results have been found. In all cases I will try to describe the results based on the perspective of having a lower ratio(ie. significantly longer ring finger than the index finger), which is considered generally to be associated with more masculine traits. Here is a taste of what the research suggests:

Men with a lower ratio correlates with more Physical Aggression

Better asymmetrical hand performance in Jamaican children

Across ethnic groups Afro-Caribbean blacks have the lowest ratios, with Oriental Hans having the highest

Low ratios correlates to larger families for men, whereas high ratios correlate to larger families for women

Lower ratios correlate with a lower likely hood of homosexuality.

A lower ratio correlates to better performance in skiing

It also correlates with a better ability to play soccer (football outside the US).

Increased likely hood to be a "butch" lesbian versus a "femme" lesbian among self-described lesbians

Lower ratios suggest a higher likelihood to have Autism and possibly Asperger syndrome

There are lots of interesting available abstracts on the National Library of Medicine . Just search their PubMed website for "2D:4D ratio" there were 47 abstracts when I did it today.

Bonus: An interview with the scientist that did the study on soccer players

World perspective

2005-03-29T23:23:00.000-08:00

I was looking at my customized Google News site tonight and noticed something bizarre. At the top of my Austin Texas Section was a link entitled "Texas at war over state bread". I thought, interesting so now there is a war over who's Texas Toast is the REAL Texas toast? But no, the article is about state Reps introducing bills to make either pan de campo or sourdough biscuits the official state bread. None of that was very interesting though once I realized that the link was to newkerala.com. What is newkerala.com? Well it is a daily new site in Kerala, India! That was the bizarre part. Somebody in Kerala, India thought that the story about controversy over the state bread in Texas was worth picking up off the UPI wire. It is amazing to me to think about how connected our world has become over my lifetime.

Of course the local paper put the legislative item of real importance on their front page. A bill that would bar Texas colleges from participating in the BCS bowls unless there was a playoff. In reality this just effects UT since none of the other Texas schools have a chance of being BCS schools anytime soon (sorry Ags).

As a final note, when will someone speak out for Texas Toast?!

Paying the kidnappers

2005-03-12T14:56:00.000-08:00

I had a disagreement last week with my future sister-in-law (FSIL) about paying kidnappers to release hostages. We had been talking about the release of the Italian journalist from capture and subsequent near death experience at the hands of US soldiers. I mentioned that her captors had actually told her that she needed to watch out for the Americans because they didn't want her released.

Why didn't the Americans want her released?

Because in order to get her released the Italian government supposedly paid $10 million. I don't know whether that is true or not, but I believe it. This journalist is not the first kidnap victim to be released after a ransom is paid and she won't be the last.

I mentioned that I thought paying the ransom was wrong. My FSIL disagreed vehemently. She felt very strongly that you should pay a ransom, do whatever was necessary to get your loved one released. I don't think people should pay kidnappers. Ever.

Paying a kidnapper rewards them for very bad behavior.
It shows them that there is a benefit to kidnapping and provides incentive to kidnap more people in the future.
It also provides funds to pursue additional kidnapping or other criminal(terrorist?) activities.

For those reasons alone I wouldn't want to pay off kidnappers. If I were kidnapped I would rather die than see them win the lottery for kidnapping me. It makes me sick to think that my being released might provide the funds for criminals to hold another 100 people hostage. Ten million dollars could certainly fund a brand new 9/11 style attack if the right group received the funds. I wouldn't want that on my head. I would rather die. Having said that, if, hypothetically, my pregnant wife were taken hostage I would have a very hard time sticking to my principles. I don't pretend to know how I would react if I were actually presented with that situation, but I truly believe it is wrong to pay off kidnappers. Needless to say my FSIL and I never came to agreement on the issue.

More information on the Bankruptcy bill

2005-03-08T10:59:00.000-08:00

Noted Economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman has an op-ed about the bill. Read it.

Morally bankrupt bill

2005-03-08T10:16:00.000-08:00

At present the US Senate is considering a bill that would radically undermine the bankruptcy protections that citizens in the US have. Its proponents suggest that this bill is designed to fight fraud but this law goes far beyond fighting fraud. For more information on the bill look here and here. I highly recommend you contact your federal representatives concerning this bill. The letter I sent to my Senators is below:

Dear Honorable Senator:

I am writing you today because I am very concerned about the Bankruptcy reform bill. Everything I have read about the bill tells me that this bill is bad for the average American and good for the large Credit Card companies. I certainly don't think that someone should be allowed to ignore their debts, but certain reasonable exceptions should be made. This bill does not allow for any subjective consideration of the circumstances that caused an individual to go into bankruptcy. It doesn't respect the fact that two thirds of the individuals filing for bankruptcy are filing due to medical expenses, not fraud or wild weekends on Rodeo drive. Additionally a major flaw in this bill is that it does not allow any exemption for homes of even modest value. If this bill were to become law an individual forced into bankruptcy due to being injured while protecting America from terrorists could loose their home and be forced to live on the streets. That is unacceptable. For these and many reasons I ask that the good Senator work to defeat this bill and ensure that nothing like it ever reaches the floor of the senate again.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Will

To contact your senator go to the Senate Website. For those of you in Texas contact John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Update: See today's NY Times op-ed by Paul Krugman

Even our Highway exits tell you Texas is BIG

2005-03-07T21:55:00.000-08:00

Say you are driving northbound on I-35 in south Austin and are planning on exiting on Ben White going West (H-71 for you foreigners). The highway exit sign should help you by telling you nearby cities that you would be heading toward if you take that exit. It might suggest that if you exit there you would be headed toward Llano (73 miles away) or even San Angelo (225 miles away), but no the sign mentions El Paso (over 600! miles away). Holy Crap! That is just crazy. But true. Of course, as John Kelso of the Austin American Statesman tells us, they figured out that this was a bit odd and are going to fix it. Too bad for all those folks who were hoping to make that day trip to El Paso from San Marcos. ;-)

Greenspan is a Hack

2005-03-07T19:40:00.000-08:00

Atrios wrote about this article in the LA Times. In the article Ron Brownstein explains why the once highly esteemed Fed Reserve Chairman has shown himself to be a hypocritical partisan hack. It is sad to see this respected purportedly independent government official ruin his legacy. What does the Bush family have on these people? (...paging Colin Powell... Colin Powell please come to the nearest courtesy phone)

The Great Helen Thomas

2005-03-07T15:28:00.000-08:00

After reading this post on First Draft I went and read the article in the Troy Record. Holden of First Draft thought the most interesting part of the interview was about the fake White House reporter J.D. Gunkert (aka Jeff Gannon), but I thought the most interesting comments were her thoughts about the Iraq war and Bush generally:

She dubbed the war in Iraq "spreading democracy at gunpoint," calls Bush "the worst" president in American history, and blames Congress for not standing up to Bush on many issues along with the media for failing to ask the tough questions she never shied away from.

Helen Thomas is one of my personal heroes. She has been a White House reporter for 57 years and at 83 has real perspective on the Presidency. She asks tough questions and fights for real answers. I think her comments on the Bush Presidency give us some idea how history will view him.

Very interesting speech

2005-03-04T21:14:00.000-08:00

While listening to NPR on the way home from work on Thursday I heard some interesting sections of a speech by novelist and former Peruvian Presidential candidate Mario Vargas Llosa. Llosa was giving an acceptance speech entitled "Confessions of a liberal" for an award at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. In particular I enjoyed the way he described and framed what he felt being a "liberal" meant. I haven't read any of his novels, but I thought the speech was insightful.

The only significant negative I would give the speech was his dismissal of American liberals opposition to the Bush administration's Social Security privatization plans:

Even the left has been reluctant to renege on the privatization of pensions--which has occurred in eleven Latin American countries to date--whereas the more backward left in the United States opposes the privatization of Social Security.

The American media has done a poor job of explaining the fact that liberals (i.e. Democrats), are not opposed to Social Security privatization generally, but rather Bush's specific proposals. Bush has done nothing if not prove that his administration is incompetent, or even malignant to the US budget and economy. Everything from tax proposals, the Medicare Drug program, trade policy and budget policies this administration has yet to have a single success on the economic front. Nothing in the existing Social Secuirity proposals looks to challenge that legacy.