to investigate the NFL. Specifically, the House Judiciary Committee is asking questions about brain damage among NFL players and former players.
Will someone please explain to me why the Judiciary Committee is wasting their time on this?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"Family Guy" not PC enough to be a PC
"Hello, I'm a PC, and I don't think jokes about feminine hygiene are funny."
Or something like that, anyway. Microsoft was set to sponsor a prime time special by "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane as part of its Windows 7 media blitz, but was somehow surprised when the MacFarlane-esque fare didn't exactly "fit with the Windows brand."
It appears that Microsoft doesn't approve of "riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest," so they've pulled out of the project after getting a look at the content. Didn't they look at any samples of MacFarlane's stuff before they signed on? Or did they just think that with a name like "Family Guy," it must be good clean fun?
One comment on the AdAge article says "But fear not as all is saved! I just heard that Microsoft has hired Michael Richards to do some colorful Windows 7 skits."
Or something like that, anyway. Microsoft was set to sponsor a prime time special by "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane as part of its Windows 7 media blitz, but was somehow surprised when the MacFarlane-esque fare didn't exactly "fit with the Windows brand."
It appears that Microsoft doesn't approve of "riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest," so they've pulled out of the project after getting a look at the content. Didn't they look at any samples of MacFarlane's stuff before they signed on? Or did they just think that with a name like "Family Guy," it must be good clean fun?
One comment on the AdAge article says "But fear not as all is saved! I just heard that Microsoft has hired Michael Richards to do some colorful Windows 7 skits."
Dismantling America
From our "I Wish I'd Said That" department: He said it far better than I could, so I'll quote Thomas Sowell:
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?Click on the link to read more.
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
Friday, October 23, 2009
So much for the rule of law
The governor of North Carolina is making a terrible (but popular) mistake. But first, some background:
Back in the 1970's, the law in North Carolina was clear: a "life sentence" actually meant 80 years, and with credits for good behavior could be as little as 35 years.
Many people thought that was too lenient, so in the 1980's the law was changed. First, the law was amended to remove the credits for those convicted of the most serious crimes. Later, it was changed so that in some cases a life sentence would actually mean the person convicted would stay behind bars until he died.
The problem is that the state prison system applied these new rules retroactively. That is, until Bobby Bowden filed an appeal with the state's Supreme Court. Bowden (not the Florida State football coach) was sentenced to death in 1975 for murdering two people during the robbery of a convenience store. The supreme court later took Bowden off death row, and sent his case back to be retried. He was given a life sentence.
Bowden filed an appeal four years ago, claiming that according to the laws at the time of his sentencing, he had served his time and should be released. 13 days ago, the state Supreme Court upheld an earlier appeals court ruling that agreed with Bowden.
Now, as a result of that ruling, Bowden and 19 others are scheduled to be released from prison. They have served their time and there is no law that will allow the state to continue to hold them.
Governor Beverly Purdue suggested on Thursday that she will defy the courts, going to jail if necessary, to stop these 20 murderers and rapists from being released. By the end of the day she had backed down, opting instead to have her lawyers go through the fine print of sentencing laws to look for loopholes and make sure the "good-time" credits have been properly applied. In the meantime, the state Attorney General has also asked Federal authorities to try to find some federal law under which these prisoners can be held.
It's hard to have sympathy for the prisoners. They did horrible things and deserved their punishment. Under today's laws, there would be no question; they would all die in prison. But they weren't convicted and sentenced under today's laws. They have served their time and should be released, no matter how much we hate the idea. Because the alternative is to live in a world where our leaders are dictators, who get to change the rules whenever they don't like the outcome.
That should scare us much more than the idea of releasing a few bad guys.
Back in the 1970's, the law in North Carolina was clear: a "life sentence" actually meant 80 years, and with credits for good behavior could be as little as 35 years.
Many people thought that was too lenient, so in the 1980's the law was changed. First, the law was amended to remove the credits for those convicted of the most serious crimes. Later, it was changed so that in some cases a life sentence would actually mean the person convicted would stay behind bars until he died.
The problem is that the state prison system applied these new rules retroactively. That is, until Bobby Bowden filed an appeal with the state's Supreme Court. Bowden (not the Florida State football coach) was sentenced to death in 1975 for murdering two people during the robbery of a convenience store. The supreme court later took Bowden off death row, and sent his case back to be retried. He was given a life sentence.
Bowden filed an appeal four years ago, claiming that according to the laws at the time of his sentencing, he had served his time and should be released. 13 days ago, the state Supreme Court upheld an earlier appeals court ruling that agreed with Bowden.
Now, as a result of that ruling, Bowden and 19 others are scheduled to be released from prison. They have served their time and there is no law that will allow the state to continue to hold them.
Governor Beverly Purdue suggested on Thursday that she will defy the courts, going to jail if necessary, to stop these 20 murderers and rapists from being released. By the end of the day she had backed down, opting instead to have her lawyers go through the fine print of sentencing laws to look for loopholes and make sure the "good-time" credits have been properly applied. In the meantime, the state Attorney General has also asked Federal authorities to try to find some federal law under which these prisoners can be held.
It's hard to have sympathy for the prisoners. They did horrible things and deserved their punishment. Under today's laws, there would be no question; they would all die in prison. But they weren't convicted and sentenced under today's laws. They have served their time and should be released, no matter how much we hate the idea. Because the alternative is to live in a world where our leaders are dictators, who get to change the rules whenever they don't like the outcome.
That should scare us much more than the idea of releasing a few bad guys.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Before and After
I had my final visit with Dr. Schmorr this morning, and she was kind enough to email me her before and after photos of my teeth. She did a great job of making them look nice, and it only took nine months!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Ignorance is bliss?
I met a girl once. She was really sweet, and kind of cute. I asked her what she did; she didn't have a job, because she was on disability -- although there didn't appear to be anything wrong with her. She didn't have any hobbies, either. When I asked what she did all day, she said she watched TV, or chatted with friends on Yahoo, or talked to her sister on the phone. She never read books, or even newspapers or magazines.
That was pretty much the end of our relationship. There just wasn't anything we could talk about.
But I meet a lot of people like her, blissfully ignorant folk with an astounding lack of curiosity about the world around them. These people don't own a single book, or they think a half-dozen Danielle Steele novels is "a lot of books." They are content to sit, mesmerized, in front of the TV. And when they do, they aren't watching CNN... they are feeding their poor, useless brains a steady diet of sitcoms and "reality" shows.
These people are out there, in greater numbers than you can imagine. And here's what scares me: their vote counts the same as yours and mine.
That was pretty much the end of our relationship. There just wasn't anything we could talk about.
But I meet a lot of people like her, blissfully ignorant folk with an astounding lack of curiosity about the world around them. These people don't own a single book, or they think a half-dozen Danielle Steele novels is "a lot of books." They are content to sit, mesmerized, in front of the TV. And when they do, they aren't watching CNN... they are feeding their poor, useless brains a steady diet of sitcoms and "reality" shows.
These people are out there, in greater numbers than you can imagine. And here's what scares me: their vote counts the same as yours and mine.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Things that make you go "hmmmm..."
According to Rasmussen, over 60% of Americans oppose proposals to charge overweight people more for their health insurance.
In an related story, the CDC reports that over 60% of Americans are overweight.
In an related story, the CDC reports that over 60% of Americans are overweight.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Christians burning Bibles?
According to the website of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina, they are going to celebrate Halloween by burning "perversions of God's word." These "perversions" include Bibles that are not the King James Version, as well as "satanic influenced music" including the usual suspects (rock, rap) but also "contemporary Christian" and "Southern Gospel."
They are also burning books by such noted heretics as Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and Mother Theresa. As Dave Barry used to say, "I am not making this up."
Oh, and they'll be serving chicken, too! So bring your appetite and your heretical works and come on down!
They are also burning books by such noted heretics as Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and Mother Theresa. As Dave Barry used to say, "I am not making this up."
Oh, and they'll be serving chicken, too! So bring your appetite and your heretical works and come on down!
Monday, October 12, 2009
And the Nobel Prize in Economics goes to:
Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University and Oliver Williamson of Berkley.
Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.
Oliver Williamson has argued that markets and hierarchical organizations, such as firms, represent alternative governance structures which differ in their approaches to resolving conflicts of interest. The drawback of markets is that they often entail haggling and disagreement. The drawback of firms is that authority can be abused. Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent. But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets.
Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.
Oliver Williamson has argued that markets and hierarchical organizations, such as firms, represent alternative governance structures which differ in their approaches to resolving conflicts of interest. The drawback of markets is that they often entail haggling and disagreement. The drawback of firms is that authority can be abused. Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent. But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets.
Stimulus and Jobs
"Rarely in politics do we get such a clear and rapid illustration of a policy failure."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Barley Planting Time
The ultimate homebrew experiment begins today. I planted barley in my backyard. If all goes well, I'll be making homebrew beer, using only home-grown ingredients, sometime in the winter of 2011.
First of all, it's hard to get small quantities of barley seeds. When you do find them, they usually are not of a variety that is traditionally used for malting. I was able to get a small sample here; it's a 5 gram sample, about 100 seeds. So the idea is that next summer I'll harvest enough seeds to plant next fall, and the following summer I'll have enough to make a batch of beer (and enough left over to plant for the next crop).
Still on the to-do list for this project:
The barley I planted is the Klages variety. I'm growing it using biointensive techniques, so I hope a 100 square foot bed will produce enough to make a five gallon batch of beer. If the yields are not what Jeavons leads me to expect, I might need to plant 2 x 100 sq. ft. beds.
I also want to try some Maris Otter, but I think it may not grow so well in this warm climate.
Too bad I'm not playing SCA anymore. They'd eat this stuff up. Of course, someone would be bound to point out that even in the Middle Ages, specialization had progressed to the point that farmer, maltster, and brewer were distinct occupations.
First of all, it's hard to get small quantities of barley seeds. When you do find them, they usually are not of a variety that is traditionally used for malting. I was able to get a small sample here; it's a 5 gram sample, about 100 seeds. So the idea is that next summer I'll harvest enough seeds to plant next fall, and the following summer I'll have enough to make a batch of beer (and enough left over to plant for the next crop).
Still on the to-do list for this project:
- Obtain and plant some hop rhizomes.
- Develop yeast-ranching technique.
- Get some unmalted barley and practice malting.
The barley I planted is the Klages variety. I'm growing it using biointensive techniques, so I hope a 100 square foot bed will produce enough to make a five gallon batch of beer. If the yields are not what Jeavons leads me to expect, I might need to plant 2 x 100 sq. ft. beds.
I also want to try some Maris Otter, but I think it may not grow so well in this warm climate.
Too bad I'm not playing SCA anymore. They'd eat this stuff up. Of course, someone would be bound to point out that even in the Middle Ages, specialization had progressed to the point that farmer, maltster, and brewer were distinct occupations.
Friday, October 9, 2009
First-Year Grad Student Wins Nobel Prize in Economics!
No, not really. But this post on Greg Mankiw's blog made me snort coffee out of my nose!
"The surprise choice of first-year graduate student Quintus Pfuffnick for the Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world Friday even as many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet published anything in scholarly journals."
Who knew that economists could do satire?
"The surprise choice of first-year graduate student Quintus Pfuffnick for the Nobel Prize in Economics drew praise from much of the world Friday even as many pointed out the youthful economist has not yet published anything in scholarly journals."
Who knew that economists could do satire?
An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes Theorem
I found this essay incredibly helpful.
As the author says, "When you are finished reading this page, you will see Bayesian problems in your dreams."
As the author says, "When you are finished reading this page, you will see Bayesian problems in your dreams."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Clunkers in Practice
Today's Wall St. Journal points out that "cash for clunkers" hasn't been a great success, despite the administration's claims. New car sales for September are down 25% from a year earlier. Some 700,000 cars were sold in the summer under a program that gave buyers $4,500 to do what they would have done anyway. All the program did is steal those sales from the future, exactly as critics predicted.
The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing, productive assets. The journal quotes Henry Hazlitt's classic "Economics in One Lesson," but Hazlitt was borrowing from Frédéric Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window." You can't raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.
If this is Washington's idea of a program that works, heaven help us when they get their hands on our health care.
The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing, productive assets. The journal quotes Henry Hazlitt's classic "Economics in One Lesson," but Hazlitt was borrowing from Frédéric Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window." You can't raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.
If this is Washington's idea of a program that works, heaven help us when they get their hands on our health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
