Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Dr5 is Alive
Last night, in a fit of procrastination, I decided to finally set up my new blog with Movable Type. It has been fun writing a blog on blogspot, but Dr5.org is better. Come on over.
Last night, in a fit of procrastination, I decided to finally set up my new blog with Movable Type. It has been fun writing a blog on blogspot, but Dr5.org is better. Come on over.
Joel Schwartz
I met Joel Schwartz at a conference I was at over the weekend. Joel is a very bright guy that writes interesting things about air quality. Specifically, that air quality is improving, and it will continue to improve. If you want to read solid thinking about air quality, check out Joel's website at http://www.joelschwartz.com/.
I met Joel Schwartz at a conference I was at over the weekend. Joel is a very bright guy that writes interesting things about air quality. Specifically, that air quality is improving, and it will continue to improve. If you want to read solid thinking about air quality, check out Joel's website at http://www.joelschwartz.com/.
Monday, September 29, 2003
God Created Autumn for the Playoffs
Tim Kurkjian on ESPN makes a standard argument about the Yankees--that their bullpen is suspect. He writes:
If you look at games in August, the Yankees lost 12 games in August. Only 5 of the losses, however, are attributable to the bullpen and 2 of them are blown saves by Mariano (and these were Mariano's losses during the season). Furthermore, after August 13th, the Yankees lost of total of 14 games, but the bullpen only got the loss in 4 of them. It would take more time than I have to fully analyze the numbers, but at first blush, the Yankees got their bullpen woes taken care of and they should be tougher than people expect going into the post season.
Tim Kurkjian on ESPN makes a standard argument about the Yankees--that their bullpen is suspect. He writes:
How reliable is the Yankee bullpen?But is the Yankee's bullpen really a problem now? Their bullpen struggled early in the year and into the middle of the season, but they have been pretty good in the second half of August and all of September. The bullpen lost 4 games and the other 5 games the Yankees lost in September were lost by the starters. The bullpen's ERA in games where the bullpen got the loss was only 3.07! If you throw out 2 earn runs attributed to Jeff Weaver (who likely will not pitch in the postseason), the bullpen's ERA in those games is a mere 1.84!
It is more flawed than any time during this eight-year run by the Bombers. Mariano Rivera, the best closer in postseason history, is again at his best. His cutter has been unhittable recently. Getting to him is the problem. Jeff Nelson hasn't been his usual dominant self. The left-handers (Chris Hammond, Gabe White) are not Mike Stanton in his prime. It's no longer a six-inning game when you play the Yankees. So, they need to get more from their rotation, which includes two 40-year-olds, Roger Clemens and David Wells. Look for Jose Contreras to play a major role somehow in this postseason. His stuff is marvelous; he can start, he can pitch in relief, and maybe he can be the bridge to Rivera.
If you look at games in August, the Yankees lost 12 games in August. Only 5 of the losses, however, are attributable to the bullpen and 2 of them are blown saves by Mariano (and these were Mariano's losses during the season). Furthermore, after August 13th, the Yankees lost of total of 14 games, but the bullpen only got the loss in 4 of them. It would take more time than I have to fully analyze the numbers, but at first blush, the Yankees got their bullpen woes taken care of and they should be tougher than people expect going into the post season.
Tyler Cowen on Moneyball
I have recently purchased Moneyball and I will read it as soon as I have finished Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash." GMU Economics Professor Tyler Cowen (his office is just down the hall from mine) writes about Moneyball on the blog (Marginal Revolution) he writes with Alex Tabarrok (whose office if across the hall from mine). Cowen writes that "Moneyball, which pretends to be about baseball but is in fact a profound meditation on behavioral economics, management science, and how hard it is to measure value. An obvious question: if it is so hard to measure the performance of first basemen, when there is a slew of publicly available statistics, how about the rest of the economy?" Check out Marginal Revolution for other interesting insights.
I have recently purchased Moneyball and I will read it as soon as I have finished Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash." GMU Economics Professor Tyler Cowen (his office is just down the hall from mine) writes about Moneyball on the blog (Marginal Revolution) he writes with Alex Tabarrok (whose office if across the hall from mine). Cowen writes that "Moneyball, which pretends to be about baseball but is in fact a profound meditation on behavioral economics, management science, and how hard it is to measure value. An obvious question: if it is so hard to measure the performance of first basemen, when there is a slew of publicly available statistics, how about the rest of the economy?" Check out Marginal Revolution for other interesting insights.
Here's Another Reminder That There Are Only Two Parties--The Evil Party and the Stupid Party
The Washington Post reports that some "administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist." While I'm not a Republican, I have Republican sympathies. I would like to believe that Republicans are more moral that Democrats, but the fact don't bear that out.
The Washington Post reports that some "administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist." While I'm not a Republican, I have Republican sympathies. I would like to believe that Republicans are more moral that Democrats, but the fact don't bear that out.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Liberals Hate Examples of Their Hypocrisy
Southern Methodist University shut down a bake sale Wednesday in which cookies were offered for sale at different prices, depending on the buyer's race or gender.How is selling cookies at different prices depending on your skin color "creating a hostile situation?" If SMU is using race in its admissions process, isn't that "creating a hostile situation?"
The sale was organized by the Young Conservatives of Texas, who said it was intended as a protest of affirmative action.
A sign said white males had to pay $1 for a cookie. The price was 75 cents for white women, 50 cents for Hispanics and 25 cents for blacks.
Members of the conservative group said they meant no offense and were only trying to protest the use of race or gender as a factor in college admissions.
Similar sales have been held by College Republican chapters at colleges in at least five other states since February.
...
"This was not an issue about free speech," Tim Moore, director of the SMU student center, said in a story for Thursday's edition of The Dallas Morning News. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created."
And While I'm Thanking Jesse...
...I ought to thank him for turning me onto the older Johnny Cash classics such as Live at Folsom Prison. When I worked at CEI, Jesse was the Warren Brooks fellow. Due to his strange writing hours, coupled with my equal strange habit of returning to study at work after I went to class at night, we had a few interesting late-night conversations.
Before I talked to Jesse I was a fan of Mr. John R. Cash mostly because of his newer stuff, such as his cover of Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage." John R. was by far my favorite country singer. I'm bummed I came to his music after he quit touring. I wish I would have seen the man in black in concert.
...I ought to thank him for turning me onto the older Johnny Cash classics such as Live at Folsom Prison. When I worked at CEI, Jesse was the Warren Brooks fellow. Due to his strange writing hours, coupled with my equal strange habit of returning to study at work after I went to class at night, we had a few interesting late-night conversations.
Before I talked to Jesse I was a fan of Mr. John R. Cash mostly because of his newer stuff, such as his cover of Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage." John R. was by far my favorite country singer. I'm bummed I came to his music after he quit touring. I wish I would have seen the man in black in concert.
Drug Dealers Turning to Selling Cigarettes
I absolutely love this article in the NY Times.
I absolutely love this article in the NY Times.
The seller on the Harlem street corner, who hawks his cigarettes for $5 a pack, said he used to peddle marijuana on the streets.Thanks to Jesse Walker at Reason for the pointer.
"The money is about the same," said the man, a lanky 20-year old who would give his name only as Jay. "You can make $100 or $150 a day. And it's not like we're robbing or stealing. We're trying to make an honest living."
"I'd rather do cigarettes because it's safer," the former drug dealer added.
Monday, September 22, 2003
I'm No Democrat, But...
I'm no Democrat, but shouldn't the Dems field a candidate that is ideologically a Democrat? MSNBC.com reports that Wesly Clark told said Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver, that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.”
I'm no Democrat, but shouldn't the Dems field a candidate that is ideologically a Democrat? MSNBC.com reports that Wesly Clark told said Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver, that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.”
Jayson Stark argues that A-Rod should not be an MVP Candidate
Starks argument boils down to the following:
Starks argument boils down to the following:
Remember, when this season began, there was lots of talk about how this was the year the Rangers could finally get back to .500. For almost two months, that still looked like a possibility. But it isn't hard to look back and find the time this became another lost season.Personally I agree with Stark, A-Rod wasn't an MVP the only time it would have mattered for his team. What value does a great player have if he is only valuable when it doesn't matter?
After games of May 29, the Rangers were still within two games of .500 (25-27). Then, over the next 3½ weeks, they hurtled right off the AL West cliff.
They went 2-20 in their next 22 games -- a stretch of Tigers-like baseball that blew up the season. If we could say, "At least that wasn't A-Rod's fault," we could look at his MVP candidacy in a whole different light. But that isn't the case.
He went 2-for-23 with runners in scoring position during that time. He hit three homers and drove in seven runs (one fewer than Jason Bay drove in Friday in one game). In the first 16 games of that span, he had one homer and two RBI.
So as the ship sank, he sank with it. It really wasn't until his team's season was essentially over that he began compiling many of these alleged MVP numbers.
He hit the second-most home runs in the league in April (8). But he was 10th in May (6), 20th in June (5) and 21st in July (5), before leading the league in August (15) and September (7).
He was fifth in the AL in RBI in April (22). Then he fell to 44th in May (13), 34th in June (15) and 17th in July, before leading the league in August (31) and ranking third in September (15).
OK, how about slugging percentage -- a stat that doesn't depend on the contributions of anyone around him? He was fourth in the league in April (.667). But then he was 54th in May (.462), 31st in June (.540) and 37th in July (.505), before an .849 August (first) and .594 September (fifth).
Does that sound like an MVP season to you? It doesn't to us.
Eco-worshippers?
Cathy Young writes in the Boston Globe about author Robert Bidinotto attacks on environmentalism:
Cathy Young writes in the Boston Globe about author Robert Bidinotto attacks on environmentalism:
"Most people think of themselves as `environmentalists.' But by that term, they mean something far different -- and far more innocent -- than do the most prominent philosophers, founders, and leaders of the modern environmentalist movement." What those environmentalists want, he asserts, is not just an environment beneficial to humans but an environment untouched by humans, whose activity is seen as destructive to "wildness."
...
In his individualist manifesto, Bidinotto unabashedly asserts that nature should be seen as having no intrinsic value other than its benefit to humans, because "value" is itself a human concept rooted in rational and moral principles. This idea is not quite as radical or as antienvironment as it seems: his concept of "value" certainly includes a clean and healthy habitat, as well as human enjoyment of wilderness.
...
The preservation of our natural heritage is undoubtedly a worthy goal. But when seen from the perspective of human benefit, it is one of many competing values that must be balanced -- including the need to alleviate our dependence of foreign oil. To treat wilderness as something mystical and sacramental short-circuits the debate as surely as an appeal to biblical principles.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Thomas Friedman--France is Our Enemy
Thomas Friedman is not fan of the administration, but he thinks that we did the right thing by overthrowning Saddam and working to bring liberty to the Iraqis. Friedman thinks this will help bring more democracy and freedom to the entire Arab world. But he believes that France is trying its best to stop us. He writes:
Thomas Friedman is not fan of the administration, but he thinks that we did the right thing by overthrowning Saddam and working to bring liberty to the Iraqis. Friedman thinks this will help bring more democracy and freedom to the entire Arab world. But he believes that France is trying its best to stop us. He writes:
It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.
If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.
France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume its "rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world affairs.
...
What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — "Operation America Must Fail" — is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.
If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government — after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule — is so patently cynical.
Clearly, not all E.U. countries are comfortable with this French mischief, yet many are going along for the ride. It's stunning to me that the E.U., misled by France, could let itself be written out of the most important political development project in modern Middle East history. The whole tone and direction of the Arab-Muslim world, which is right on Europe's doorstep, will be affected by the outcome in Iraq. It would be as if America said it did not care what happened in Mexico because it was mad at Spain.
...
Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.
Unabashed Collectivism
I love the title of this post "Why Job Losses from Min Wage Don't Matter." What I love so much about it is that it exposes the liberal hyprocracy of actually caring for the poor. They care about the poor as some collective mass of humanity, instead of caring about them as individuals. Newman writes, "The supposed newly unemployed lose out on something like $13.9 billion ($6.69*52*35*1.14 million) of lost income-- far less than the collective gain of $46 billion so even after welfare/unemployment transfers, everyone comes out far ahead from the rise in the minimum wage rate." Wrong Newman, everyone who does not recieve an increase in pay loses. The people that are making the minimum wage, but lose their jobs because the minimum wage is increase are probably the biggest loses, too bad Newman doesn't care about them. And the rest of American that has to pay (or do without) higher prices has lost. Newman needs to read Economics in One Lesson becuase he misses the unintended consequences of the ostensibly "good" programs.
I love the title of this post "Why Job Losses from Min Wage Don't Matter." What I love so much about it is that it exposes the liberal hyprocracy of actually caring for the poor. They care about the poor as some collective mass of humanity, instead of caring about them as individuals. Newman writes, "The supposed newly unemployed lose out on something like $13.9 billion ($6.69*52*35*1.14 million) of lost income-- far less than the collective gain of $46 billion so even after welfare/unemployment transfers, everyone comes out far ahead from the rise in the minimum wage rate." Wrong Newman, everyone who does not recieve an increase in pay loses. The people that are making the minimum wage, but lose their jobs because the minimum wage is increase are probably the biggest loses, too bad Newman doesn't care about them. And the rest of American that has to pay (or do without) higher prices has lost. Newman needs to read Economics in One Lesson becuase he misses the unintended consequences of the ostensibly "good" programs.
Why I Think Unions Are Close to Immoral
What ticks me off so badly about pieces such as this is that it fails to consider what is not seen. Nathan Newman shows that unions increase pay. That is very true, and the very problem unions cause. The increase pay for labor increases the costs of doing business which increases the costs of products sold, which means that everyday working American have to pay more for union-produced goods than non-union produced goods. While "working Americans" who happen to work for unions are better off becuase they get paid more, people that aren't in union industries are forced to pay more. This is simple economics, but something that people who support unions either ignore, or fail to believe.
What ticks me off so badly about pieces such as this is that it fails to consider what is not seen. Nathan Newman shows that unions increase pay. That is very true, and the very problem unions cause. The increase pay for labor increases the costs of doing business which increases the costs of products sold, which means that everyday working American have to pay more for union-produced goods than non-union produced goods. While "working Americans" who happen to work for unions are better off becuase they get paid more, people that aren't in union industries are forced to pay more. This is simple economics, but something that people who support unions either ignore, or fail to believe.
More Troubled Thinking from the Left
Kynn Bartlett doesn't understand sin or love:
Kynn Bartlett doesn't understand sin or love:
Recently I've heard a number of Christians -- some in comments to this blog -- say that they are somehow able to "love" people who are gay, Muslim, or otherwise "sinning," while still finding their actions and beliefs reprehensible and an affront to God.If I understand Kynn corrected, you can't love a murderer or an rapist, unless you love and respect their choices of murder and rape. He continues:
To me and my understanding of love, this is far from possible. I believe it is not possible to love someone while having no respect for their belief system, culture, and choices. I don't think it's possible to love someone at the same time you claim that they're condemned to hell for all eternity because they don't believe the same way you do.
Many conservative evangelicals may claim that they'll continue to "love" that person, but what they generally mean is "I will pray to God that you start to believe exactly as I do, and I will do my best to encourage you to become just like me." That's not love.While I'm not a "conservative evangelical" and can't speak for them, I hope that people are praying for all people to live as Christ would. In fact, I hope we all are striving for that. Kynn seems to merely accept everyone and all of their choices, regardless of right or wrong and that we should respect and accept people's choices, regardless of their correctness. I chould be wrong, but that's my understand from what Kynn wrote.
The Leftist Mind
Glimpses into the mind of a leftist is always interesting. Here's a real treat, "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus" by that erudite among erudites, Al Franken. I won't dignify the lame arguments in the cartoon with a rebuttal--you are smart enough to do that for yourself.
Glimpses into the mind of a leftist is always interesting. Here's a real treat, "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus" by that erudite among erudites, Al Franken. I won't dignify the lame arguments in the cartoon with a rebuttal--you are smart enough to do that for yourself.
The News Is Alwasy More Interesting When You Know the People Invovled
I have twice seen this article about a kid at Utah State making a fusion reactor on websites today. The first was at Slashdot and the second was at Jim Romenesko's Obscure Store and Reading Room. I'm sure it has been linked all over the place by now (in fact it has been). My favorite things about this article is that (1) the author is my uncle's brother, and (2) Farrell Edwards, the father my Alan and Farrell Jr. (my uncle) is in one of the pictures and is likely the professor his son describes as "One professor Friday stood nervously away from Wallace's reactor — which is notably free from any shielding — but he needn't have worried."
I have twice seen this article about a kid at Utah State making a fusion reactor on websites today. The first was at Slashdot and the second was at Jim Romenesko's Obscure Store and Reading Room. I'm sure it has been linked all over the place by now (in fact it has been). My favorite things about this article is that (1) the author is my uncle's brother, and (2) Farrell Edwards, the father my Alan and Farrell Jr. (my uncle) is in one of the pictures and is likely the professor his son describes as "One professor Friday stood nervously away from Wallace's reactor — which is notably free from any shielding — but he needn't have worried."
And if you don't think my analysis is correct about Bush v. Gore...
...Then you can read what Robert Alt (fellow in constitutional studies and jurisprudence at the John M. Ashbrook Center) has to say about it:
...Then you can read what Robert Alt (fellow in constitutional studies and jurisprudence at the John M. Ashbrook Center) has to say about it:
Put simply, the Bush v. Gore ruling was not based on the fact that the counties used different voting systems. Rather, the Equal Protection claim rested on the fact that the Florida supreme court had forced a recall without providing safeguards — a brash act which led to similar punchcard ballots being counted differently even within the same county. It was this act of treating similar ballots differently which triggered the Equal Protection violation, not the fact that punchcards were used in one place and not in others.
Proponents of the Ninth Circuit's opinion will inevitably argue that the principle is the same — i.e., that voters are being treated differently from county-to-county. This fails to recognize that, while subject to error, the punchcard system is not so unreliable or "different" compared to other systems that it threatens the right to vote, or substantially dilutes votes from county-to-county. By contrast, Florida's different and changing standards concerning how much chad must be removed from similar punchcards for a ballot to qualify as a vote did undermine the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment.
This subtle distinction was lost on the Ninth Circuit, which boldly held that "the effect of using punchcard voting systems in some, but not all, counties, is to discriminate on the basis of geographic residence." While the Left Coast court attempted to limit the reach of its result, it is hard to see how this reasoning does not create a series of ever-increasing obligations for the states. After all, the most guidance the court gives is to say that the punchcard system creates an error rate that is statistically significant — something which could likely be said about optical scan ballots as compared to next generation touchscreens. Under the Ninth Circuit's approach, higher error rates are not constitutionally acceptable, and therefore a state would seem to be forced to invest in the newest-possible voting technologies to avoid uncounted votes.
Aside from the obvious cost and the dubious constitutional jurisprudence behind such a decision, it is easy enough to see how quickly the Ninth Circuit's reasoning leads to absurd results. For example, it is difficult to see how hand recounts can ever be permissible under the Ninth Circuit's Equal Protection standard, given that hand counts tend to be among the least accurate means of vote tabulation. Furthermore, as a practical matter, states will be forced to take an all-or-nothing approach to implementing technology for fear that using a new voting device in one county will open the state to suit. This will have the unintended consequence of delaying the implementation of more-accurate voting technologies until the state can afford across the board upgrades.
Is the Ballot Recall Case the Same as Bush v. Gore
Robert Robb writes in the Arizona Republic that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was wrong and that a predictable result is that courts will more greatly scrutinize elections. He aruges that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision to suspend the recall vote in California is the type of predicable outcome of Bush v. Gore.
Robb's first problem is that Bush v. Gore was correclty decided. As my Con Law professor has written:
Robb's second problem is that the Ninth Circuit's opinion is wrong. In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court held that the combination of four things violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Florida Supreme Court's order failed to satifsy "“the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right” to vote. These four things were:
Robert Robb writes in the Arizona Republic that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was wrong and that a predictable result is that courts will more greatly scrutinize elections. He aruges that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision to suspend the recall vote in California is the type of predicable outcome of Bush v. Gore.
Robb's first problem is that Bush v. Gore was correclty decided. As my Con Law professor has written:
The majority opinion applied well-settled precedents from the Warren Court in a perfectly straightforward fashion, and none of those dissenting could explain why those precedents were inapplicable. Instead, they criticized the majority on political grounds. Justice Breyer, for example, admitted that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, but argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should have let it proceed anyway. Why? "Above all, in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the Court itself."(A more complete explanation of why Bush v. Gore was correctly decided is available here.)
Robb's second problem is that the Ninth Circuit's opinion is wrong. In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court held that the combination of four things violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Florida Supreme Court's order failed to satifsy "“the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right” to vote. These four things were:
- Varying standards for determining a voter’s intent had been employed by the counties in which manual recounts had been held, and at least one county changed its standard re-peatedly during the recount.
- Unlike the recounts in the Gore-selected counties, which had included all ballots, the statewide recount was limited to “undervotes,” and did not even include the analytically indistinguishable “overvote” ballots.
- Partial results from the uncompleted recount in Miami-Dade had been used to credit one candidate with additional votes, and the Florida court evidently contemplated the future use of partial recounts.
- The statewide recount was being conducted by untrained personnel, unguided by objective standards for identifying legal votes, and observers were not permitted to make contemporaneous objeciton.
- Make sure the same standards are used in all counties
- Decide beforehand how to count the under and over votes
- Count all ballots
- Train the personnel that will count the ballots and use objective standards
