financial markets. :-) Or so I would lead you to believe. I blogged previously about listening to the Financial Markets course from Yale University on Academic Earth. This has got to be one of the coolest websites ever. I just wish they would expand their offerings. I know a lot of other universities have these online courses as well which are free to the public. I would like more variety.
I have to say after finishing the course I feel like watching courses is a suboptimal way to learn a subject. Which raises serious questions in my mind about the ability of learning from online courses. Though if I had the book with me and was reading it while watching the courses online, maybe I would feel differently.
The course is by Robert Shiller who is famous for, among other things, the Case-Shiller housing index. Also I learned in the course that he was trying to setup a futures market for housing prices which is very interesting. Apparently the Chicago Board of Exchange was listing it for a time about a year ago but I can no longer find it on their website. There were a bunch of interesting guest lecturers. One particularly interesting one was Carl Icahn who is the stockholder accountability guy. Also there was an interesting one by Stephen Schwarzman who is a big bonds investor. It was interesting to hear him talk about why he only invests in bonds. Mostly because (until recently thank you very much Obama) the bondholders were the first in line in bankruptcy and the company is required to return the money to the investors. This is in opposition to the stocks which are not required to pay a dividend. Essentially the stock is buying the present value of future earnings and if the stock will never pay a dividend then its value should be zero. (Makes sense to me.)
One thing that really came out of this course for me is that the markets are way more complicated than I would have originally thought they were. It was nice to have an overview of the markets and all aspects of them even if the depth was shallow. One thing I did appreciate more than I previously did was the utility of financial markets. Markets are just a way to spread risk. The discussion on life insurance was interesting and the struggle the companies had to sell life insurance for so long.
The course is about 30 hours of content and so I don't suggest you start it unless you want to finish it. It is actually a nice thing to listen to while you cook or something kinda like music but with a point. However if your time is more limited I suggest you at least listen to the guest lecturers. There is a lot of nuggets of investor wisdom that are just too interesting to pass up.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Like such as....
Ok, so this is old news but I found some fun videos that will give you a good laugh today. So if you don't remember Miss South Carolina:
Here is her the next day...
I have to say, the first time most people are in TV they usually don't say something intelligent, but they don't say something ridiculous. And here is Jimmy Kimmel trying to explain it...
Well here is a song about it which is awesome. :-)
Just remember that you need maps. We need maps so we know where, such as, the Iraq is. :-) For reference I can honestly say in my life I have known over 20% of people I know who couldn't locate 'The Iraq' on a world map. Anyway, if you need a pick me up have a watch. I can't believe I still find this funny after all this time.
If you would like to bone up on your skillz you can check out this link (or just play below). I made it to level 10 with a score of 367718. Those island nations are a killer...
This Traveler IQ challenge compares your geographical knowledge against the Web's Original Travelogue's other 4,201,388 travelers who have taken this challenge as of Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 01:26AM GMT. (TravelPod is a member of the TripAdvisor Media Network)
Here is her the next day...
I have to say, the first time most people are in TV they usually don't say something intelligent, but they don't say something ridiculous. And here is Jimmy Kimmel trying to explain it...
Well here is a song about it which is awesome. :-)
Just remember that you need maps. We need maps so we know where, such as, the Iraq is. :-) For reference I can honestly say in my life I have known over 20% of people I know who couldn't locate 'The Iraq' on a world map. Anyway, if you need a pick me up have a watch. I can't believe I still find this funny after all this time.
If you would like to bone up on your skillz you can check out this link (or just play below). I made it to level 10 with a score of 367718. Those island nations are a killer...
Adblock
This Traveler IQ challenge compares your geographical knowledge against the Web's Original Travelogue's other 4,201,388 travelers who have taken this challenge as of Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 01:26AM GMT. (TravelPod is a member of the TripAdvisor Media Network)
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Return of Depressing Economics
I just finished reading my most recent book, "The return of depression economics." This is the second book by Paul Krugman that I have read in the last month. I want to start with a couple of observations which add to my last post. Basically it can be summed up as, "Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his work before he was a New York Times columnist." What I mean by that, Krugman is in general a very partisan columnist and writer. While his economic credentials are good for analysis his predictive and current affairs analysis he purports doesn't always mean he is right. If you read the stuff he writes you will see his discussion of the need to reform health care is helpful but then he goes and attacks the right for things they do while not realizing the left is just as bad. So anyway I wanted to get that out of the way first.
So this second book of his I am actually more happy with from a content perspective. However the price per word was way higher in this book as the book is very short. The book deals with the history of bank failures and depressions in a general forum. Paul Krugman has an ideology which supports government intervention (Keynesian economics) and the role of government. So from that perspective all of the writings must be taken as such. However the book does a good job of covering the 1990's bubble, the Japanese lost decade, and the Asian financial crisis all from a 50000 feet level. This is helpful because there is a lot to learn from these thing that will help us understand the events of today. Additionally he discusses the causes (and as of Oct. 2008) the current crisis.
Besides directing you to the wikipedia articles on these events I have little else to say except that this is obviously a mass market book. I in general prefer more meaty books with more complicated arguments and graphs. This means that this books will only get a $1 of present value in 1920 (about $0.10 in buying costs) as opposed to $1 in 1990 dollars. I would recommend it if you just want something interesting to read and don't want an in depth analysis, however I would imagine that most people who read my blog would prefer the opposite.
For a little bit of fun here is something I found, this person obviously thinks higher of Paul Krugman than I do but the song is pretty funny.
So this second book of his I am actually more happy with from a content perspective. However the price per word was way higher in this book as the book is very short. The book deals with the history of bank failures and depressions in a general forum. Paul Krugman has an ideology which supports government intervention (Keynesian economics) and the role of government. So from that perspective all of the writings must be taken as such. However the book does a good job of covering the 1990's bubble, the Japanese lost decade, and the Asian financial crisis all from a 50000 feet level. This is helpful because there is a lot to learn from these thing that will help us understand the events of today. Additionally he discusses the causes (and as of Oct. 2008) the current crisis.
Besides directing you to the wikipedia articles on these events I have little else to say except that this is obviously a mass market book. I in general prefer more meaty books with more complicated arguments and graphs. This means that this books will only get a $1 of present value in 1920 (about $0.10 in buying costs) as opposed to $1 in 1990 dollars. I would recommend it if you just want something interesting to read and don't want an in depth analysis, however I would imagine that most people who read my blog would prefer the opposite.
For a little bit of fun here is something I found, this person obviously thinks higher of Paul Krugman than I do but the song is pretty funny.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Book Review: Omnivore's Dilemma Part 1
The Children of the Corn
The first meal the author considers is a fast food meal which is derived almost exclusively from corn. I found this section of the book fairly repetitive with other books I have read about the meat, dairy, and agri-business industries in America. Thus I will likely say little beyond that if you don't know much about your food chain especially if you are a meat eater, then you should really read this. The author takes an interesting tact in that he follows the corn from seed in Iowa to a calf born and consequently slaughtered. Through all of this he weaves through the section the ideas and research into the foods we eat. What is surprising is that at the end of the section I felt like he wasn't condemning the meat industry and advocating a life of strict veganism. While I think the experience would have done this to me I can appreciate that their exist other people in the world who are not like that. Thus I strongly recommend this section of the book for those who would like a slightly more meat friendly approach to the 'this is what you actually eat' discussion over say 'fast food nation'. In the later book the descriptions are more likely to make you throw up than to ever eat anything again. Which while more true to the slaughtering of the animals, is untimately unhelpful to most readers.
The history of corn in this book is a little sparse honestly. I much preferred the discussion in 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jard Diamond. In that book he talks about the spread of agriculture on different continents and has a long discussion of the origins of corn. Additionally the GMO movie I posted a while ago had a good discussion of current corn practices in Mexico (where corn is originally from). What is interesting additionally is the discussion of how corn and corn products are every where (likely in every food that is even a little processed). Most of this is because we (as Americans) heavily subsidize the production of corn. There is a discussion of the farmers in the book and about how they never make any money. Additionally they talk about how the corn is homogenized while the reality is that corn grown in different places is actually very different nutritionally. As for the meat part there is a slight discussion (which has fuller bloom later in the book) about the actual diet of cows in modern America.
While this section was not really anything I personally didn't already know this section is written in a way as to not be abrasive to omnivores which is likely helpful to those who still eat meat and believe that eating meat in modern society is nutritionally acceptable. The author will later tackle more down to eat ideas later. He did discuss the farmers trap and why most farmers are poor and end up bankrupt. For those that dislike the farm bills this will just add fuel to the fire.
Coming up next, Big-Business Organic.
The first meal the author considers is a fast food meal which is derived almost exclusively from corn. I found this section of the book fairly repetitive with other books I have read about the meat, dairy, and agri-business industries in America. Thus I will likely say little beyond that if you don't know much about your food chain especially if you are a meat eater, then you should really read this. The author takes an interesting tact in that he follows the corn from seed in Iowa to a calf born and consequently slaughtered. Through all of this he weaves through the section the ideas and research into the foods we eat. What is surprising is that at the end of the section I felt like he wasn't condemning the meat industry and advocating a life of strict veganism. While I think the experience would have done this to me I can appreciate that their exist other people in the world who are not like that. Thus I strongly recommend this section of the book for those who would like a slightly more meat friendly approach to the 'this is what you actually eat' discussion over say 'fast food nation'. In the later book the descriptions are more likely to make you throw up than to ever eat anything again. Which while more true to the slaughtering of the animals, is untimately unhelpful to most readers.
The history of corn in this book is a little sparse honestly. I much preferred the discussion in 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jard Diamond. In that book he talks about the spread of agriculture on different continents and has a long discussion of the origins of corn. Additionally the GMO movie I posted a while ago had a good discussion of current corn practices in Mexico (where corn is originally from). What is interesting additionally is the discussion of how corn and corn products are every where (likely in every food that is even a little processed). Most of this is because we (as Americans) heavily subsidize the production of corn. There is a discussion of the farmers in the book and about how they never make any money. Additionally they talk about how the corn is homogenized while the reality is that corn grown in different places is actually very different nutritionally. As for the meat part there is a slight discussion (which has fuller bloom later in the book) about the actual diet of cows in modern America.
While this section was not really anything I personally didn't already know this section is written in a way as to not be abrasive to omnivores which is likely helpful to those who still eat meat and believe that eating meat in modern society is nutritionally acceptable. The author will later tackle more down to eat ideas later. He did discuss the farmers trap and why most farmers are poor and end up bankrupt. For those that dislike the farm bills this will just add fuel to the fire.
Coming up next, Big-Business Organic.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Book Review: Omnivore's Dilemma Part 0
This posting is a general overview of myself in reference to my culinary life. This is part of a larger series on the book 'Onivore's Dilema'. (Parts 1 through 4 will be forth coming in the next week or two).
My early life up through college was similar to the average person. I grew up when fast food was coming into its own. I remember my first happy meal (and the Legos in the happy meal). I can remember sitting down dinners when my mother was not working and large family meals where everything was hand cooked. I also saw the transformation over the years to prepared meals and the invasion of fast food into my diet in high school. I was a busy child and teenager and was sometimes home until very late. However I did learn cooking through the Boy Scouts (though I let the skill atrophy in college). I was a omnivore and never even thought about where my food was coming from. I remember learning about the food pyramid as well (I just started reading the (Food Politics) and I never realized that potato chips were bucketed under vegetables. I wonder where a Twinkie is...).
In college I could get as much of whatever food I wanted. It was great. Towards the end of my undergraduate career I spent time in the single occupancy building and as all my friends moved off campus my eating suffered (since eating is a social activity for me). So I can remember they put in this meal card swipe area with a pizza hut. They had personal pan pizzas. I would get 2 mini pizzas (usually sausage) and a thing of breadsticks every day. Since I rarely ate lunch or breakfast this was my meal for the day. I know you are thinking, holy crap, how are you still alive? Luck maybe.
Then I went to graduate school and my eating habits stayed the exact same for a while. Weekly runs to Sam's Club to get a million frozen super-processed foods. Then something happened. I got a kitchen. I moved into my first apartment and I could cook. It didn't happen all at once but I started with cookies and muffins. Then my grandma would send recipes to me everyday. I usually cooked them (I loved my aunt's lasagna). One of my friends likes to discuss the time he had 'burger bundles'. Then one day something happened. I got bored.
All of my friends were away or forsook me for the weekend. I was pissed in a kind of weird way. I mean why should I be mad, they have lives. So I decided I was going to do something crazy. I have a very level and methodical head about me and so bridge jumping was out. So I decided I was going to be a vegetarian. Now those that know me now would say, 'So?' but at the time it was a huge thing. I was the devoted meat eater at this time. I never ate vegetables or fruits unless they were highly caramelized or deep fried. My dad had flirted with veganism previously for a couple of months due to an almost heart attack. But to me being a vegetarian was unthinkable. So I set the date for July 1st when I would no longer cook or eat meat.
Now I was vegetarian in the beginning because I was bored. Then I started reading about vegetarianism (and veganism) and learning about nutrition and then my life changed. I read 'Fast Food Nation' and watched 'Super Size Me'. All of a sudden the whole under belly of the industry was laid bare in a way I had never considered. Food is so important, why didn't I care where my food came from? It was an interesting question. Since then I have started going to farmer's markets to get food. I have toyed (with very limited success) to make bread for myself. What changed? One could argue as a graduate student I had a lot of free time to experiment (most people experiment with drugs and booze I experimented with expanding my horizons through reading and self-discovery). At least my experimentation was not illegal.
So why do I tell you all of that besides grandstanding on how great I am? I am going to review the four meals presented in this book ina series of posts and I wanted to let you know my background and where I come from. I think it is important to know the biases in the people you read. In the last year I have actually moved away from my vegetarianism some because of laziness (which I hate). However food is something that really interests me.
I give this book like 15 stars. It is a great book. Well put together with a high words per page count (which is important). Additionally there are lots of references for the extremely interested. This book also contains chapters on 4 different types of foods, fast food (the corn eaters), organic, pastoral, and hunting and gathering. So there is something in there for everyone. I appreciate that I feel that the author does not really take a side in the discussion. For instance is not 100% pro-vegan or 100% pro-eating meat. This is very helpful as you can identify with the author at all points. As I said I highly recommend this book and will be discussing my thoughts on the chapters, I wouldn't do that unless I really liked the book. :-)
My early life up through college was similar to the average person. I grew up when fast food was coming into its own. I remember my first happy meal (and the Legos in the happy meal). I can remember sitting down dinners when my mother was not working and large family meals where everything was hand cooked. I also saw the transformation over the years to prepared meals and the invasion of fast food into my diet in high school. I was a busy child and teenager and was sometimes home until very late. However I did learn cooking through the Boy Scouts (though I let the skill atrophy in college). I was a omnivore and never even thought about where my food was coming from. I remember learning about the food pyramid as well (I just started reading the (Food Politics) and I never realized that potato chips were bucketed under vegetables. I wonder where a Twinkie is...).
In college I could get as much of whatever food I wanted. It was great. Towards the end of my undergraduate career I spent time in the single occupancy building and as all my friends moved off campus my eating suffered (since eating is a social activity for me). So I can remember they put in this meal card swipe area with a pizza hut. They had personal pan pizzas. I would get 2 mini pizzas (usually sausage) and a thing of breadsticks every day. Since I rarely ate lunch or breakfast this was my meal for the day. I know you are thinking, holy crap, how are you still alive? Luck maybe.
Then I went to graduate school and my eating habits stayed the exact same for a while. Weekly runs to Sam's Club to get a million frozen super-processed foods. Then something happened. I got a kitchen. I moved into my first apartment and I could cook. It didn't happen all at once but I started with cookies and muffins. Then my grandma would send recipes to me everyday. I usually cooked them (I loved my aunt's lasagna). One of my friends likes to discuss the time he had 'burger bundles'. Then one day something happened. I got bored.
All of my friends were away or forsook me for the weekend. I was pissed in a kind of weird way. I mean why should I be mad, they have lives. So I decided I was going to do something crazy. I have a very level and methodical head about me and so bridge jumping was out. So I decided I was going to be a vegetarian. Now those that know me now would say, 'So?' but at the time it was a huge thing. I was the devoted meat eater at this time. I never ate vegetables or fruits unless they were highly caramelized or deep fried. My dad had flirted with veganism previously for a couple of months due to an almost heart attack. But to me being a vegetarian was unthinkable. So I set the date for July 1st when I would no longer cook or eat meat.
Now I was vegetarian in the beginning because I was bored. Then I started reading about vegetarianism (and veganism) and learning about nutrition and then my life changed. I read 'Fast Food Nation' and watched 'Super Size Me'. All of a sudden the whole under belly of the industry was laid bare in a way I had never considered. Food is so important, why didn't I care where my food came from? It was an interesting question. Since then I have started going to farmer's markets to get food. I have toyed (with very limited success) to make bread for myself. What changed? One could argue as a graduate student I had a lot of free time to experiment (most people experiment with drugs and booze I experimented with expanding my horizons through reading and self-discovery). At least my experimentation was not illegal.
So why do I tell you all of that besides grandstanding on how great I am? I am going to review the four meals presented in this book in
I give this book like 15 stars. It is a great book. Well put together with a high words per page count (which is important). Additionally there are lots of references for the extremely interested. This book also contains chapters on 4 different types of foods, fast food (the corn eaters), organic, pastoral, and hunting and gathering. So there is something in there for everyone. I appreciate that I feel that the author does not really take a side in the discussion. For instance is not 100% pro-vegan or 100% pro-eating meat. This is very helpful as you can identify with the author at all points. As I said I highly recommend this book and will be discussing my thoughts on the chapters, I wouldn't do that unless I really liked the book. :-)
Monday, June 15, 2009
What, Time Magazine can be wrong...
This is an 'On a lighter note' but there is an interesting article over at reason.com where they talk about all of the time covers that were really wrong in retrospect. I wonder how the reason magazine would fair under such scrutiny? Anyway here is the article. This is kinda like the daily show where the issue seems ridiculous in retrospect (or at the time... :-) ). It is an interesting read with a lot of links for more information.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Hasta la Governator
I think this is and interesting video about the current governor of California and the crisis affecting the state. (Warning: it is from Reason.com so take that as you may.) California has consistently expanded it's budget without regard to income, payment, or sensibility. (Here is an article from the economist.) Basically the state is in huge trouble and not all of it can be blamed on any one group (liberal, conservative, illegal immigrants, unemployed, elderly, etc.) they are all to blame.
There are lots of reasons for the problems however I suspect one reason that goes under reported is the moving of industry out of the state. If you look at major players who were once completely in that state, they have moved a lot of work outside the state. Who can blame them with a state income tax of 10% and a sales taxes of about 10% it wouldn't be hard to lose over 50% of your paycheck to taxes (Lets say you were trying to live a middle class lifestyle in San Diego: 8.750% sales tax + 9.3% income tax + 33% Fed taxes to buy companies + property taxes + etc.). Who would want to do business in that state? Your employees are going to be poor forever even if (maybe because) you pay them well.
What I find interesting is that even Paul Krugman (prior post) is against prop. 13. It is sensible to be against it as it is a very destructive law that hurts the state. However I would not have suspected he would have been as outspoken against it. Price controls on rents and housing are a mainstay of modern liberal thought of which he is a card carrying member. For proof look at anything the democrats say currently about propping up the housing bubble. Which actually makes the housing unaffordable but they coach it as making housing affordable by giving tax breaks and the like. (Which just raises the costs for everyone which leads to inflation and on and on.)
Basically it is very likely that major change will have to come to the state soon. The system just cannot support itself. For me, I feel the biggest problems are the ease with which the California constitution is amended and prop. 13. If those two things were removed then maybe other systemic issues could be solved. However without those changes there is little hope for real change as the state is subjected to the every whim of current popular thought.
There are lots of reasons for the problems however I suspect one reason that goes under reported is the moving of industry out of the state. If you look at major players who were once completely in that state, they have moved a lot of work outside the state. Who can blame them with a state income tax of 10% and a sales taxes of about 10% it wouldn't be hard to lose over 50% of your paycheck to taxes (Lets say you were trying to live a middle class lifestyle in San Diego: 8.750% sales tax + 9.3% income tax + 33% Fed taxes to buy companies + property taxes + etc.). Who would want to do business in that state? Your employees are going to be poor forever even if (maybe because) you pay them well.
What I find interesting is that even Paul Krugman (prior post) is against prop. 13. It is sensible to be against it as it is a very destructive law that hurts the state. However I would not have suspected he would have been as outspoken against it. Price controls on rents and housing are a mainstay of modern liberal thought of which he is a card carrying member. For proof look at anything the democrats say currently about propping up the housing bubble. Which actually makes the housing unaffordable but they coach it as making housing affordable by giving tax breaks and the like. (Which just raises the costs for everyone which leads to inflation and on and on.)
Basically it is very likely that major change will have to come to the state soon. The system just cannot support itself. For me, I feel the biggest problems are the ease with which the California constitution is amended and prop. 13. If those two things were removed then maybe other systemic issues could be solved. However without those changes there is little hope for real change as the state is subjected to the every whim of current popular thought.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
For the department of 'No duh' (with a class size of 20)
My dislike of the 'power rankings' for schools is well known. They are stupid, force people to focus on the wrong things, misrepresent the quality of education especially at large universities, and keep administrators and professors from focusing on the students.
Anyway, here is an article I found. This is from the department of 'No shit Sherlock'. In fact you can search Google for more things like this. I really think something needs to change in reference to this. Here is a link to an article closer to the source of the presentation.
Basically the higher education system in the US needs reform. Period. It is too important to get it wrong.
Anyway, here is an article I found. This is from the department of 'No shit Sherlock'. In fact you can search Google for more things like this. I really think something needs to change in reference to this. Here is a link to an article closer to the source of the presentation.
Basically the higher education system in the US needs reform. Period. It is too important to get it wrong.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Pass me a pint of that non-alcoholic ale, matey.
Those who know me know that I do not drink, most anything. Beer, wine, tea, coffee, etc. 'none for me, thanks.' However I still support other's right to drink. So this article on the reason is especially troublesome. I have long known for time that England is one of the most watched societies in the world however I did not really know that it was the most regulated (that award last I knew went to Switzerland where you can not pee standing up after like 10 pm).
So there are two sides of this coin, one which is the protection of other people and the other which is freedom to enjoy oneself. Now I am all for intelligent regulations which limit people's ability to infringe upon my rights but I think there is a very hard case to be made that the laws picked out in this article are reasonable. Now of course there is author's bias in here and there are likely very good regulations for bars in England. However because some laws are good it does not mean all laws are good. While I am more likely to be annoyed by people drinking (and subsequently walking home yelling) than enjoying a beer in a pub, I still this is ridiculous.
So there are two sides of this coin, one which is the protection of other people and the other which is freedom to enjoy oneself. Now I am all for intelligent regulations which limit people's ability to infringe upon my rights but I think there is a very hard case to be made that the laws picked out in this article are reasonable. Now of course there is author's bias in here and there are likely very good regulations for bars in England. However because some laws are good it does not mean all laws are good. While I am more likely to be annoyed by people drinking (and subsequently walking home yelling) than enjoying a beer in a pub, I still this is ridiculous.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Financial Markets for Thought
Some people know that I spend a lot of time outside of work studying and listening/watching various specials or educational presentations. It is important to keep your mind moving and learning because, let's face it, you can never know too much. Well I recently finished the Game Theory course on Academic Earth and started the Financial Markets course. The course is actually taught by Robert Shiller (yes the guy from the Case-Shiller index which is so well known these days). I actually got to ask Robert Shiller a question when I went to a presentation of his in the last year.
I won't post the 3 lectures I have watched so far since it is over 4 hours of watching and I know that if you wanted to watch them you would just follow my links. However I wanted to highlight a couple of interesting statements made by him. (All are paraphrased.)
I won't post the 3 lectures I have watched so far since it is over 4 hours of watching and I know that if you wanted to watch them you would just follow my links. However I wanted to highlight a couple of interesting statements made by him. (All are paraphrased.)
- Successful Finance people will be philanthropists because no one can ever spend a billion dollars. This is likely true. He asserted that all successful financial people will end up spending time with a charity where they donate their money.
- Financial Engineering is a great thing (as is patenting the processes) because it helps the markets work. See lower but he views all financial products as good things as they are equalizers.
- Financial Engineering is copied by everyone once it works but the time it takes to make them work is long. He had an interesting discussion in lecture 3 I believe about what happened in the 1800s to allow for financial markets. (Also about human experiences.)
- Financial Markets are similar to Communism (I know I am paraphrasing but his point was:) because they equalize things. Without financial markets and risk management the rich are the ones who were lucky enough to not have something bad happen (like lose their health insurance) and the poor were victims of fate. This is a gross generalization but I can see where he is coming from. So if you spread the risk around (financial markets and engineering) the risk is more equalized. (He also was a proponent of progressive taxes which is kinda expected given the other things.)
- If financial markets were prefect then there would be total equality and sharing of risk and everyone would be equally rich. Basically you can arrive at communism through financial markets because all risk and rewards are spread evenly. I know this is not communism but the point is what I believe he was trying to make. It is a very interesting idea that bares some thought.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Twit Post: Jay-Walking
So Jay Leno is done with the tonight show and they had a best of Jay-Walking on the show. This is hilarious you have to watch it. There is like one I did not know. (I did not know Nero played a fiddle, but oh well.)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Smiling is against the law?
I labeled this as an 'On a lighter note' however it isn't really that funny because this is the law.
Apparently you can no longer smile on your driver's license in Virginia.
Anyone else find this ridiculous? I mean it is obvious why it is this way. Face recognition technology has problems if the reference image in sufficiently distorted. So by not having people smile the system will be more accurate. This is a good thing for automatic recognition, however it is questionable as to why this needs to happen? Do we need a police system where you are photographed everywhere you go? I definitely don't think so. Anyway. Enjoy the lunacy of the Virginia legislature. Don't worry it will be coming to a legislature near you soon I am sure.
Apparently you can no longer smile on your driver's license in Virginia.
Anyone else find this ridiculous? I mean it is obvious why it is this way. Face recognition technology has problems if the reference image in sufficiently distorted. So by not having people smile the system will be more accurate. This is a good thing for automatic recognition, however it is questionable as to why this needs to happen? Do we need a police system where you are photographed everywhere you go? I definitely don't think so. Anyway. Enjoy the lunacy of the Virginia legislature. Don't worry it will be coming to a legislature near you soon I am sure.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
California Dreaming
In an interesting turn of events, California is no longer the most liberal and proactive state. The supreme court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage. (MSNBC article here.) While I think the amendment that passed in November should never have passed, I feel justice was done in this case. Let me explain.
In the American political system the courts are meant to up hold the will of the people (as embodied in the constitution and laws in an order of importance). In California the people said that they do not want to allow gay marriage. Thus if the court had struck down the amendment then the court would have been placing itself above the constitution which would have far reaching consequences for the country. What is slightly confusing is that the case made it to the supreme court, it should have been an open and shut case, the constitution says it is illegal so the court must uphold it. So the court had to rule that the amendment was constitutional.
I know a lot of people do not like this ruling, me neither, however you have to agree that the opposing ruling of the court would have undermined the system entirely. The issue on the table is that in the next election (or voting period) there will need to be another ballot measure to reverse the November amendment and instead affirm the rights of gay people to marry. I know it is not immediate and it may not be what some people want, but the system is what it is and it is there for a reason. If we sidestep the system (which has happened in the past) then the system starts to fail and people lose faith. The system is made to prevent huge changes all the time based on popular opinion at that time, think of it as a low-pass filter of the current political climate if you will.
What is more ambiguous is that the affirming the already signed marriage licenses. This is actually a productive ruling in that respect as well. If they removed them then they set a precedent of rejudging actions and people by laws made after that action. This would also be very bad. You could own a red car, then a law could be made to put in jail all people with red cars and then you would be guilty even if you sold that car years ago.
So basically, in a state that rarely has rationality, I feel that justice was done in this case. Even though I do not agree with the 50%+1 people in California who voted against gay marriage.
In the American political system the courts are meant to up hold the will of the people (as embodied in the constitution and laws in an order of importance). In California the people said that they do not want to allow gay marriage. Thus if the court had struck down the amendment then the court would have been placing itself above the constitution which would have far reaching consequences for the country. What is slightly confusing is that the case made it to the supreme court, it should have been an open and shut case, the constitution says it is illegal so the court must uphold it. So the court had to rule that the amendment was constitutional.
I know a lot of people do not like this ruling, me neither, however you have to agree that the opposing ruling of the court would have undermined the system entirely. The issue on the table is that in the next election (or voting period) there will need to be another ballot measure to reverse the November amendment and instead affirm the rights of gay people to marry. I know it is not immediate and it may not be what some people want, but the system is what it is and it is there for a reason. If we sidestep the system (which has happened in the past) then the system starts to fail and people lose faith. The system is made to prevent huge changes all the time based on popular opinion at that time, think of it as a low-pass filter of the current political climate if you will.
What is more ambiguous is that the affirming the already signed marriage licenses. This is actually a productive ruling in that respect as well. If they removed them then they set a precedent of rejudging actions and people by laws made after that action. This would also be very bad. You could own a red car, then a law could be made to put in jail all people with red cars and then you would be guilty even if you sold that car years ago.
So basically, in a state that rarely has rationality, I feel that justice was done in this case. Even though I do not agree with the 50%+1 people in California who voted against gay marriage.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Woohoo, give me your data...
Give me your weary data, your sick data, your ....
This is huge to me: data.gov.
Why is it huge? Now there is more access to numbers and statistics from the government. This will allow the public to be more informed and for bloggers to have more tools to keep the government accountable. My only concern is that recently government programs of this type die a slow and painful death. This is compounded by the fact that current the website is a little light on data. However there is always hope. I hope someone puts together a website that does a good job of representing this data and allow for use to search it well. (Google, do you hear me?)
This is huge to me: data.gov.
Why is it huge? Now there is more access to numbers and statistics from the government. This will allow the public to be more informed and for bloggers to have more tools to keep the government accountable. My only concern is that recently government programs of this type die a slow and painful death. This is compounded by the fact that current the website is a little light on data. However there is always hope. I hope someone puts together a website that does a good job of representing this data and allow for use to search it well. (Google, do you hear me?)
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Twit Post: So true
This made me laugh a lot. Unfortunately this is very true. What I would say to those who do research is to make C, D, and E more obvious in your work. I know it is nice and note worthy to say A -> B but there are a lot of people out there who don't actually read the entire article so the assumptions should be more obvious.
They did miss one step. It was someone becomes an experts in the problem and then University of Phoenix online will start offering a degree in it. :-)
Friday, May 22, 2009
The winds of change
Promise this will be short today. I came across an interesting map on the economist, it is linked from this article. The map is about gay marriage and shows the way in which gay marriage or rights have been enacted by state. This is an interesting to see the places things have changed. It is my opinion that the world has changed enough that this flood will eventually cross the entire country. I am also jazzed that this is happening at the state level (since this is a right reserved to the states). I am so glad the federal government has not stepped into this area (yet, you know they can't help themselves). I am slightly disappointed to see the number of places where the courts did it instead of the legislature (4/13). However the majority is on the right side so I am more happy than sad.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Plastic Changes
So for those of you whose radar does not catch all of the things going on in congress, there is a very interesting bill being debated. This is the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. This bill (text here) is to limit the practices that the general public think are unfair. This recently passed a major hurdle in congress. This is a very interesting bill for me for a couple of reasons. I have run across an interesting article discussing the merits of the bill (here a short but well worth it read). I quick search will find a lot more website articles, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
First, it is important to protect the customers from various underhanded things. This is a very 'big government' policy. This bill effectively tells the country that the federal government will be in charge of putting cuffs on the credit card industry instead of the states. For a long time the different state laws has been a major headache for consumers. For customers who can get credit this is a very good bill. This will prevent major increases without warning, outlaw universal default, and force old interest rates on old debt. For the consumer these are good things. However there is 45 day time frame for the laws to become enforceable and in that time expect very large increases in rates.
Second, this law will be an interesting application of government intervention because the affects are likely to be large. Mostly this will affect customers with poor credit. If I am a credit card company and I can't charge people based on their situation then the risk will have to be spread over all customers. So the low-risk customers will have to subsidize the poor credit customers. This will raise rates. (Though you should never carry a balance anyway.)
In the long run the consequences of this bill are unknown as both sides have very good points. I believe that in time credit card companies will find a way to make money on risky customers through credit cards again but in the short term this will (while helping most customers) hurt most customers and will significantly change the game. I can see a world where credit card companies become more like auto insurance companies where they have 'high risk' arms of their business.
As a outrageous side note: (Read the article I linked to,) 'The bill also allows carrying of loaded guns in national parks.' Just shows how 'efficient' the government is. I mean credit cards and carrying guns into national parks are connected in my mind. I hate the way bills are written these days. (What a boondoggle.)
First, it is important to protect the customers from various underhanded things. This is a very 'big government' policy. This bill effectively tells the country that the federal government will be in charge of putting cuffs on the credit card industry instead of the states. For a long time the different state laws has been a major headache for consumers. For customers who can get credit this is a very good bill. This will prevent major increases without warning, outlaw universal default, and force old interest rates on old debt. For the consumer these are good things. However there is 45 day time frame for the laws to become enforceable and in that time expect very large increases in rates.
Second, this law will be an interesting application of government intervention because the affects are likely to be large. Mostly this will affect customers with poor credit. If I am a credit card company and I can't charge people based on their situation then the risk will have to be spread over all customers. So the low-risk customers will have to subsidize the poor credit customers. This will raise rates. (Though you should never carry a balance anyway.)
In the long run the consequences of this bill are unknown as both sides have very good points. I believe that in time credit card companies will find a way to make money on risky customers through credit cards again but in the short term this will (while helping most customers) hurt most customers and will significantly change the game. I can see a world where credit card companies become more like auto insurance companies where they have 'high risk' arms of their business.
As a outrageous side note: (Read the article I linked to,) 'The bill also allows carrying of loaded guns in national parks.' Just shows how 'efficient' the government is. I mean credit cards and carrying guns into national parks are connected in my mind. I hate the way bills are written these days. (What a boondoggle.)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The conscience of Paul Krugman
I know this blog can have a slightly libertarian slant and thought I would discuss some non-libertarian authors that I read and listen to, to try to balance the opinion of those 3 people who read my blog.
I have read and watched Paul Krugman for a long time. The following are two videos I have found on google videos given by Paul Krugman. For those of you who don't know, he recently won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his work on trade patterns. Other famous people you may have heard of who won the prize: John Nash (the movie A Beautiful Mind was about him), and Milton Friedman (a very famous free market capitalist).
Recently I ran across the following as well:
In the last week I finished his book "The conscience of a liberal" which is the same title as his New York Times blog. (I am adding his blog to my 'People trying to help' list on my blog with this posting, I think his blog is well worth the read even if you do not completely agree with him, he is entertaining and very smart.) I will try to talk in generalizations about my thoughts on his work and writings and as the opportunities come up in the future I will post specific thoughts on specific aspects of work and specific posts.
I have a very conflicted relationship with the writings of Paul. I think partially because his work is largely slanted heavily to the left. (I mean look at the title of his book.) However I am getting ahead of myself. His book largely traces the history of the modern Republican party from an economic standpoint, the opposition to the new deal, opposed to social security, the acceptance of social programs, and the current neo-conservatives. This is a history which is well stated in many books and publications. Throughout the book Krugman attacks the right viciously. Mostly the biased language he uses is the most unhelpful. For instance when talking about Social Security he says, 'The left supports the program while the right undermines the program.' For someone who is suppose to write in common language for the average American about politics and economics this statement is decidedly one-sided and unhelpful. The 'undermine' word implies not just against which is the actual intent (and truth) at the time he was talking about. He also casually dismisses valid libertarian thought about various aspects of the social order in that time. Essentially it is obvious that Paul Krugman is way to the left on the political spectrum and despises the Republicans.
I agree with almost all of his points about the history of the modern Republican movement and I have most of the same opinions, however his attacking is unhelpful. He should be trying to provide an unbiased opinion and critique of the current system. There are plenty of people who will tell you their thoughts on the other side (I am one of them, but I don't have a Nobel Prize...). Why should a proficient economist waste time with such things? Now in the book he devotes a lot of time to health care and why it is terrible that America does not have a national health care system. He calls for a New 'New Deal' where health care is the major component. This is most of the reason for the back story about the Republican party. There is significant disagreement over the implementation of health care policy but I do not feel after reading a lot on the subject that the right is as naive or stupid as Krugman would like to believe. They just have different views (both sides have entrenched corporations writing their bills about this). The goal is to find the best policy not to attack the other side, in this respect Krugman fails. In regards to health care policy it is important to also see the failings of the Democratic party and to understand why both sides act the way they do. I think this is sorely missed by the book.
However Krugman does point out rightly in a lot of cases the stupidity of actions by the Republicans (supporting racism for one). As I said before I feel that he should leave the general politics to other people and write about the stupidity in economics, there is no lack of them on either side (though if you only read Krugman you would assume the Democrats were almost angelic).
In the end while I completely disagree with his stances so far to the left I feel (unlike a lot of both Democratic and Republican writings) that his writing is at least intelligent and fun. While I would expect more from a Nobel Prize winner and I honestly would expect less from your average columnist so I feel he is someone that should have everyone's ear at least part of the time.
As an aside: Google Blogger thinks Democractic should be capitalized but not Republican. Seems shady to me.
I have read and watched Paul Krugman for a long time. The following are two videos I have found on google videos given by Paul Krugman. For those of you who don't know, he recently won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his work on trade patterns. Other famous people you may have heard of who won the prize: John Nash (the movie A Beautiful Mind was about him), and Milton Friedman (a very famous free market capitalist).
Adblock
Recently I ran across the following as well:
In the last week I finished his book "The conscience of a liberal" which is the same title as his New York Times blog. (I am adding his blog to my 'People trying to help' list on my blog with this posting, I think his blog is well worth the read even if you do not completely agree with him, he is entertaining and very smart.) I will try to talk in generalizations about my thoughts on his work and writings and as the opportunities come up in the future I will post specific thoughts on specific aspects of work and specific posts.
I have a very conflicted relationship with the writings of Paul. I think partially because his work is largely slanted heavily to the left. (I mean look at the title of his book.) However I am getting ahead of myself. His book largely traces the history of the modern Republican party from an economic standpoint, the opposition to the new deal, opposed to social security, the acceptance of social programs, and the current neo-conservatives. This is a history which is well stated in many books and publications. Throughout the book Krugman attacks the right viciously. Mostly the biased language he uses is the most unhelpful. For instance when talking about Social Security he says, 'The left supports the program while the right undermines the program.' For someone who is suppose to write in common language for the average American about politics and economics this statement is decidedly one-sided and unhelpful. The 'undermine' word implies not just against which is the actual intent (and truth) at the time he was talking about. He also casually dismisses valid libertarian thought about various aspects of the social order in that time. Essentially it is obvious that Paul Krugman is way to the left on the political spectrum and despises the Republicans.
I agree with almost all of his points about the history of the modern Republican movement and I have most of the same opinions, however his attacking is unhelpful. He should be trying to provide an unbiased opinion and critique of the current system. There are plenty of people who will tell you their thoughts on the other side (I am one of them, but I don't have a Nobel Prize...). Why should a proficient economist waste time with such things? Now in the book he devotes a lot of time to health care and why it is terrible that America does not have a national health care system. He calls for a New 'New Deal' where health care is the major component. This is most of the reason for the back story about the Republican party. There is significant disagreement over the implementation of health care policy but I do not feel after reading a lot on the subject that the right is as naive or stupid as Krugman would like to believe. They just have different views (both sides have entrenched corporations writing their bills about this). The goal is to find the best policy not to attack the other side, in this respect Krugman fails. In regards to health care policy it is important to also see the failings of the Democratic party and to understand why both sides act the way they do. I think this is sorely missed by the book.
However Krugman does point out rightly in a lot of cases the stupidity of actions by the Republicans (supporting racism for one). As I said before I feel that he should leave the general politics to other people and write about the stupidity in economics, there is no lack of them on either side (though if you only read Krugman you would assume the Democrats were almost angelic).
In the end while I completely disagree with his stances so far to the left I feel (unlike a lot of both Democratic and Republican writings) that his writing is at least intelligent and fun. While I would expect more from a Nobel Prize winner and I honestly would expect less from your average columnist so I feel he is someone that should have everyone's ear at least part of the time.
As an aside: Google Blogger thinks Democractic should be capitalized but not Republican. Seems shady to me.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Olympic Bid Politics
So in one of my daily surfs I was wondering how the Olympic bid was going for Chicago. So I surfed on over to Wikipedia. Imagine my frustration when I came across the following passage*:
So I do not take exception to the housing part of the bid. That makes sense, in America we feel we should subsidize housing for the poorer parts of society. I'll leave that aside for the time being. It is a very socially responsible thing to do, however it has the affect of artificially lowering wages for the poorer people in the city, which is in the long run can hurt those people you want to help. If the poorer people do not need a living wage to pay for housing then they can accept a lower wage and still survive which causes the lowest wage levels to decrease. If people moved more freely (they are currently less likely to not move due to social reason like being near family) then not subsidizing housing would have a leveling effect on the economy in that city. If a worker cannot make a living wage then they move (this is something I think the government should subsidize for lower paid workers). Then the only people left require pay to afford housing in the city. This raises the wages which raises the cost of goods. If instead no one wants to hire someone at that price then they will be understaffed. It is supply and demand. I'll post more on my thoughts later (more you think, I know, I have a lot to say).
The part that really gets me is the part where a certain percentage will go to women and minorities. First if your society and selection committee are unbiased then this sentence is completely without any information. If your selected process awards purely on merit then it doesn't matter what the biological grouping of the CEO is. However this statement is like a blanket acceptance that the selected will not be equal in two ways:
Basically I advocate and always will against affirmative action in governmental contracts (I actually dislike it in ALL cases but lets focus on this one). Besides outwardly saying that the committee cannot recognize the best company and will use the race or gender to decide the contract, they have said that they will (instead of fixing the process) fix the outcome. This hurts the economics of the entire thing. Thus in the end the process becomes a politic tool for an agenda instead of a beneficial process of normal business.
* What I am not saying in this article is that women or minority companies shouldn't be contractors nor am I saying anything about the quality of those contractors. In fact there is the real possibility that companies run by these groups could significantly outperform the others and win a disproportionate amount of contracts based on proportion of minority companies compared to the rest. I have read about studies that show companies headed by people in the aforementioned groups are more likely to do better work due to the pressures of society against them. I just really really want the process to completely ignore irrelevant variables when deciding the contracts and this action by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle does NOT indicate that.
"...After the IOC commission left Chicago, the Chicago City Council approved an Olympic Community Agreement ordinance that was drafted by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle. The agreement commits 30 percent of Olympic Village units to affordable housing conversion and guarantees women and minorities a portion of Olympic-related contracts. Former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones derided the agreement as an inadequate deal." (I couldn't find the percentage, sorry.)For reference the article links to the following webpages: 1, 2. Why would this frustrate me? From previous posts everyone knows I am not a fan of affirmative action anymore than I am a fan of racism. Both are morally, economically, and logically inconsistent. If your goal is equality by spreading inequality then you are not helping the problem. I will post more of my thoughts on affirmative action in the future as I do not think as a movement all of the output is bad, however as a policy it is.
So I do not take exception to the housing part of the bid. That makes sense, in America we feel we should subsidize housing for the poorer parts of society. I'll leave that aside for the time being. It is a very socially responsible thing to do, however it has the affect of artificially lowering wages for the poorer people in the city, which is in the long run can hurt those people you want to help. If the poorer people do not need a living wage to pay for housing then they can accept a lower wage and still survive which causes the lowest wage levels to decrease. If people moved more freely (they are currently less likely to not move due to social reason like being near family) then not subsidizing housing would have a leveling effect on the economy in that city. If a worker cannot make a living wage then they move (this is something I think the government should subsidize for lower paid workers). Then the only people left require pay to afford housing in the city. This raises the wages which raises the cost of goods. If instead no one wants to hire someone at that price then they will be understaffed. It is supply and demand. I'll post more on my thoughts later (more you think, I know, I have a lot to say).
The part that really gets me is the part where a certain percentage will go to women and minorities. First if your society and selection committee are unbiased then this sentence is completely without any information. If your selected process awards purely on merit then it doesn't matter what the biological grouping of the CEO is. However this statement is like a blanket acceptance that the selected will not be equal in two ways:
- The committee will take into account (unconscientiously maybe) the race or gender of the person when deciding and will thus it is natural for your committee to not pick those minorities.
- The committee will take into account (conscientiously) the race or gender of the person when deciding to actively enforce a distribution of minorities across the contract process.
Basically I advocate and always will against affirmative action in governmental contracts (I actually dislike it in ALL cases but lets focus on this one). Besides outwardly saying that the committee cannot recognize the best company and will use the race or gender to decide the contract, they have said that they will (instead of fixing the process) fix the outcome. This hurts the economics of the entire thing. Thus in the end the process becomes a politic tool for an agenda instead of a beneficial process of normal business.
* What I am not saying in this article is that women or minority companies shouldn't be contractors nor am I saying anything about the quality of those contractors. In fact there is the real possibility that companies run by these groups could significantly outperform the others and win a disproportionate amount of contracts based on proportion of minority companies compared to the rest. I have read about studies that show companies headed by people in the aforementioned groups are more likely to do better work due to the pressures of society against them. I just really really want the process to completely ignore irrelevant variables when deciding the contracts and this action by Alderman Toni Preckwinkle does NOT indicate that.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Logical Fallacies to spur Public Outcries...
So I would like to state from the onset the following:
First (entirely from the implications of the content in the trailer) : I agree it is abhorred that congressman persecute gay couples and deny t hem benefits. The federal government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do in the bedroom (nor should the state). If the government does want to step in to 'think of the children' then they should do it in constructive and scientifically aware ways. The government has conducted many studies which show that having two parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is way better for the children than single parent or divorced homes. If the government would do anything it should be to prevent those kinds of households. (I am not actually advocating this but if the politicians want to hide behind helping the kids they should do that.) That being said the same scrutiny paid to heterosexual couples should be paid to homosexual couples. We need to 'think of the children'. On the issue of gay rights, well, I think I have stated where I stand. The government should afford protection for them like they do every other attribute specific group of people.
Now what I do not like. This video implies that because the congressmen conduct their private lives as gay men (or have in the past, one sexual encounter doesn't make you anymore gay than one heterosexual encounter makes you straight, just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a botanist). The video is playing on the discord between a man (or woman) who votes against gay rights who has gay encounters in their private lives. This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain.
There are many people who support speed limits who speed. They will quote speed limits as being in the best general interest of all people as they keep people from being killed (though the evidence on this is circumstantial). Or that the speed limit exists to keep down noise or some other thing. Basically they are good because they fill some opinion (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant) and thus is a good stance. However they speed, all the time. Thus by the logic in this trailer since they speed they must vote to abolish or raise the speed limit or else they are inconsistent. Is this really true? No. They are doing something illegal (for reference homosexual sex is banned in many states) but their opinions are that the rules for all of society should transcend either their personal struggles or should transcend people and look towards the good of society.
So lets bring this back to the issue of gay marriage. Maybe these congressmen actually believe that gay marriage is wrong even though they conduct their personal lives like gay men. It isn't impossible. For instance during the American revolution not all Americans were for the war. Some believed we shouldn't sever ties with Britain. They were still Americans and conducted business and lives here. The revolution was for people that belonged to this group but even though severing ties would have helped all Americans some still did not support it. If we were to follow the logic implied in this video then we would assume that all Americans should have supported the war or they were self-contradictory. However many had valid reasons to not support the war.
Now why do the politicians feel the way they do? Well this is likely the point the video is trying to attack. However the cultural background of all people is what makes us unique and is what makes the world interesting and what makes it work. Politics would be boring (and arguably more helpful) if everyone agreed the logical or research supported options were the best. However opinions and background cause these to be different. It is likely that part of the reason these politicians vote the way the do (or did) is because of a philosophical idea. Many people hate something about themselves (for good or bad, right or wrong) and would not support that action in a political context because they feel it is bad.
I just think it is a very bad idea to stir up public outrage by using logical fallacies. I feel that the pro-gay rights movement should be above this. Logical fallacies are hard to distinguish sometimes especially when you are close to the issue. However a proper perspective will make the movement more successful in the long run. The other difficulty is that rest a leg of the movement on that supposed hypocrisy of the other side will not work in winning the support of sympathetic voters because if the politician goes out and says 'I am sorry and broken and I am going to make it right' then you just let the issue become a moral issue resting on the opposition. Instead the pro movement should point out the virtues of it's platform regardless of the actions of the other side. Now the other side is not involved. The problem is on both sides the voters and politicians are swayed by their own blinders. You can't win the battle by telling the other side their blinders are idiosyncratic, you will lose their ear.
- I do not support these congressmen and politicians in their crusade against gay marriage.
- I do support gay marriage as legalized by legislative action. (1 and other posts in prep).
- I do not think that logical fallacies should be used in politics regardless of the outcome.
- I do not think that gay marriage would undermine traditional marriage and traditional families more than the current rot of marriage from the inside (abusive parents, single parent families, etc.) Studies show that having two parents (even if they are the same gender) is better than single parent families. (References: Wikipedia, Scholarly, if you have better references please post them.)
First (entirely from the implications of the content in the trailer) : I agree it is abhorred that congressman persecute gay couples and deny t hem benefits. The federal government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do in the bedroom (nor should the state). If the government does want to step in to 'think of the children' then they should do it in constructive and scientifically aware ways. The government has conducted many studies which show that having two parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is way better for the children than single parent or divorced homes. If the government would do anything it should be to prevent those kinds of households. (I am not actually advocating this but if the politicians want to hide behind helping the kids they should do that.) That being said the same scrutiny paid to heterosexual couples should be paid to homosexual couples. We need to 'think of the children'. On the issue of gay rights, well, I think I have stated where I stand. The government should afford protection for them like they do every other attribute specific group of people.
Now what I do not like. This video implies that because the congressmen conduct their private lives as gay men (or have in the past, one sexual encounter doesn't make you anymore gay than one heterosexual encounter makes you straight, just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a botanist). The video is playing on the discord between a man (or woman) who votes against gay rights who has gay encounters in their private lives. This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain.
There are many people who support speed limits who speed. They will quote speed limits as being in the best general interest of all people as they keep people from being killed (though the evidence on this is circumstantial). Or that the speed limit exists to keep down noise or some other thing. Basically they are good because they fill some opinion (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant) and thus is a good stance. However they speed, all the time. Thus by the logic in this trailer since they speed they must vote to abolish or raise the speed limit or else they are inconsistent. Is this really true? No. They are doing something illegal (for reference homosexual sex is banned in many states) but their opinions are that the rules for all of society should transcend either their personal struggles or should transcend people and look towards the good of society.
So lets bring this back to the issue of gay marriage. Maybe these congressmen actually believe that gay marriage is wrong even though they conduct their personal lives like gay men. It isn't impossible. For instance during the American revolution not all Americans were for the war. Some believed we shouldn't sever ties with Britain. They were still Americans and conducted business and lives here. The revolution was for people that belonged to this group but even though severing ties would have helped all Americans some still did not support it. If we were to follow the logic implied in this video then we would assume that all Americans should have supported the war or they were self-contradictory. However many had valid reasons to not support the war.
Now why do the politicians feel the way they do? Well this is likely the point the video is trying to attack. However the cultural background of all people is what makes us unique and is what makes the world interesting and what makes it work. Politics would be boring (and arguably more helpful) if everyone agreed the logical or research supported options were the best. However opinions and background cause these to be different. It is likely that part of the reason these politicians vote the way the do (or did) is because of a philosophical idea. Many people hate something about themselves (for good or bad, right or wrong) and would not support that action in a political context because they feel it is bad.
I just think it is a very bad idea to stir up public outrage by using logical fallacies. I feel that the pro-gay rights movement should be above this. Logical fallacies are hard to distinguish sometimes especially when you are close to the issue. However a proper perspective will make the movement more successful in the long run. The other difficulty is that rest a leg of the movement on that supposed hypocrisy of the other side will not work in winning the support of sympathetic voters because if the politician goes out and says 'I am sorry and broken and I am going to make it right' then you just let the issue become a moral issue resting on the opposition. Instead the pro movement should point out the virtues of it's platform regardless of the actions of the other side. Now the other side is not involved. The problem is on both sides the voters and politicians are swayed by their own blinders. You can't win the battle by telling the other side their blinders are idiosyncratic, you will lose their ear.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Pet Peeve #2: Bluetooth Ear Pieces
So, I have another pet peeve that annoys me to no end. As the title says, BLUE TOOTH EARPIECES DO NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. I would like to say that no one I have ever meet is important enough to have a blue tooth ear piece in their ear while they pick up their dry cleaning or ordering an overpriced glass of water with suspended particles in it. Additionally as has been said by many people, I don't need to hear your conversation, nor do I can what she did, with whom, and where, nor do I care about your uninformed opinion about the president, congress, whatever pet project you have, or whatever your work/union/friends tell you. (I realize the irony if you are reading my blog, it was suppose to be funny.)
Anyway as I was saying, no one is that important. I would also like to add that you can take it out of your ear and interact with real people. However I will say on a plus note that it is refreshing to see some people actually following the law and not talking on the phone without a headset while driving. At least I am assuming this, as I have yet to see someone driving who was talking on the phone using one.
Anyway as I was saying, no one is that important. I would also like to add that you can take it out of your ear and interact with real people. However I will say on a plus note that it is refreshing to see some people actually following the law and not talking on the phone without a headset while driving. At least I am assuming this, as I have yet to see someone driving who was talking on the phone using one.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Exposing the Fire of Reverse Discrimination
This has been under the news and I have had a tough time finding articles to support both sides of the case. At the onset I would like to say I find it deplorable that the news media are not discussing this court case as it is huge to the near future of our country. It ranks on the same level as the Michigan Entrance Points case. While the Michigan case was decided (in my opinion) correctly, this situation is just as important. In the current case the issue is whether race should be important to promotion decisions whereas the Michigan case was whether or not race could be considered in entrance decisions.
So let me start with a quick list of publications online that I have read and a quick overview.
If you actually browse the SCOTUS Wiki you will see all the 'friend of the court' (Amicus) briefs you will see a significant amount of 'non color blind' organizations filing briefs. (I personally do not support organizations that make a distinction between people based on skin color, or other minority group, and thus promote that minority without regard to equal protection and fair competition.) These organizations have a significant skin in the court case as they promote various (self-interested) things (like in the Michigan case) where they do not always promote equal protection and no discrimination for ALL races in ALL cases.
The problem is this issue has been made a partisan issue where the conservatives support the oppressed (majority) and the liberals support the color non-blind policies that are suppose to make opportunities more equal (thus provide advantages to the minority). Both sides actually have historically and currently relevant points.
For non-color blind policies:
The real problem with this case is that the case is hardly covered by the media. Instead we worry about a couple of people getting the flu, or what country Jolie is adopting a kid from today. This case has wide reaching consequences and should be scrutinized by all people on all sides of the issue. It seems that since Obama was elected the news media wants to believe that racism is dead. Well it isn't, it just hides itself in plain sight. I'll keep those who read my blog posted on the status of the decision once it is available. I encourage you to read the cites articles and postings as they will help provide a fuller picture of the case.
So let me start with a quick list of publications online that I have read and a quick overview.
- Wikipedia's overview. (Make sure you read the links at the end.)
- Reason.com (Seems to be the only publication that is interested in this case. For reference reason.com is a publication that is decidedly libertarian and decidedly freedom based. I am sure you can predict what side they agree with, they filed a 'friend of the court' brief.) Article.
- SCOTUS Wiki. (This site is cool.) (This has links to all 'friends of the court'. Very cool.)
- SCOTUS Blog. (Another great site.)
If you actually browse the SCOTUS Wiki you will see all the 'friend of the court' (Amicus) briefs you will see a significant amount of 'non color blind' organizations filing briefs. (I personally do not support organizations that make a distinction between people based on skin color, or other minority group, and thus promote that minority without regard to equal protection and fair competition.) These organizations have a significant skin in the court case as they promote various (self-interested) things (like in the Michigan case) where they do not always promote equal protection and no discrimination for ALL races in ALL cases.
The problem is this issue has been made a partisan issue where the conservatives support the oppressed (majority) and the liberals support the color non-blind policies that are suppose to make opportunities more equal (thus provide advantages to the minority). Both sides actually have historically and currently relevant points.
For non-color blind policies:
- Historically the white establishment kept the other races suppressed in America.
- Socially people tend to associate with people of their own race and economic background.
- Most people will not willing change their ways willingly.
- Government intervention in social interactions and business transactions were expanded under the post 'guilded age' (1920's) and so the precedent had been set.
- There may be latent racism and policies should be used to mitigate that.
- Economically these policies help bring up minorities in the population and provide opportunities that may not have been available at the expense of others who may have been more qualified and so these policies represent an inefficiency in the market economy we have (or are suppose to have).
- It is against Martin Luther's dream to make any decision based on race.
- Socially people in most areas of the country are color-blind and other areas have pressure to be more accepting (mostly from government interaction)
- People under the age of 30 are decidedly color neutral on many issues and have friends of all races in huge numbers. Promoting discriminatory policies will hamper these connections and could case a major reversal of these trends as people become more aware of the problems systemic.
- Enforcing color blind policies will disenfranchise those affected by the reverse discrimination. In the Michigan case and this case the people hurt are younger and more apt to encourage change. This disenfranchises people when the roles and opinions they will have in their life are starting to solidify as they have kids. If social engineering is to be attempted it should not be done to disenfranchise the leaders of tomorrow.
- Economically having non color blind policies will lead to lower earnings and lower productivity (since the best candidate didn't get the job, resources are inefficiently allocated) in any corporation. While this case is about government whose only output in general is inefficiency, in an age where taxes are on the raise it is important to not encourage inefficiencies.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."I think you know who's quote that is. I would like to think that a world like that is possible. However quotas, reverse-discrimination, racism, etc. are not helpful to that vision and I personally believe that the man quoted above would be against reverse discrimination outright. Most especially when they are enforced or allowed by the federal government. I hope this court case is decided appropriately. The reason article paints an optimistic picture for those who dislike racism as it seems that there is a higher probability that the court will side with Ricco in this case. (This is the opinion of the author, who is not a supreme court judge.)
The real problem with this case is that the case is hardly covered by the media. Instead we worry about a couple of people getting the flu, or what country Jolie is adopting a kid from today. This case has wide reaching consequences and should be scrutinized by all people on all sides of the issue. It seems that since Obama was elected the news media wants to believe that racism is dead. Well it isn't, it just hides itself in plain sight. I'll keep those who read my blog posted on the status of the decision once it is available. I encourage you to read the cites articles and postings as they will help provide a fuller picture of the case.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Twit Post: Why Mensa is ridiculous
(I promise I will get away from twit posting (defined as short posts with little analysis) soon. I have just been really busy.)
This video just highlights what is wrong with the inclusion criteria for Mensa (the group of 'really smart people'). This girl is essentially a memory machine. I think it is horrible that we have reduced the 'intelligence' of a person to their ability to verbally recite things. It is really sad. Should not intelligence be the ability to make connections, to think rationally, to invent or innovate, etc.? When did we get away from that. While I am not saying this girl is not smart, I am saying there is no evidence either way based on this video. (For reference there have been about 4 videos like this recently where a 'smart' kid is brought on and then just shown to be an encyclopedia on something. One I remember was that she knew all the presidents forwards and backwards.)
Now what does this mean for this little girl? Everyone will always be telling her she is smart which is a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as the converse is. Thus she likely has a more productive and fulfilling life ahead of her as a result of this. The question is, 'For such a trivial trick why not get more kids recognized as "smart" and give them a leg up in life?' I think that is an important question to ask as it returns to the heart of the issue. Now of course if she had devised a new quantum unification theory instead of just reciting facts, well then she wouldn't have even needed the smart term anyway.
This video just highlights what is wrong with the inclusion criteria for Mensa (the group of 'really smart people'). This girl is essentially a memory machine. I think it is horrible that we have reduced the 'intelligence' of a person to their ability to verbally recite things. It is really sad. Should not intelligence be the ability to make connections, to think rationally, to invent or innovate, etc.? When did we get away from that. While I am not saying this girl is not smart, I am saying there is no evidence either way based on this video. (For reference there have been about 4 videos like this recently where a 'smart' kid is brought on and then just shown to be an encyclopedia on something. One I remember was that she knew all the presidents forwards and backwards.)
Now what does this mean for this little girl? Everyone will always be telling her she is smart which is a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as the converse is. Thus she likely has a more productive and fulfilling life ahead of her as a result of this. The question is, 'For such a trivial trick why not get more kids recognized as "smart" and give them a leg up in life?' I think that is an important question to ask as it returns to the heart of the issue. Now of course if she had devised a new quantum unification theory instead of just reciting facts, well then she wouldn't have even needed the smart term anyway.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Twit Post: Update on Diamonds
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Twit Post: Memo to CNN (and every other news organization)
The following is not news : http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/26/clinton.lebanon/index.html
What would be news is if Clinton went to Lebanon and said, 'Look here is how you rig an election....' Come on CNN, real reporting, please. I have pushed cnn.com to the bottom of my read list for the day, everyday. There is just not enough good reporting on there. This is another example. Now the article should read either, 'Clinton says obvious American foreign policy statement,' or 'Clinton outlines plan citing research and precedent on how to run election in Lebanon.' I mean just repeating what we expect her to say is NOT NEWS.
What would be news is if Clinton went to Lebanon and said, 'Look here is how you rig an election....' Come on CNN, real reporting, please. I have pushed cnn.com to the bottom of my read list for the day, everyday. There is just not enough good reporting on there. This is another example. Now the article should read either, 'Clinton says obvious American foreign policy statement,' or 'Clinton outlines plan citing research and precedent on how to run election in Lebanon.' I mean just repeating what we expect her to say is NOT NEWS.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
On a lighter note: Outsourcing
Outsourcing is a very volatile issue in the united states. It is tough to find a black and white solution to what is the best way to approach the entire issue. However in advance of my own posts on the outsourcing epidemic I thought this more lighter discussion on the issue would help lighten the mood.
More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas
My favorite part is the conference call machines talking to each other.
More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas
My favorite part is the conference call machines talking to each other.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Special on water in the pudget sound
Frontline tonight was a special on water. I would say at the start Frontline continues it's 6045 part series on depressing shit. I think they need to break it up with a special on why rabbits are cuddly. I mean come on, a happy special sometimes, please. After watching Frontline I think my water is poisoning me, my credit card company is hanging me, my country doesn't listen to me, my representative doesn't know shit, I'm going to pay 90% taxes, Aliens are pulling my brain out through my nose, and my stuffed animals, regardless of what they say, are trying to kill me. Just a couple of specials on kittens, please guys.
The Frontline special is here.
This special was particularly interesting because it featured the Puget sound as an example of poisoned water. The special was talking about the affects of the 1940s on the rivers and the problems that it brings to today. What is interesting is the law which says that land owners can only develop about 60% of their land in King county. I have heard a lot about this recently but did not really understand the entire story behind this law (which is apparently still being challenged through the courts). It was also interesting to hear the other side of the discussion about this law. The people affect, in their opinion, in an adverse and illegal way discussed the consequences of the law on their lives.
Basically this special deals with things that aware Americans already know, our water is poisoning us. Not nearly as quickly as China's water is poisoning them though. The chemicals, medications, sewer water that get dumped into the waterways are poisoning the ecosystems all over the world. As an interesting anecdote I was hiking this weekend by the Puget sound and I saw a long stream of oil just sitting on the water. You know the kind of thing you would see in a rough lake after a storm when all the oil collects in one place. I actually thought, this being democrat heaven, that the sound was actually in good shape. Got my eyes opened.
It is really depressing to think that the world is assailing us on so many sides with clubs and society is more concerned with who some movie star is dating this week. The poisonous waters are slowly rising to cover our homes and the politicians in Washington are more interested in lining their pockets and promoting their narrow-minded view of the world. Really sad.
The Frontline special is here.
This special was particularly interesting because it featured the Puget sound as an example of poisoned water. The special was talking about the affects of the 1940s on the rivers and the problems that it brings to today. What is interesting is the law which says that land owners can only develop about 60% of their land in King county. I have heard a lot about this recently but did not really understand the entire story behind this law (which is apparently still being challenged through the courts). It was also interesting to hear the other side of the discussion about this law. The people affect, in their opinion, in an adverse and illegal way discussed the consequences of the law on their lives.
Basically this special deals with things that aware Americans already know, our water is poisoning us. Not nearly as quickly as China's water is poisoning them though. The chemicals, medications, sewer water that get dumped into the waterways are poisoning the ecosystems all over the world. As an interesting anecdote I was hiking this weekend by the Puget sound and I saw a long stream of oil just sitting on the water. You know the kind of thing you would see in a rough lake after a storm when all the oil collects in one place. I actually thought, this being democrat heaven, that the sound was actually in good shape. Got my eyes opened.
It is really depressing to think that the world is assailing us on so many sides with clubs and society is more concerned with who some movie star is dating this week. The poisonous waters are slowly rising to cover our homes and the politicians in Washington are more interested in lining their pockets and promoting their narrow-minded view of the world. Really sad.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Twit Post: Non-Breaking News
The title of CNN right now reads:
"BREAKING NEWS: Clinton says she's 'deeply disappointed' by Iran's sentencing of U.S. journalist."
No, I am not going to comment on the content of the message beyond, is this really breaking news? Should not breaking news be like, "Clinton sends in Navy Seals to extract journalist." This is just a comment by someone who is suppose to comment on this stuff. Of course she is not going to be "Woohoo, justice was done." It is just ridiculous. I have seen even more ridiculous stuff in 'Breaking News' on CNN (and other websites, they are all just as bad).
Let us put the following rule in place : "It is only breaking news if it is unexpected, the story is new, or it is a shocking turn of events." We could always apply the other following metric "Would a newspaper in the 1920's have printed an 'extra extra' section, if not then it isn't breaking news." Either of them is fine with me.
News agencies need to be more aware of the stupid things they do to get eye-balls. If they continue I will stop reading CNN all together. I mean they rarely have good news anyway.
"BREAKING NEWS: Clinton says she's 'deeply disappointed' by Iran's sentencing of U.S. journalist."
No, I am not going to comment on the content of the message beyond, is this really breaking news? Should not breaking news be like, "Clinton sends in Navy Seals to extract journalist." This is just a comment by someone who is suppose to comment on this stuff. Of course she is not going to be "Woohoo, justice was done." It is just ridiculous. I have seen even more ridiculous stuff in 'Breaking News' on CNN (and other websites, they are all just as bad).
Let us put the following rule in place : "It is only breaking news if it is unexpected, the story is new, or it is a shocking turn of events." We could always apply the other following metric "Would a newspaper in the 1920's have printed an 'extra extra' section, if not then it isn't breaking news." Either of them is fine with me.
News agencies need to be more aware of the stupid things they do to get eye-balls. If they continue I will stop reading CNN all together. I mean they rarely have good news anyway.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Super-hero league of Hollywood
So an interesting video that I had to share is the following. I found it on hulu.com. Now I know at first you would think a documentary about people who dress up in superhero outfits would be incredibly boring but it is in fact really interesting. The movie profiles four 'performers' in Hollywood who are trying to make it as actors or actresses and do this gig to just fill in the gaps.
It seems weird to imagine going to Hollywood to be a super-star. You hear about the people who never make it and how there are more all the time not making it and I think it was enlightening to hear a couple of the people's stories. It seems obvious that the underlying theme of the movie is that things are not working out. Two of the people are actually (or are shown to actually be) trying to get jobs whereas the other two are shown to not be. It seems like there is a disconnect between having a real plan and not having a plan at all for these people. However irrespective of that they all think they are going to make it and get noticed (which some might). It seems to me it is like winning the lotto by standing outside a store hoping someone will give you a winning ticket. Does not happen in real life but you never know. If you instead go in and buy the ticket you can at least have a chance of winning.
I can remember actually reading and hearing about Elmo and Mr. Incredible being arrested a while so it was weird to be seeing this from a second angle. They were arrested for disturbing the peace or something. Early in the movie about minute 6 I think there is a discussion about the laws surrounding what these costumed characters can and cannot do. (They basically work for tips but they cannot ask for tips or harass the tourists.) There was an interesting scene at about 13:30 where Marilyn Monroe was complaining about not getting tipped. She was complaining that no one paid her for a service that wasn't something that they had to pay for anyway and likened it to stealing. (Besides the fact that that analogy is incredibly wrong.) She was working for free with the hope that people would tip her. It seems counter intuitive to expect pay for that. The expectation that they would make tips regardless is detrimental. I have to hand it to superman (who probably makes a lot more than Ms. Monroe) as he was cool headed about it and was like, hey they don't have to pay us. I wonder what the economics of this situation is. You would need to be able to make enough that the average tip would be reasonable. However without enforcing the tipping you could have (as Ms. Monroe said) a string of people who don't tip because those before that they saw did not tip.
It is a surprisingly interesting video. At the end I felt mostly sad for all of the characters. It seems that this was partial due to the editing of the material but also because I do not feel that if they were really trying to make it that some of their decisions were not well-founded. (That is an opinion though.) I also have a major problem with people who expect tips which probably sullied my impression of a couple of the characters anyway. However I know one person (who does not read this blog who would be really interested in all of the superman memorabilia.)
It seems weird to imagine going to Hollywood to be a super-star. You hear about the people who never make it and how there are more all the time not making it and I think it was enlightening to hear a couple of the people's stories. It seems obvious that the underlying theme of the movie is that things are not working out. Two of the people are actually (or are shown to actually be) trying to get jobs whereas the other two are shown to not be. It seems like there is a disconnect between having a real plan and not having a plan at all for these people. However irrespective of that they all think they are going to make it and get noticed (which some might). It seems to me it is like winning the lotto by standing outside a store hoping someone will give you a winning ticket. Does not happen in real life but you never know. If you instead go in and buy the ticket you can at least have a chance of winning.
I can remember actually reading and hearing about Elmo and Mr. Incredible being arrested a while so it was weird to be seeing this from a second angle. They were arrested for disturbing the peace or something. Early in the movie about minute 6 I think there is a discussion about the laws surrounding what these costumed characters can and cannot do. (They basically work for tips but they cannot ask for tips or harass the tourists.) There was an interesting scene at about 13:30 where Marilyn Monroe was complaining about not getting tipped. She was complaining that no one paid her for a service that wasn't something that they had to pay for anyway and likened it to stealing. (Besides the fact that that analogy is incredibly wrong.) She was working for free with the hope that people would tip her. It seems counter intuitive to expect pay for that. The expectation that they would make tips regardless is detrimental. I have to hand it to superman (who probably makes a lot more than Ms. Monroe) as he was cool headed about it and was like, hey they don't have to pay us. I wonder what the economics of this situation is. You would need to be able to make enough that the average tip would be reasonable. However without enforcing the tipping you could have (as Ms. Monroe said) a string of people who don't tip because those before that they saw did not tip.
It is a surprisingly interesting video. At the end I felt mostly sad for all of the characters. It seems that this was partial due to the editing of the material but also because I do not feel that if they were really trying to make it that some of their decisions were not well-founded. (That is an opinion though.) I also have a major problem with people who expect tips which probably sullied my impression of a couple of the characters anyway. However I know one person (who does not read this blog who would be really interested in all of the superman memorabilia.)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A post-modern proto-food
(Yes that is a reference to a specific book, brownie points to the person who can name it.)
So since I spent some time in Europe during my schooling years I have been interested in a complex and difficult to grasp concept of genetically modified (GM) foods (and vegetarianism with its relation to the GM foods). This post only deals with the former. The later will likely be discussed at length in the future.
Well, I will provide a couple of interesting videos about the subject before I continue. These are in general critical of GM foods (and genetic modification of our food supply) and probably rightly so, the flip side of the argument will be respected after the videos. The first video is from hulu.com. I just watched this documentary tonight, it repeats a lot that we will see in the other videos.
These next videos are from an investigative reporter in England. I have actually watched these a couple of times. They are worth watching just to see how a different culture (though not completely different) approaches the problem of food production (if not GM foods). Also the part where she goes into the chicken farm, creepy.
and part 2:
Finally I present a video that is a documentary about the history of corporations and the role of corporations in the current world. There is an interesting bit about Fox News, rBGH, and Monsanto in there. Definitely worth a watch as well. The playlist is here. The video is in 23 chapters. The following is the part about Fox News and rBGH.
Now all of these videos bring up a lot of interesting issues and in time I will try to come back to these issues. However I will only talk about the Food issues and specifically with regard to the GM foods. As I said these videos definitely have a slant which is worth pointing out. There is a political message in them that the actions of the corporations and the intents are in of themselves bad or poor. I think this is a slight misreading if not outright misunderstanding. If you watch the final video about the corporations in the US (and thus by extension the rest of the world) you will know that the corporation is bound, by law, to be self interested in profits for its shareholders. If it is not then the officers of the corporation are liable for the actions and can be sued by the shareholders.
Why is this important? As much as I dislike the idea of the patentability of life in any form (genes, bacteria, etc.) it is the system in which we live. In relation to crops, the companies saw a way to make money and are exploiting it. That is what they should do. Now there is a famous case in Canada (A?) about a canola farmer. The decision by the supreme court of Canada is in fact a very bad one. What happened is that some of the patented genes got onto this guy's farmland and crossbreed with his crop. So Monsanto allegedly went on his property and took samples and found this out. The supreme court ruled that it was his (the farmer who didn't even want GM foods) job to protect his crops from being cross pollinated with the patented crops. Which is a very insane judgment and completely impractical. I would direct someone with more interest to read the link or watch the entire first video. This strong arming by the corporation for unreasonable terms is not helping the corporation's cause in protecting their property. There are many examples of this happening and it huttles the real issues of government protection, corporation profit motivation, consumer's right to knowledge, and farmer's right to work.
At the heart, if the country decides that it is permissible for a corporation to own the rights to life in some way, it is important that laws are made to ensure the enforcement of zero liability in cases where the movement of the genetic material is unintended. If you are creating life there should be no expectation that you can own anything that is a derivative of that product which is substantially different. For instance if I make a butterfly and he mates with a squirrel, I should not own the flying squirrels. If this cannot be assured then there is problems (as there currently is). The question of the patentability of life is another topic for another time.
So why is this important? There is not currently proper labeling of GM foods in the United States (however there is in Europe, I mean Europe can get their act together why can't we?) and there has been a couple of times where this has caused health problems for the public. So what is the real issue in this debate? Really the european model is likely a more reasonable compromise. The government should enforce labeling of GM foods so the consumer will make intelligent decisions. However the corporations have said that customers will stay away from their product then and that will drop the price. THAT IS A GOOD THING YOU ANTI-CAPTIALIST CAPITALIST PIGS. :-) (I just had to, it was too easy.) If your product is deemed inferior then it will not get the same price as a product that is deemed superior. It would be like Microsoft saying that they should get a subsidy for all Zunes they sell so that they can get the same profit margins as Apple does on their iPod. If you produce a good product (non-GM foods) then you should be able to charge a higher price if the market will support it. It is a terrible argument to assume that it shouldn't work that way. Proper labeling will allow the customers to make wise (and healthy) decisions and if the GM foods are not what they want to eat, then well, you invested in the wrong technology and that isn't the consumer's fault. (Proceed to window two for your 'poor business decisions' bailout, you will notice the window because GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Bank of America, among others are standing by the window.)
There is a more subtle problem with GM foods which is the big issue. What happens when the new mutations get out into the wild. What will the effect be on the eco-system. Now humans have been genetically manipulating food for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. Once mankind started farming, he took the best yielding, most resistant crops and cultivated those strains. The problem with the new GM foods is that the changes are so radical that there is no proper model for what that will do. In fact in Janurary there was a report which stated that the GM Soya product changes the genetic structure of the bacteria in the human intestines. What happens if that change results in flesh-eating bacteria? It is possible. There are flesh eating bacteria in the world. Maybe some bacteria have a dormant 'flesh-eating' protein next to a helpful 'make the food taste awesome by making it taste like mountain dew' gene. The GM company accidentally pulls both sequences into the new food and now both those genes are there. Doesn't give you a good feeling does it?
This is a complicated story which needs more rational and level-headed discussions on all sides instead of Gestapo tactics by the companies and misinformation spread by the anti-GM lobby. Has GM foods increased yields? No. Could it? Maybe. Should there be better laws? Yes. Should the courts respect a citizen's rights better? Yes (and not just in this case but in a lot of areas, like the New London decision). Should the FDA do more? Yes. Should corporations test their foods better before releasing them into the wild? Yes. Should we have better labeling? Yes. The fear, and it is a very real one, is that this issue has a possibility to completely change our world in sub-par ways before the government can work through the issues needed to properly understand and most likely regulate these issues. So, as people, it is important that we are read up and knowledgeable on these issues and developments so we can make rational and helpful decisions when it comes to the foods we eat.
So watch the videos especially the last one as it is VERY good. And just remember tomorrow when you are eating your Blueberry pancake and sausage on a stick from Jimmy Dean's, you never know if you are actually eating something made of fish guts and jellyfish, (well, I guess that was a bad example...).
So since I spent some time in Europe during my schooling years I have been interested in a complex and difficult to grasp concept of genetically modified (GM) foods (and vegetarianism with its relation to the GM foods). This post only deals with the former. The later will likely be discussed at length in the future.
Well, I will provide a couple of interesting videos about the subject before I continue. These are in general critical of GM foods (and genetic modification of our food supply) and probably rightly so, the flip side of the argument will be respected after the videos. The first video is from hulu.com. I just watched this documentary tonight, it repeats a lot that we will see in the other videos.
These next videos are from an investigative reporter in England. I have actually watched these a couple of times. They are worth watching just to see how a different culture (though not completely different) approaches the problem of food production (if not GM foods). Also the part where she goes into the chicken farm, creepy.
Adblock
and part 2:
Adblock
Finally I present a video that is a documentary about the history of corporations and the role of corporations in the current world. There is an interesting bit about Fox News, rBGH, and Monsanto in there. Definitely worth a watch as well. The playlist is here. The video is in 23 chapters. The following is the part about Fox News and rBGH.
Now all of these videos bring up a lot of interesting issues and in time I will try to come back to these issues. However I will only talk about the Food issues and specifically with regard to the GM foods. As I said these videos definitely have a slant which is worth pointing out. There is a political message in them that the actions of the corporations and the intents are in of themselves bad or poor. I think this is a slight misreading if not outright misunderstanding. If you watch the final video about the corporations in the US (and thus by extension the rest of the world) you will know that the corporation is bound, by law, to be self interested in profits for its shareholders. If it is not then the officers of the corporation are liable for the actions and can be sued by the shareholders.
Why is this important? As much as I dislike the idea of the patentability of life in any form (genes, bacteria, etc.) it is the system in which we live. In relation to crops, the companies saw a way to make money and are exploiting it. That is what they should do. Now there is a famous case in Canada (A?) about a canola farmer. The decision by the supreme court of Canada is in fact a very bad one. What happened is that some of the patented genes got onto this guy's farmland and crossbreed with his crop. So Monsanto allegedly went on his property and took samples and found this out. The supreme court ruled that it was his (the farmer who didn't even want GM foods) job to protect his crops from being cross pollinated with the patented crops. Which is a very insane judgment and completely impractical. I would direct someone with more interest to read the link or watch the entire first video. This strong arming by the corporation for unreasonable terms is not helping the corporation's cause in protecting their property. There are many examples of this happening and it huttles the real issues of government protection, corporation profit motivation, consumer's right to knowledge, and farmer's right to work.
At the heart, if the country decides that it is permissible for a corporation to own the rights to life in some way, it is important that laws are made to ensure the enforcement of zero liability in cases where the movement of the genetic material is unintended. If you are creating life there should be no expectation that you can own anything that is a derivative of that product which is substantially different. For instance if I make a butterfly and he mates with a squirrel, I should not own the flying squirrels. If this cannot be assured then there is problems (as there currently is). The question of the patentability of life is another topic for another time.
So why is this important? There is not currently proper labeling of GM foods in the United States (however there is in Europe, I mean Europe can get their act together why can't we?) and there has been a couple of times where this has caused health problems for the public. So what is the real issue in this debate? Really the european model is likely a more reasonable compromise. The government should enforce labeling of GM foods so the consumer will make intelligent decisions. However the corporations have said that customers will stay away from their product then and that will drop the price. THAT IS A GOOD THING YOU ANTI-CAPTIALIST CAPITALIST PIGS. :-) (I just had to, it was too easy.) If your product is deemed inferior then it will not get the same price as a product that is deemed superior. It would be like Microsoft saying that they should get a subsidy for all Zunes they sell so that they can get the same profit margins as Apple does on their iPod. If you produce a good product (non-GM foods) then you should be able to charge a higher price if the market will support it. It is a terrible argument to assume that it shouldn't work that way. Proper labeling will allow the customers to make wise (and healthy) decisions and if the GM foods are not what they want to eat, then well, you invested in the wrong technology and that isn't the consumer's fault. (Proceed to window two for your 'poor business decisions' bailout, you will notice the window because GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Bank of America, among others are standing by the window.)
There is a more subtle problem with GM foods which is the big issue. What happens when the new mutations get out into the wild. What will the effect be on the eco-system. Now humans have been genetically manipulating food for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. Once mankind started farming, he took the best yielding, most resistant crops and cultivated those strains. The problem with the new GM foods is that the changes are so radical that there is no proper model for what that will do. In fact in Janurary there was a report which stated that the GM Soya product changes the genetic structure of the bacteria in the human intestines. What happens if that change results in flesh-eating bacteria? It is possible. There are flesh eating bacteria in the world. Maybe some bacteria have a dormant 'flesh-eating' protein next to a helpful 'make the food taste awesome by making it taste like mountain dew' gene. The GM company accidentally pulls both sequences into the new food and now both those genes are there. Doesn't give you a good feeling does it?
This is a complicated story which needs more rational and level-headed discussions on all sides instead of Gestapo tactics by the companies and misinformation spread by the anti-GM lobby. Has GM foods increased yields? No. Could it? Maybe. Should there be better laws? Yes. Should the courts respect a citizen's rights better? Yes (and not just in this case but in a lot of areas, like the New London decision). Should the FDA do more? Yes. Should corporations test their foods better before releasing them into the wild? Yes. Should we have better labeling? Yes. The fear, and it is a very real one, is that this issue has a possibility to completely change our world in sub-par ways before the government can work through the issues needed to properly understand and most likely regulate these issues. So, as people, it is important that we are read up and knowledgeable on these issues and developments so we can make rational and helpful decisions when it comes to the foods we eat.
So watch the videos especially the last one as it is VERY good. And just remember tomorrow when you are eating your Blueberry pancake and sausage on a stick from Jimmy Dean's, you never know if you are actually eating something made of fish guts and jellyfish, (well, I guess that was a bad example...).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
