I said I would look into the Institute for Justice some more for you. Well I still will but I have found their youtube channel. There are a couple of interesting videos on there. There are also videos from John Stossel's show where he interviews the president of the Institute. (Related post here, and the granddaddy post here.)
It seems like the Institute for Justice is another Cato Institute or Reason foundation. Basically a highly libertarian organization. However what is interesting about the Institute for Justice is that they actively try to help people. It seems like there is such a huge problem with local and state laws infringing on the rights of people that this is just trying to move a mountain one boulder at a time. At least someone is helping.
Have a look around the videos. I'll try to research their cases and come back with some more information later.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Infinite Memory
So, I was sitting here reading the internet (it’s a great book, love the protagonist BTW) and I got to thinking, why do people always defend everything they say and do even when they know it is wrong. (How I got here is a convoluted story.)
So here is my slightly thought out answer: 'Because no one ever forgets'. This is especially true in the age of the internet. So here is my thought, basically we expect (as a people) that our politicians and neighbors to always do the right thing and never be wrong and to always have been that way. Think of a person you know who has made a mistake say he was arrested for drug possession, now do you think any different about him than you would have if didn’t know that he had a prior drug conviction? The answer is usually yes. As a people we refuse to acknowledge that people make mistakes and, by extension, are not always right. Additionally we have this idea that people also don't change and always think or feel the same thing (usually especially if it is contrary to what we think or believe). This is readily apparent during any election cycle. Someone always brings up that their opponent said or did something more than 10 years ago and that is reason to prevent them from being elected. Come one, everyone experiments with liberalism in college, it is just what people do.
Does this make sense, to act this way as a people? No is the correct answer. People change. A lot of people change their minds about things. Not all of this is because we are stupid or whimsical, partially it is new information is collected and our root beliefs then evolve. For instance for many years I was adamantly against gay marriage. I was basically told in church that it was wrong and never questioned it (I had no other data points to consider). So years later I have gay friends of which two of them are married. During the intervening years I realized that 1) I didn't know as much about the topic as I thought I did, 2) learned a lot more about the issues surrounding marriage and companionship in America, 3) discovered that I was a lot more libertarian, and 4) therefore I realized that I was for all civil unions and for the unregulation by the government of 'marriage'.I was trying to tell people (or believe I should tell people) how to live their lives having never been in their shoes. (There is a much longer conversation there for another time.) So if you had loaded up youtube.com and found a video of me from 10 years ago you would never think that I could be for civil marriages between same sex partners. However I now am. If I was to run for election (as a democrat or a republican) this fact could be used against me. Is this fair? Truthful? Accurate? Intelligent?
So what does this mean? If you can never admit you change your mind because you will be called out on what you used to believe then it makes sense (whether you want to or not) to defend that statement to hold up people's opinion of you. I view this as a huge problem in our day and age. I think it is extremely naive to believe that people don't change their mind, or can't be stupid or ill-informed once in a while. If we were a little more understanding of the mistakes people made then maybe we could have more intelligent discourse. Maybe we could have real debates (debates are not people getting up and saying what they think, it is actually two people discussing a topic and both being open-minded enough to admit they may have been wrong in one aspect or another). It seems like as long as we expect everyone to have always been perfect we will continue to have misunderstandings and fights over things that are irrelevant. I am fairly convinced that most people (if we were to get away from this idea) would actually stop defending old ideas or insisting they are correct if people didn’t expect that you must never be wrong to be a ‘good/smart’ person.
I honestly am proud of the fact that I can revaluate my thoughts and opinions when new information comes along and say, 'you know, I may have been wrong.' Let's all try to be a little more accepting of people and not reminding them of the bad choices they make. Maybe tomorrow can be a little nicer that way and more intelligent discourse can be had by all.
So here is my slightly thought out answer: 'Because no one ever forgets'. This is especially true in the age of the internet. So here is my thought, basically we expect (as a people) that our politicians and neighbors to always do the right thing and never be wrong and to always have been that way. Think of a person you know who has made a mistake say he was arrested for drug possession, now do you think any different about him than you would have if didn’t know that he had a prior drug conviction? The answer is usually yes. As a people we refuse to acknowledge that people make mistakes and, by extension, are not always right. Additionally we have this idea that people also don't change and always think or feel the same thing (usually especially if it is contrary to what we think or believe). This is readily apparent during any election cycle. Someone always brings up that their opponent said or did something more than 10 years ago and that is reason to prevent them from being elected. Come one, everyone experiments with liberalism in college, it is just what people do.
Does this make sense, to act this way as a people? No is the correct answer. People change. A lot of people change their minds about things. Not all of this is because we are stupid or whimsical, partially it is new information is collected and our root beliefs then evolve. For instance for many years I was adamantly against gay marriage. I was basically told in church that it was wrong and never questioned it (I had no other data points to consider). So years later I have gay friends of which two of them are married. During the intervening years I realized that 1) I didn't know as much about the topic as I thought I did, 2) learned a lot more about the issues surrounding marriage and companionship in America, 3) discovered that I was a lot more libertarian, and 4) therefore I realized that I was for all civil unions and for the unregulation by the government of 'marriage'.
So what does this mean? If you can never admit you change your mind because you will be called out on what you used to believe then it makes sense (whether you want to or not) to defend that statement to hold up people's opinion of you. I view this as a huge problem in our day and age. I think it is extremely naive to believe that people don't change their mind, or can't be stupid or ill-informed once in a while. If we were a little more understanding of the mistakes people made then maybe we could have more intelligent discourse. Maybe we could have real debates (debates are not people getting up and saying what they think, it is actually two people discussing a topic and both being open-minded enough to admit they may have been wrong in one aspect or another). It seems like as long as we expect everyone to have always been perfect we will continue to have misunderstandings and fights over things that are irrelevant. I am fairly convinced that most people (if we were to get away from this idea) would actually stop defending old ideas or insisting they are correct if people didn’t expect that you must never be wrong to be a ‘good/smart’ person.
I honestly am proud of the fact that I can revaluate my thoughts and opinions when new information comes along and say, 'you know, I may have been wrong.' Let's all try to be a little more accepting of people and not reminding them of the bad choices they make. Maybe tomorrow can be a little nicer that way and more intelligent discourse can be had by all.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Blue Laws
So what is a Blue Law? A blue law is a law preventing certain kinds of economic activity based on the day or time of the economic transaction. (For instance selling alcohol on Sundays.) Why I bring this up is because recently New Jersey is thinking of repealing the blue law in one county.
What I find interesting is that these laws still exist or that they ever did. I can kinda see the point of it in some ways. When I lived overseas there was a blue law in the place I was living. Not only were Sundays out but so were most evenings after 5:00 pm. I didn't want to shopp anyway I guess. It was a smaller town not a large one but it was nice. On Sundays people would walk around, talk to people, relax. However I do not feel like this was a result of the stores not being open. It was more just the culture around there.
That being said if you look at the list on the wikipedia site you will see a lot of really dumb exclusions to Sunday sales. For instance in Illinois you cannot sell a car on a Sunday. Why? Because Jesus walked everywhere and Sunday is his day? Or how about the states/areas which outlaw horse race gambling (but obviously not football gambling). It seems completely arbitrary who can and who cannot engage in commerce. If that is the case I say get rid of all of the blue laws completely. However if you want to prevent all commerce on Sundays then fine but stop making exceptions for various special interests. In the end it just seems like any kind of law like this is largely unneeded (people can talk the initiative to not shop on their own) and thus they should all be repealed.
I am happy to report there are no laws like that in Washington State where I currently reside. You can even buy alcohol on Sunday if that is your thing. :-)
What I find interesting is that these laws still exist or that they ever did. I can kinda see the point of it in some ways. When I lived overseas there was a blue law in the place I was living. Not only were Sundays out but so were most evenings after 5:00 pm. I didn't want to shopp anyway I guess. It was a smaller town not a large one but it was nice. On Sundays people would walk around, talk to people, relax. However I do not feel like this was a result of the stores not being open. It was more just the culture around there.
That being said if you look at the list on the wikipedia site you will see a lot of really dumb exclusions to Sunday sales. For instance in Illinois you cannot sell a car on a Sunday. Why? Because Jesus walked everywhere and Sunday is his day? Or how about the states/areas which outlaw horse race gambling (but obviously not football gambling). It seems completely arbitrary who can and who cannot engage in commerce. If that is the case I say get rid of all of the blue laws completely. However if you want to prevent all commerce on Sundays then fine but stop making exceptions for various special interests. In the end it just seems like any kind of law like this is largely unneeded (people can talk the initiative to not shop on their own) and thus they should all be repealed.
I am happy to report there are no laws like that in Washington State where I currently reside. You can even buy alcohol on Sunday if that is your thing. :-)
A budget for 310 Million people
I have to say how much I like the New York Time's dat avisualizations sometimes. This one is older but still well worth looking at. This is a visual interpretation of the 2011 Federal Budget and who gets what. What is most interesting is what areas are getting less funding this year. I have highlighted a couple below along with links to what they actually do (or tried to). I still find it amazing how many departments and areas there are in the federal government.
Update : Added a link for the Citigroup TARP monies.
- Grants to States for Medicaid. I think the recent health care bill has fixed this partially though dispropotionally ot the states.
- Disease Control, Research, and Training. Call me crazy but I think this is something the government should actually shoulder the burden for because what kind of buisness model provides these services. However the lower funding could be due to the lack of H1N1 outbreaks.
- UMWA Funds - (Coal Miner Retirement Health). So I had a hard time researching this one. Apparently the miners union convinced the federal government in 1969 to enact the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. However this doesn't seem to be the reason for this portion of the federal budget. I couldn't find anything else.
- Special Education and Education for the disadvantaged. My dislike of national education funding is well known but I find it interesting that these two are receiving less funding this year.
- First Time Homebuyers Credit - Well this has changed since this article was published. So much for removing that credit.
- Corp of Engineers. I find it interesting that the programs that protect our national treasures are being underfunded...
- Economic and Demographic Statistics. Couldn't even find this department on the web. I suspect a major section of the money will be lost because the census will be over.
- Tenn. Valley Authority. I am kinda surprised this still exists but regardless they are getting less money this year.
- Space Operations. -20%. That is a lot less expensive stuff in space. I am actually a huge supporter of NASA but I feel like they have gotten fat and bloatet. Maybe less money will make them more efficient though I doubt it.
- I would also like to add that we are wasting a lot of money administering the TARP funds. Kinda frustrating. Recently there was an article I read (link) about how we will make like 8 billions off the citigroup TARP funds we loaned them. Looking at the budget it looks like we spent more than that on it (and will).
- 33% more spent on interest payments (doens't this worry anyone?).
- Food Stamps. Makes sense since a lot more people are out of work.
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control. Up until recently the tates regulated health care (correct?) so why do we have a department for that?
- Trade Adjustment Assistance. Yes we give money to companies affected by imports. Um, why do we do this? This seems dumb. So you buy your 6 pack of tube socks but then pay taxes so another company in the US can make tube socks for more money? Sounds about right for the federal government.
Update : Added a link for the Citigroup TARP monies.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Video Round-up
You know me, I love watching videos online. :-) Anyway here are a couple I ventured across this evening.
1) A slightly entertaining parody of a bill becoming a law:
2) Here is a video of Tucker Carlson talking about various things. (Yes, the guy from the Jon Stewart debate.) Anyway it is interesting to see how he views himself. If you goto 7:00 in the video he talks about the cross-fire debate. I don't know what I think about what he says I also don't know if I believe his sincerity about the entire thing. However you can judge for yourself.
3) Finally, this is a video I know many have seen but it is so awesome. You have to watch the Keynes vs. Hayek video. :-) Any time you can teach an economics lesson through a rap video you get major props from me. :-)
1) A slightly entertaining parody of a bill becoming a law:
2) Here is a video of Tucker Carlson talking about various things. (Yes, the guy from the Jon Stewart debate.) Anyway it is interesting to see how he views himself. If you goto 7:00 in the video he talks about the cross-fire debate. I don't know what I think about what he says I also don't know if I believe his sincerity about the entire thing. However you can judge for yourself.
3) Finally, this is a video I know many have seen but it is so awesome. You have to watch the Keynes vs. Hayek video. :-) Any time you can teach an economics lesson through a rap video you get major props from me. :-)
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
O M G - AWESOME
NATIONAL PARK QUARTERS!!!!!!
I am so excited. Look here. America's National Parks are so awesome. I would love it is every national park/reserve/marine/tree had a quarter I would so collect them all.
I have visited every national park I can. Whenever I am on a trip and we pass a national park we have to stop. Even at one I never knew existed: Minuteman Missile National Park. (Which by the way it totally worth it if you are driving across South Dakota.) Whenever I plan a road trip or trip in general the first thing I do is pull up nps.gov and see all the parks on the way. Then I pull up the national grasslands, national marine reserves, national forests, etc. then I plan my trip. (National Volcanic sites are cool too. I even visited a small national park in Seattle, I was walking down the road with my wife and we saw the national park shield and I was like WTF. There is a national park in Seattle.)
My favorite National Parks: (Not in order.)
I do have one complaint though. (I know surprise surprise.) I feel frustrated that like 5 government departments run the 'National'. For instance there is no place to go to research National Parks, Grasslands, Volcanic Monuments, Monuments, Marine Reserve, Forest, Historical Place, etc. I feel like they should all be under the same umbrella. If the government ever listens to me I would like to add that I would call it, "United States Department of AWESOME". :-)
I am so excited. Look here. America's National Parks are so awesome. I would love it is every national park/reserve/marine/tree had a quarter I would so collect them all.
I have visited every national park I can. Whenever I am on a trip and we pass a national park we have to stop. Even at one I never knew existed: Minuteman Missile National Park. (Which by the way it totally worth it if you are driving across South Dakota.) Whenever I plan a road trip or trip in general the first thing I do is pull up nps.gov and see all the parks on the way. Then I pull up the national grasslands, national marine reserves, national forests, etc. then I plan my trip. (National Volcanic sites are cool too. I even visited a small national park in Seattle, I was walking down the road with my wife and we saw the national park shield and I was like WTF. There is a national park in Seattle.)
My favorite National Parks: (Not in order.)
I do have one complaint though. (I know surprise surprise.) I feel frustrated that like 5 government departments run the 'National
Who's honoring me now: John Stossel
That's right, he recently wrote an article for the reason which I recently blogged about. Thank you for doing that Mr. Stossel. It makes me feel happy.
(The article is about stupid laws which attempt to raise barriers of entry into local labor markets. Mostly he is rehashing stuff that has been on the reason.com for years. My blog post was mostly inspired by those articles.)
I wanted to say a couple words about Mr. Stossel. I have long been a fan of his reporting. He has gotten some extremely libertarian leaning material onto ABC in the past. Now he has a show on Fox News. I honestly feel like this is a step backwards for him. I feel like when he was doing reporting for ABC he was out there reporting on things that mattered in a way that introduced people to more libertarian ideas. More views of different ideas help make people open minded and more accepting. However I feel like this message is lost on Fox News. Basically he is just another reporter reporting far right material. Also I feel like his material is more rushed. I mean it is the nature of the show but I don't like his move.
On a political note I can't say I always agree with him. He seems to be a 60's-70's libertarian. These are the people who stand up at the libertarian party's national convention and have a fist fight over whether or not the post office should exist. It seems like the material he creates is a little too old school libertarian. I personally don't care if the post office exists. However I feel like the mail service should be opened up to competition and that the government should be forced to run the post office in the market with other players. I feel like his libertarianism makes me uncomfortable mostly because it isn't pragmatic. I feel like, 'yes, it would be great if we could get closer to that' however I don't feel like there is a rational though in most of his writings where there is an understanding that most people want some kind of nanny state and tomorrow everyone is not going to wake up and fix the system.
(The article is about stupid laws which attempt to raise barriers of entry into local labor markets. Mostly he is rehashing stuff that has been on the reason.com for years. My blog post was mostly inspired by those articles.)
I wanted to say a couple words about Mr. Stossel. I have long been a fan of his reporting. He has gotten some extremely libertarian leaning material onto ABC in the past. Now he has a show on Fox News. I honestly feel like this is a step backwards for him. I feel like when he was doing reporting for ABC he was out there reporting on things that mattered in a way that introduced people to more libertarian ideas. More views of different ideas help make people open minded and more accepting. However I feel like this message is lost on Fox News. Basically he is just another reporter reporting far right material. Also I feel like his material is more rushed. I mean it is the nature of the show but I don't like his move.
On a political note I can't say I always agree with him. He seems to be a 60's-70's libertarian. These are the people who stand up at the libertarian party's national convention and have a fist fight over whether or not the post office should exist. It seems like the material he creates is a little too old school libertarian. I personally don't care if the post office exists. However I feel like the mail service should be opened up to competition and that the government should be forced to run the post office in the market with other players. I feel like his libertarianism makes me uncomfortable mostly because it isn't pragmatic. I feel like, 'yes, it would be great if we could get closer to that' however I don't feel like there is a rational though in most of his writings where there is an understanding that most people want some kind of nanny state and tomorrow everyone is not going to wake up and fix the system.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Right idea, wrong vehicle
So recently Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts (ya, that guy who Bush nomiated) was speaking at a graduation ceremony in Alabama. There is a msnbc.com article about it here.
So what did Roberts get right? The state of the union had degenerated into a political pep rally. It likely always was. However I am frustrated when watching it (something I haven't done for a while since I started to notice this) because I am tired ofthen everyone in the president's party stands up and claps while the other party just sits there. Political parties have pep rallys of their own, the state of the union is not that time. In fact, I would prefer if there was no clapping. This time should be used for the president to come to congress and say, 'Look, here is where we are and here is what is assailing us'. It doesn't have to be apolitical though, obviously dems would put more emphasis on spiraling medical costs and reps would concentrate more on the wars. However this can be done in a bipartisan maner. I mean come on, America is purple, not red and blue.
Roberts also got it right that the state of the union has been used to attack the other side. However this isn't something that is new. It seems like he thinks this is some kind of new development, no it has been done for a long time. However that being said if I was president I would not use it to attack the judicial branch (Robert's biggest point) or congress. Whether you like it or not the supreme court actually probably did the correct thing according to the law, frustration should be leveled at congress who can't seem to write a simple bill that accomplishes the stated goal because they are too busy making it longer than war and peace. Simple laws people, simple.
However, I feel like Roberts also got it wrong. This doesn't seem to be a justice stating an obvious fact. It seems more like a conservative playing to his base. Alabama is largely republican and he is and was appointed by a republican. It doesn't seem like this is anymore than another trite attack of one side on the other. Perhaps he should be more concentrated on upholding the consitution in his court and less on how other branches bicker. (The executive branch could use the same advice as well.)
So what did Roberts get right? The state of the union had degenerated into a political pep rally. It likely always was. However I am frustrated when watching it (something I haven't done for a while since I started to notice this) because I am tired of
Roberts also got it right that the state of the union has been used to attack the other side. However this isn't something that is new. It seems like he thinks this is some kind of new development, no it has been done for a long time. However that being said if I was president I would not use it to attack the judicial branch (Robert's biggest point) or congress. Whether you like it or not the supreme court actually probably did the correct thing according to the law, frustration should be leveled at congress who can't seem to write a simple bill that accomplishes the stated goal because they are too busy making it longer than war and peace. Simple laws people, simple.
However, I feel like Roberts also got it wrong. This doesn't seem to be a justice stating an obvious fact. It seems more like a conservative playing to his base. Alabama is largely republican and he is and was appointed by a republican. It doesn't seem like this is anymore than another trite attack of one side on the other. Perhaps he should be more concentrated on upholding the consitution in his court and less on how other branches bicker. (The executive branch could use the same advice as well.)
Awesome RPG video
For anyone who has ever played an RPG video game you will love this one: link. I about laughed myself out of the chair.
In other news if you don't know what an RPG is you can now 'hire a playdate'. Maybe she will help you learn. :-)
In other news if you don't know what an RPG is you can now 'hire a playdate'. Maybe she will help you learn. :-)
Yes, I watched C-SPAN yesterday
You can watch the entire day too online. (See my previous post on C-SPAN placing all their videos online.) I have a couple of thoughts on this. What surprises me (or more to the point re-enforced the thoughts that congress it beyond self-important most of the time) is the amount of grand standing there was. I was kinda frustrated how valid concerns about the health care bill and valid reasons to pursue reform were transformed into talking points and applause signs. There are valid reasons to worry about the holes you can drive a truck through. There are also valid reasons to for change on the American people (we in general don't know what we want nor are consistant long enough to get anything productive done).
I have a lot of complicated thoughts on this bill.
I have a lot of complicated thoughts on this bill.
- I feel like forcing people to buy in insurance is likely not constitutional (leaving aside whether it is 'the right thing to do')
- I don't feel like the commerce clause should be able to do anything
- I don't feel like people should go bankrupt because of medical bills
- I don't think people should expect to buy insurance to pay for daily needs (do we have food insurance or car insurance that pays for gas?)
- I feel that in general the media was unhelpful to the debate
- I feel like steps should have been taken that were more bipartisan
- I feel like republicans were not ever going to help pass any kind of health care
- I don't feel like the republicans are in the pocket of big business
- I don't feel like the democrats are socialists
- I don't feel like everyone voted the way they wanted to
- I don't feel like the taxes are 'fair'
- I don't feel like insurance companies should be able to stop payments if you bought insurance from them
- Link. Gotta love maps. This is is a map of all the votes by districts.
- Link. Opinion about the winners and losers. I don't always agree with his assertions.
- Link. Love OpenCongress.org. I could spend all day here.
- Link. Reason's take on the fiscal responsibility of the bill (spoiler, the butler did it).
- Link. From the Washington Post.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Woot!!!
Yes, my new book has arrived and I am excited. I am going to read "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics." Cover to cover. I am actually really excited because I have had such a hard time finding meaty books recently and I am hoping this lives up to the hype that in all I honesty I have given to it. :-)
I also wanted to give a shout-out to the Discovery Channel. One of the few things that can just brighten up my day is some of the most incredible shows I have ever seen. Two of them are "Life" and "Planet Earth". They make me remember that the world is an incredible place. I actually got a fun surprise tonight when I came home and I got to watch a show called "Wild Pacific" on the discovery channel. So awesome. Life is great. I'll leave with one of the best commericals ever.
I also wanted to give a shout-out to the Discovery Channel. One of the few things that can just brighten up my day is some of the most incredible shows I have ever seen. Two of them are "Life" and "Planet Earth". They make me remember that the world is an incredible place. I actually got a fun surprise tonight when I came home and I got to watch a show called "Wild Pacific" on the discovery channel. So awesome. Life is great. I'll leave with one of the best commericals ever.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Death and Taxes
This only deals with Taxes, but Taxes are the death of job creation and GDP growth. So I am sitting here watching the NCAA tournament (go Illini...) and flipping to the local Washington State legislature special session. Today they are debating E2SSB 6143, this is a tax law which adjusts excise taxes in the state. (Don't try to read it, it is huge and convoluted.)
So the most obvious thing I can see from this is that this is just a huge mess of taxes. I found a website from 2003 labeling all the major excise taxes in Washington State. Notice how convoluted all of this is. So I am watching the debate about how this is going to help close a budget hole and how it will keep people employed. It is obvious that there is a lot of idiots on both sides of the argument.
Why do people think they can positively affect the economy or services by tweaking the tax code? It is some kind of enormous hubris that they have to think that they can make these tweaks and accomplish their goals. All that happens is that the mess businesses and force realignments in staffing. I have even seen that companies buy derivatives to hedge against tax law changes. When will the politicians learn that a simpler tax code is better? I know of no people who genuinely want to cheat on taxes, most just have so much trouble walking the tax code to pay all of their taxes. If I ever get audited it will be because the tax code is too messed up for an intelligent person (me) to understand it, and my taxes are not (very) complicated. We really need simpler tax codes in the world. It would help everyone. No longer would people need to pay others to do their taxes and that money can be reinvested in productive ways. So frustrating. I want someone to go in and be like, we are done making policy and social changes through the tax code. I mean look at the mortgage deduction. Case and point. The taxes mess people's calculation of the real cost of owning a house and at the same time it makes it more expensive to rent. So dumb.
Simple Taxes people, Simple Taxes.
So the most obvious thing I can see from this is that this is just a huge mess of taxes. I found a website from 2003 labeling all the major excise taxes in Washington State. Notice how convoluted all of this is. So I am watching the debate about how this is going to help close a budget hole and how it will keep people employed. It is obvious that there is a lot of idiots on both sides of the argument.
Why do people think they can positively affect the economy or services by tweaking the tax code? It is some kind of enormous hubris that they have to think that they can make these tweaks and accomplish their goals. All that happens is that the mess businesses and force realignments in staffing. I have even seen that companies buy derivatives to hedge against tax law changes. When will the politicians learn that a simpler tax code is better? I know of no people who genuinely want to cheat on taxes, most just have so much trouble walking the tax code to pay all of their taxes. If I ever get audited it will be because the tax code is too messed up for an intelligent person (me) to understand it, and my taxes are not (very) complicated. We really need simpler tax codes in the world. It would help everyone. No longer would people need to pay others to do their taxes and that money can be reinvested in productive ways. So frustrating. I want someone to go in and be like, we are done making policy and social changes through the tax code. I mean look at the mortgage deduction. Case and point. The taxes mess people's calculation of the real cost of owning a house and at the same time it makes it more expensive to rent. So dumb.
Simple Taxes people, Simple Taxes.
A Rare Point of Clarity
So in all the mess of Health Care the democrats have done something semi-respectible: abandoned 'Deem and Pass'. What a stupid way to legislate. However it has brought to the forefront that this has been used multiple times. Maybe now that the public is more aware of this there will be more outrage in the future over its use. What is amazing to me is through all of this I have learned how many stupid rules there are that can be bent to ones will when making laws. Anyway looks like the vote is soon but in the mire of this crap at least some form of intelligence has shown through. (I say that about both sides of hte debate. Both sides have done stupid things. We really need reform just not the current 'reform' which isn't really reform at all. However we can't keep the status quo because it is really hurting people.)
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Screen Saver TV all the time
For those of you who might have missed it in all the news this week. You know with congress trying to push through a VERY unpopular health care bill and in one sweep changing 1/6th of the economy....
Anyway, C-SPAN has announced they they are putting their archives online. You might have noticed that I have placed it on my 'Worth Watching' list. Why? This is AWESOME. This is possibly going to change a lot. Politicians are less likely to do stupid shit when they are going to have be accountable for that on TV. We all know that this doesn't prevent some people (like most of the people in the bush administration from saying they didn't say something even when confronted with tape of them saying it...). If you would like a place to start I like 'Book TV'. They have some of the most interesting and intelligent writers on the show to talk about books they write. You will really learn something.
I suspect in the coming months there is will be a lot of fun muckraking reporting in the blogs (the central news agencies are mostly stupid when it comes to real reporting these days). I suspect we will see some things come out that will affect the elections this year. I mean voting yes on health care is going to sink a lot of people but maybe this will help in a more discriminate way to remove some of the more ridiculous members of congress. We can hope I guess.
Anyway, C-SPAN has announced they they are putting their archives online. You might have noticed that I have placed it on my 'Worth Watching' list. Why? This is AWESOME. This is possibly going to change a lot. Politicians are less likely to do stupid shit when they are going to have be accountable for that on TV. We all know that this doesn't prevent some people (like most of the people in the bush administration from saying they didn't say something even when confronted with tape of them saying it...). If you would like a place to start I like 'Book TV'. They have some of the most interesting and intelligent writers on the show to talk about books they write. You will really learn something.
I suspect in the coming months there is will be a lot of fun muckraking reporting in the blogs (the central news agencies are mostly stupid when it comes to real reporting these days). I suspect we will see some things come out that will affect the elections this year. I mean voting yes on health care is going to sink a lot of people but maybe this will help in a more discriminate way to remove some of the more ridiculous members of congress. We can hope I guess.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Pimp My City
So I know it is no secret that I read the reason.com about weekly (maybe bi-weekly). Well there is an interesting series this week called "Reason saves Cleveland". As avid readers of my blog will know (and those who follow the links to the site) the site is very libertarian (hell the editor wrote a book called "Radicals for Capitalism" which I read all about the history of the modern libertarian movement in the US).
So the video series is very libertarian bent in its diagnosis of the problems that ail Cleveland. While I happen to agree all of those things are bad I feel like they might be painting a half-picture here. For instance in the second episode they promote charter schools. Something I completely support. However they do not state the opposing side of the coin where charter schools go wrong. Sure there are good examples of Charter schools just like there are good public school districts. It just happens that Cleveland currently doesn't have a good system.
Another segment deals with the taxes and red tape involved in owning a business. Well I can't really punch any holes in the argument presented by the reason because I feel very strongly that over regulation is a very bad thing.
What was also a little troubling is that while they referenced other cities which solved the problems Cleveland has (which is the point of the series, to help Cleveland overcome their problems) they actually never focus on one city that does everything they suggest Cleveland does nor find a city that was in as bad of shape as Cleveland currently is in the past. This is likely an important data point. Any city could do one of the reforms they propose but to do all of them may be intractable (not just politically). I feel like focusing on a city that was a rust belt city that turned around (or is turning) could help. For instance Pittsburgh is turning around and becoming a more thriving city (though I never want to move there). Perhaps a discussion on how they did it?
In the end I can't completely argue with the thesis that these things need to change. I personally have a political philosophy that is very amiable to the libertarian mindset. However I kind of wish for a more even handed approach, both sides of the story as it was. I am beginning to feel like the reason is not completely about the best practice and is just about the libertarian practice.
So the video series is very libertarian bent in its diagnosis of the problems that ail Cleveland. While I happen to agree all of those things are bad I feel like they might be painting a half-picture here. For instance in the second episode they promote charter schools. Something I completely support. However they do not state the opposing side of the coin where charter schools go wrong. Sure there are good examples of Charter schools just like there are good public school districts. It just happens that Cleveland currently doesn't have a good system.
Another segment deals with the taxes and red tape involved in owning a business. Well I can't really punch any holes in the argument presented by the reason because I feel very strongly that over regulation is a very bad thing.
What was also a little troubling is that while they referenced other cities which solved the problems Cleveland has (which is the point of the series, to help Cleveland overcome their problems) they actually never focus on one city that does everything they suggest Cleveland does nor find a city that was in as bad of shape as Cleveland currently is in the past. This is likely an important data point. Any city could do one of the reforms they propose but to do all of them may be intractable (not just politically). I feel like focusing on a city that was a rust belt city that turned around (or is turning) could help. For instance Pittsburgh is turning around and becoming a more thriving city (though I never want to move there). Perhaps a discussion on how they did it?
In the end I can't completely argue with the thesis that these things need to change. I personally have a political philosophy that is very amiable to the libertarian mindset. However I kind of wish for a more even handed approach, both sides of the story as it was. I am beginning to feel like the reason is not completely about the best practice and is just about the libertarian practice.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Greatest. Nerdiest post ever...
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
Gotta love someone who is willing to go through this to find the smallest executable program possible. Well worth a read.
Gotta love someone who is willing to go through this to find the smallest executable program possible. Well worth a read.
What is wrong with people?
So, I am in a frustrated mood tonight. Just in general so I am going to vent about idiotic people.
So in our apartment complex there is a rule that you cannot put anything in the hallway between the apartments. The hallway is outdoors and connects the apartments to the stairs and the elevator. Well we are right next to a grocery store. So people bring the carts back to their apartment. This I have absolutely no problem with. Technically the carts are not to leave the parking lot however if you bring it back, I won't complain. However they never bring them back. They are just thrown into the hallway. I remember one morning I got up and it had been placed right up next to my door. A clear violation of the rules and the law. (It is illegal to block a fire escape path.) So I am sure most people can already see why this pisses me off so much.
When you move in here you sign the agreement which says you will obey these rules. What really gets me is I have reported this a million times and the company has not done anything to fix the situation. This Sunday I actually caught one lady take a cart from the pile in the hallway and use it to go shopping, then she came back put it back. Not only that but she didn't stack it, you know so the carts take up the least amount of space. So it is sitting out in the middle of the hallway. What kind of person would do that? The worst kind of person in the world.
I mean come on, this is a clear case of put it back. It is not like anyone walks into a store looks at a cart and wonders what the fuck it is for. They don't try to wear it. Everyone knows how to use a cart. It is a clear showing of the absolute contempt that person has for everyone else. There are carts all over the complex because of these people. It is just beyond my comprehension that someone could be a good person and do this.
I know I rant about this all the time but if you don't like a law or rule, get it changed, don't just ignore it. There are mostly two camps in the world. People who follow rules and laws (me) and those that don't. If you are in the former camp you are a chump if people can break the laws and get away with it. It is just so frustrating. I know my apartment complex management is getting tired of me complaining but they refuse to do anything about it. I feel like I should start just putting my garbage in those carts since placing garbage outside your apartment but not in the dumpster is against the rules, just to see what they will do.
These people who leave the carts here just show a complete lack of respect for other people. Who cannot spare 10 minutes tops that it takes to return something THAT YOU USED. It makes me feel like there is a fundamental problem with America and its people, screw that, with people all over the world. If we cannot just follow the simpliest of rules and respect our neighbors how can we ever make the world a better place? I hope this lady enjoys hell, I hear it is warm there.
So in our apartment complex there is a rule that you cannot put anything in the hallway between the apartments. The hallway is outdoors and connects the apartments to the stairs and the elevator. Well we are right next to a grocery store. So people bring the carts back to their apartment. This I have absolutely no problem with. Technically the carts are not to leave the parking lot however if you bring it back, I won't complain. However they never bring them back. They are just thrown into the hallway. I remember one morning I got up and it had been placed right up next to my door. A clear violation of the rules and the law. (It is illegal to block a fire escape path.) So I am sure most people can already see why this pisses me off so much.
When you move in here you sign the agreement which says you will obey these rules. What really gets me is I have reported this a million times and the company has not done anything to fix the situation. This Sunday I actually caught one lady take a cart from the pile in the hallway and use it to go shopping, then she came back put it back. Not only that but she didn't stack it, you know so the carts take up the least amount of space. So it is sitting out in the middle of the hallway. What kind of person would do that? The worst kind of person in the world.
I mean come on, this is a clear case of put it back. It is not like anyone walks into a store looks at a cart and wonders what the fuck it is for. They don't try to wear it. Everyone knows how to use a cart. It is a clear showing of the absolute contempt that person has for everyone else. There are carts all over the complex because of these people. It is just beyond my comprehension that someone could be a good person and do this.
I know I rant about this all the time but if you don't like a law or rule, get it changed, don't just ignore it. There are mostly two camps in the world. People who follow rules and laws (me) and those that don't. If you are in the former camp you are a chump if people can break the laws and get away with it. It is just so frustrating. I know my apartment complex management is getting tired of me complaining but they refuse to do anything about it. I feel like I should start just putting my garbage in those carts since placing garbage outside your apartment but not in the dumpster is against the rules, just to see what they will do.
These people who leave the carts here just show a complete lack of respect for other people. Who cannot spare 10 minutes tops that it takes to return something THAT YOU USED. It makes me feel like there is a fundamental problem with America and its people, screw that, with people all over the world. If we cannot just follow the simpliest of rules and respect our neighbors how can we ever make the world a better place? I hope this lady enjoys hell, I hear it is warm there.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
What Einstein would have said to put you to sleep
...in the kitchen.
So this is just a quick review of "What Einstein told his Cook 2." Total yawn-fest. I can't recommend this book. However I will give it a few fun stars. So my wife picked up this book off the bargin rack at a local independent book store. It is very light reading. It is slightly interesting as the author explains some things about the world of cooking, why things happen, etc. I love it when tells you what is snake oil. There is a lot of it in cooking apparently. Despite these coupe of sections (a section is like 2 pages) mostly I was left thinking one of two things : "I wish he would give more detail about this," or "This is boring, shut-up." It took me way too long to finish such a fluffy book which speaks to my lack of enthusiasm about the book. However I will admit I am not the target audience. I think the target was the average America who knows almost no science and can burn water.
Anyway, I can't recommend this book.
So this is just a quick review of "What Einstein told his Cook 2." Total yawn-fest. I can't recommend this book. However I will give it a few fun stars. So my wife picked up this book off the bargin rack at a local independent book store. It is very light reading. It is slightly interesting as the author explains some things about the world of cooking, why things happen, etc. I love it when tells you what is snake oil. There is a lot of it in cooking apparently. Despite these coupe of sections (a section is like 2 pages) mostly I was left thinking one of two things : "I wish he would give more detail about this," or "This is boring, shut-up." It took me way too long to finish such a fluffy book which speaks to my lack of enthusiasm about the book. However I will admit I am not the target audience. I think the target was the average America who knows almost no science and can burn water.
Anyway, I can't recommend this book.
Human Nature
So I read a lot of websites and I usually read the comments because occasionally I find good information there. (Though mostly it is garbage.)
What is interesting to me (at least today) is that it seems like everyone is 'smart'. (There is a long conversation coming up about 'smart' and whether the word every means something.) So I read a lot about economics, I know surprise. It seems like every article out there is about how the debt is too big, how no one wants socialized health care (including liberal sites I may add). Additionally all of the comments are usually in line with my thinking. So the question is this: If everyone thinks some thing is wrong then why are we still on this track? (This extends beyond health care and the debt to the complicated tax system, wars, etc.) Who are these people. So I have two theories:
What is interesting to me (at least today) is that it seems like everyone is 'smart'. (There is a long conversation coming up about 'smart' and whether the word every means something.) So I read a lot about economics, I know surprise. It seems like every article out there is about how the debt is too big, how no one wants socialized health care (including liberal sites I may add). Additionally all of the comments are usually in line with my thinking. So the question is this: If everyone thinks some thing is wrong then why are we still on this track? (This extends beyond health care and the debt to the complicated tax system, wars, etc.) Who are these people. So I have two theories:
- The average person on the internet is very homogeneous. Especially when it comes to commenting and posting on websites. This kind of makes sense as the average person who uses the internet for more than just virtual farming (which I do too) has more money (thus would be more worried about these things), has more education (there is a known correlation with wealth and internet usage), and/or younger Americans (which are more homogeneous in that we have a lot of the same thoughts and fears.
- The other possibility is that I am just crazy and everyone doesn't agree with me. While I agree this is true the extent seems very muted in general.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Why 24 Hour News Anchors are Morons
So here is the video : here : it is about a teacher who has sex with a student. Here is the biggest problem, really listen to the anchor here talking to the guy in the studio. He basically says nothing, he asks, "What are the kids saying." And the other guy is like, we don't know. Then the anchor is like "What are the parents saying." Then the other guy is like, we don't know. So incredibly stupid. Worst segment ever (well not really but I will say for now it is). This reminds me of the anchors on CNBC who try to sound smart and just come off sounding like morons when they say anything about the markets. Now there are people on CNBC who know something, they just aren't the anchors.
Once again Education is broken.
So I am sure everyone has heard about the Texas school board ruling on the content of books. If not here is a short list of possible reading material:
As an aside, no government or political intervention should be done into textbooks. In general I a free knowledge proponent. Basically I think facts should be stated as fact and theories as theories. Also I think more discussion and reading is better than none.
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/
- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/11/kelly-shackelford-texas-textbook-social-studies-standards-american-history/
As an aside, no government or political intervention should be done into textbooks. In general I a free knowledge proponent. Basically I think facts should be stated as fact and theories as theories. Also I think more discussion and reading is better than none.
- BC and AD vs BCE and CE. Texas is wrong in my opinion. AD is completely wrong given current scholarly work on the death of Christ anyway. It is dumb. (Texas 0, Anti-Texas 1)
- Origin of Isreali Conflict. This is a tough one, it really depends on how it is specified. If the conflict is specified in a politically agnostic way then this is a win for Texas but I doubt it will be so I will give each side a 0.5. (Texas 0.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
- Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Win for Texas. This shows a women in a powerful position and gives historical context to the era. The reason the left doesn't like it I would imagine is that she was associated with Thatcher in England and more libertarian market principles. (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
- Second Amendment. Not a win for Texas. Unless of course the section specifies how all of the bill of rights can be applied to good citizenship. (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
- The conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s. Important because it gives a context to things that happened in politics after the long new deal era. As long as the previous decades are correctly talked about in the context of the broader political significance. (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
- Phyllis Schlafly. It is good to know the opposite side of discussions however I don't know why she was there. Plus this is likely too specific for the age groups. (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 3.5)
- The Contract With America. Seems to me to be the pinnacle of the resurgence of conservative. However I don't know why would point this out in isolation. This sounds like a biased view of the contract so I am going 0.5 for each here. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 4.0)
- The Heritage Foundation. This doesn't need to be talked about separately. This is too specific for HS and younger kids. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 5.0)
- The Moral Majority. Again too specific. Could be a passing comment in the resurgence section. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 6.0)
- The National Rifle Association. Don't see why this is relevant. They haven't done anything except protect the second amendment. This should be in the same section as the ACLU. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 7.0)
- Violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach. This is a tough one because it is an example of opposing forces for the same product. It is also a good example of the triumph of nonviolent approaches and using the system to get change. This is like talking about Gandhi in India. I am going with a 0.25 because I think the Black Panthers will be misrepresented. (Texas 3.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
- Votes in Congress on civil rights legislation. It was bipartisan to an extent. Should be noted. (Texas 4.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
- Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek. Absolutely. However I question whether Keynes should be studied directly in HS anyway. If you are going to study Keynes and economic history you need to include the works of Hayek and Friedman. If not the students would get a very one sided view of government intervention in the economy. (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
- Hip-Hop. Signficant. Texas loses because all theydo is line dance. (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 8.75)
- Trivializing Hispanics. Bad, there are more than just cowboys and Christians in the world. Texas loses 2 points for that. (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 10.75)
- "laws of nature and nature's God". Sounds like a bad idea. Government should be independent of the people. This seems like a misleading requirement to represent history wrongly. (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
- "Democratic" to "Constitutional Republic." This is correct. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
- In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specifies a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
- "Analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."For a history course? Maybe talk about it but to have a worksheet on it is likely dumb. Texas Loses here. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 12.75)
- Germans and Italians were interned in the United States during World War II. This happened and there are lots of reasons for this however this seems to downplay the amount of internment for Japanese Americans. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 13.75)
- "How the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." This seems to downplay the actual lesson here that the hearings were mostly unconstitutional and violated due process. We'll give Texas 0.25 for that. (Texas 6.5, Anti-Texas 15.5)
- "The importance of personal responsibility for life choices" in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders. However this seems to mistake the influence of external factors. I'll give each 0.5 because in the end people need to be accountable for their decisions. (Texas 7, Anti-Texas 16)
The Earthquake Map
So I have a great website for you to visit: here.
This is such an awesome mash-up of information. It is amazing how well presented it is. Additionally all of this information is online. Yes. Here, from the government no less. I know it is a common perception that I think the government can do nothing right. (Which is wrong.) I just believe the government should do as little as possible. This is an example of something that society can benefit from. Here is a website about earthquakes that can be used by scientists and scholars for years to study earthquakes. So here you go, an example of good government spending (however I won't comment on whether the cost is worth it, but) at least $0.00001 of my money is going to something I enjoy using.
This is such an awesome mash-up of information. It is amazing how well presented it is. Additionally all of this information is online. Yes. Here, from the government no less. I know it is a common perception that I think the government can do nothing right. (Which is wrong.) I just believe the government should do as little as possible. This is an example of something that society can benefit from. Here is a website about earthquakes that can be used by scientists and scholars for years to study earthquakes. So here you go, an example of good government spending (however I won't comment on whether the cost is worth it, but) at least $0.00001 of my money is going to something I enjoy using.
Passing Health Care would sink both Parties...
I may be overstepping the analysis there but I think it is interesting that reason.com has two articles on their main page right now:
- ObamaCare : Basically the thesis is that the democrats are wrong pushing this bill through at this time. This will likely (and I agree here) sink the democrats in the midterm in general. As much as I hate this 'vote for a party' BS that most people employ in this case it makes sense because all of each party are standing on the same side of the line.
- Repealing Healthcare : The second article is basically stating that the republicans will be impotent in removing the health care once it is passed. This is interesting to me and the article makes some points that I think are valid. Mostly about removing entitlements. I know first hand this problem as I talk to aging/retiring baby boomers and they say 'the debt is too big, the country is doomed' but then I say, 'Well we could cut social security, and medicaid and that will help a lot' to which I hear 'You're crazy.'
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Fair(ly different) and Balanc(ing on the edge)
So if you read my links on the left you will see a link for uncommon knowledge over there. I will say from the onset that National Review Online and Uncommon Knowledge are conservative news sources. I like listening to Uncommon Knowledge because they usually have some really smart conservative people on the show. I feel this is a good balance to the more common Keynesian economists on the more mainstream news. However when it comes to reporting you have to look at all of the news in that light. However what is interesting is the interviews with Roger Ailes (Yes, of Fox News). The links are here: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5), yes there are 5 - 8 minute sections.
This interview is very slanted to conservative views, you can tell the moderator/interviewer is very conservative. He is usually well informed and insightful however in this case I don't think he is doing a good job for reference. What is most interesting to me is something that came up when I visited Texas recently, how different others view points are, and how much they believe it.
This has gotten me to thinking (in addition to the psychology literature I have been reading recently) do maybe all people have very similar views and the projection of them is warped by upbringing and nurture that we just drift in different ways? I mean all people (in general) don't want others to suffer needlessly. All people would like clean water to drink. All people care that others are generally comfortable to an extent. (I mean I this there is a distribution on all of these because some people are just more 'evil' than others but the variance is smaller.) Could we all just be focused on different aspects.
For instance, housing crisis: I don't want people out on the street, however I feel it is better to let Austrian economics rule and let the market return to correct level (price wise) because it will do the most good for the country. This will make housing more affordable, clear back inventory, get non-junk bonds in the market, etc. However someone else might say they support strong government intervention to support the unnaturally high price levels because then people have an incentive to pay, homelessness and vacant housing leads to crime and problems, and eventually inflation will catch up and the housing will return to an affordable level.
So what is different here? Actually not that much behind the scenes. We both want affordable housing, we both want people to own houses if they like, we both want better lives for the general public but our 'political' viewpoints are very different. Mine would be considered Austrian and the other would be considered Keynesian. I wonder if this is how politics really is. Same problem, same basic values, but nurture causes us to slightly favor one thing which causes us to listen to people who capitalize on that one thing. This in turn causes a divide between people which create partisan politics. But at the core aren't we focused on the same goal?
I was thinking about all of this because Roger Ailes said a couple of things that got me thinking that maybe it isn't a delusion that Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. are subject to but just a viewpoint. Some trivial thing in our past makes our implementation and leanings slightly different. Perhaps we could get more done if we acknowledged that at the core we want to solve issues and in general want the same long term goal, then the short term implementation detail can stop seeming like huge mountains.
I will say (as an aside) I know where my freedom / personal responsibility mindset comes from, my parents were very effort oriented parents. As long as I tried my hardest they were proud. If I did something wrong I had to admit my guilt and accept the consequences (you can see how this falls into the housing crisis and the more general Austrian viewpoint :-) ).
This interview is very slanted to conservative views, you can tell the moderator/interviewer is very conservative. He is usually well informed and insightful however in this case I don't think he is doing a good job for reference. What is most interesting to me is something that came up when I visited Texas recently, how different others view points are, and how much they believe it.
This has gotten me to thinking (in addition to the psychology literature I have been reading recently) do maybe all people have very similar views and the projection of them is warped by upbringing and nurture that we just drift in different ways? I mean all people (in general) don't want others to suffer needlessly. All people would like clean water to drink. All people care that others are generally comfortable to an extent. (I mean I this there is a distribution on all of these because some people are just more 'evil' than others but the variance is smaller.) Could we all just be focused on different aspects.
For instance, housing crisis: I don't want people out on the street, however I feel it is better to let Austrian economics rule and let the market return to correct level (price wise) because it will do the most good for the country. This will make housing more affordable, clear back inventory, get non-junk bonds in the market, etc. However someone else might say they support strong government intervention to support the unnaturally high price levels because then people have an incentive to pay, homelessness and vacant housing leads to crime and problems, and eventually inflation will catch up and the housing will return to an affordable level.
So what is different here? Actually not that much behind the scenes. We both want affordable housing, we both want people to own houses if they like, we both want better lives for the general public but our 'political' viewpoints are very different. Mine would be considered Austrian and the other would be considered Keynesian. I wonder if this is how politics really is. Same problem, same basic values, but nurture causes us to slightly favor one thing which causes us to listen to people who capitalize on that one thing. This in turn causes a divide between people which create partisan politics. But at the core aren't we focused on the same goal?
I was thinking about all of this because Roger Ailes said a couple of things that got me thinking that maybe it isn't a delusion that Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. are subject to but just a viewpoint. Some trivial thing in our past makes our implementation and leanings slightly different. Perhaps we could get more done if we acknowledged that at the core we want to solve issues and in general want the same long term goal, then the short term implementation detail can stop seeming like huge mountains.
I will say (as an aside) I know where my freedom / personal responsibility mindset comes from, my parents were very effort oriented parents. As long as I tried my hardest they were proud. If I did something wrong I had to admit my guilt and accept the consequences (you can see how this falls into the housing crisis and the more general Austrian viewpoint :-) ).
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
They should have been worried a long time ago...
The time for action is now. And by that I don't mean on health care (which is a mess and will create more problems than it plans to solve) or on the environment (which is not getting any help from democrats). No I mean to vote against the dems and reps in the next election. What is interesting is that a recent survey from Harvard says that most of the young people (in my age group) are already turning. This is a good sign. The article makes the valid point that the democrats need the youth vote in the next election to win. They needed it before as well, and they are losing us.
What I find most interesting is that they likely aren't losing us to the republicans (though that would be the obvious anti-democrat vote) but to inaction which is a vote for 'none of the above' or 'both are equally good (or bad)'. This suggests a lack of caring in my generation which isn't something the country can afford. It is important to engage people in politics especially the young because if they are disenfranchised early they will be less likely to vote/make a difference. So how can the country continue when an entire generation is not involved (for reference this won't be the first generation to go that way nor the last).
Mostly it seems like this is a call to action for the government to also look out for our interests. The problem is that health care reform will place burdens on me (and my generation), lack of debt control will affect me (and my generation), special interests, stupid policies, etc. affect me (and my generation) and no one cares. Let's be honest, the government is not looking out for us in my generation, and doing nothing is not helping us either but for many of my peers doing nothing seems to produce the same result which means the path of least resistance will be taken (a.k.a. not voting).
What I find most interesting is that they likely aren't losing us to the republicans (though that would be the obvious anti-democrat vote) but to inaction which is a vote for 'none of the above' or 'both are equally good (or bad)'. This suggests a lack of caring in my generation which isn't something the country can afford. It is important to engage people in politics especially the young because if they are disenfranchised early they will be less likely to vote/make a difference. So how can the country continue when an entire generation is not involved (for reference this won't be the first generation to go that way nor the last).
Mostly it seems like this is a call to action for the government to also look out for our interests. The problem is that health care reform will place burdens on me (and my generation), lack of debt control will affect me (and my generation), special interests, stupid policies, etc. affect me (and my generation) and no one cares. Let's be honest, the government is not looking out for us in my generation, and doing nothing is not helping us either but for many of my peers doing nothing seems to produce the same result which means the path of least resistance will be taken (a.k.a. not voting).
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Minds of the People
So I was sitting here doing my taxes for hours on end this weekend. While I was taking a break between cursing congress for being so stupid and trying to finish I had a thought. (I will later write about the stupidity of tax law as it is conceived of in the united states.) The thought was as follows:
Now you know that I am not a huge fan of health care reform as it currently stands however the most vile aspect of this reform is that people refuse to sacrifice (a.k.a. pay) for their fair share of the pot. Ideologs are this way. Now this is bad mostly because it is like an al-a-carte way of picking your voting record which leads to gridlock and stupidity in Washington. (See this article for a good start-up on this.) How can someone represent your interests if you interests have no consistency? Basically if you want to preach 'equal access to health care for all' but then refuse to give up your benefits through you union then you part of the problem.
So now for the example I thought of while doing my taxes, basically I asked myself: 'In what universe does it make sense to have a tax system this ridiculous that a really smart person cannot figure out their own taxes?' Well there are two systems of taxation broadly. One is one that taxes little. You keep what you make mostly. The other end is tweaking the taxes to affect behavior as if there is some magic combination that is most 'fair'. However can you for instance be in the former camp and believe the government should provide free health care. You can't. Pure and simple yet there are people there. I don't want to do into the economics of taxation but there is a lot I could say in this area and won't.
So what is the problem to solve here? Be consistent. If you want large government looking into your every action in life then don't be shocked when they look into some aspect you didn't think they would. If you want the government to be hands off then stop saying you want universal health care. If you say you want the ability to retire at 40 and not work then stop voting for people who continue to tax investments and earnings. If you want to tax my earnings and benefits then don't be surprised when the government comes after yours. Just have a consistent philosophy, it will make you easier to govern and maybe the gridlock in Washington will at least support the will of the people.
Now let me explain what this means before I get to the application of which I thought. Basically it means you have to have a political philosophy and voting/implementation/beliefs that are consistent. I think this is best shown by discussing a counter-example: "A person who wants the government to provide health care but refuses to sacrifice to pay for it."
"Whatever you do, you must be consistent."
Now you know that I am not a huge fan of health care reform as it currently stands however the most vile aspect of this reform is that people refuse to sacrifice (a.k.a. pay) for their fair share of the pot. Ideologs are this way. Now this is bad mostly because it is like an al-a-carte way of picking your voting record which leads to gridlock and stupidity in Washington. (See this article for a good start-up on this.) How can someone represent your interests if you interests have no consistency? Basically if you want to preach 'equal access to health care for all' but then refuse to give up your benefits through you union then you part of the problem.
So now for the example I thought of while doing my taxes, basically I asked myself: 'In what universe does it make sense to have a tax system this ridiculous that a really smart person cannot figure out their own taxes?' Well there are two systems of taxation broadly. One is one that taxes little. You keep what you make mostly. The other end is tweaking the taxes to affect behavior as if there is some magic combination that is most 'fair'. However can you for instance be in the former camp and believe the government should provide free health care. You can't. Pure and simple yet there are people there. I don't want to do into the economics of taxation but there is a lot I could say in this area and won't.
So what is the problem to solve here? Be consistent. If you want large government looking into your every action in life then don't be shocked when they look into some aspect you didn't think they would. If you want the government to be hands off then stop saying you want universal health care. If you say you want the ability to retire at 40 and not work then stop voting for people who continue to tax investments and earnings. If you want to tax my earnings and benefits then don't be surprised when the government comes after yours. Just have a consistent philosophy, it will make you easier to govern and maybe the gridlock in Washington will at least support the will of the people.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Please check your Brains at the Door
Gotta to be honest.... WTF.
When will the government learn that propping up the housing market is hurting the recovery? Also when did we have a national memorandum that housing was too important and the government should help everyone pay? When am I going to get my rent bailout? What is most frustrating is that all of these programs are just to get democrats to win. Gosh I hate politics.
When will the government learn that propping up the housing market is hurting the recovery? Also when did we have a national memorandum that housing was too important and the government should help everyone pay? When am I going to get my rent bailout? What is most frustrating is that all of these programs are just to get democrats to win. Gosh I hate politics.
Helmet Head
So I will reveal a little about myself in this posting. Yes, I live in King county in Washington State. No big surprise there...
So most that know me would be unsurprised that I am against bicycle helmet laws. I think it should be my choice whether I should or not wear a helmet. Well in King County the department of health (no idea what they actual do) enforce a helmet law. Now let me say I think it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I do, however I feel like it should be a personal choice. I also 100% support health insurance company's option to not pay medical expenses on a bicycle if you are NOT wearing a helmet. I think that is fair because it allows you to craft a policy which covers your lifestyle but I digress.
So anyway the booklet they give you when you buy your bike says there are 1000 injuries on a bike this year (way under the actual number based on the shittiness of drivers around here) and that 750 of them are head injuries (a claim I set out to prove wrong). For reference here is the organization that puts out the booklet.
(Ok, first of all why does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have a section on bicycles? You can't even ride a bike on the highway. This is another example of government bloat. If I was elected president I would at least make sure all of this shit was in the correct places.) So the NHTSA has a booklet on helmet laws, one of the things it says is that helmets are the best way to avoid head injuries. Really no shit. Do apples fall down or up? Please don't keep me on the edge of my seat. What would do better (no cycling?) putting a huge foam #1 hand on your head. Come on we pay for this shit? (Again I completely encourage people to wear helmets, including children but making it required is stupid.) Well they conducted a study which included statistics on helmet use, summary here (really who pays for this stuff?). Basically a lot of people don't wear them. Which is interesting to me given how many people use them around here. Also interesting is that helmets cost too much was a major factor for a lot of people (maybe if the government stopped legislating this the cost would go down or make it optional). Here comes the bicycle helmet tax break (I am sure it already exists). (I am glad we have tax code for bicycle tires by the way too. Does anyone think the cost of applying this portion of the tax code outweighs the benefits?)
There is a couple of interesting links on this site about helmets and various other bike laws. I have to say to Seattle, 'There are other preventable injuries why single out this one to legislate on. For instance, use cameras to ensure safe driving speeds, outlaw the sale of tobacco and alcohol, etc. Why pick on one, it seems stupid.'
Anyway I finally found the law (it took forever). What is frustrating is that all of the research is on child deaths and injuries yet the law applies to all people. Why should someone else put their morality on me? What if I want to live on the edge? People can still sky-dive can they not.
Now let me summarize the other side of the coin because the intent has value and I don't want to trivialize that. Basically the law is meant to protect people from themselves. If they decide not to wear a helmet the city has stepped in and said that it is important enough that everyone be safe that they have a law. I mean who wants their neighbor to be a vegetable because of brain damage. Most accidents with bicycles happen because of bad drivers (in cars). And since the city acknowledges that it will not properly regulate the drivers in the area they are trying to mitigate the risks when they do hit bicyclists. The law also affects emergency rooms because that is where you will be taken once hit and the helmet is seen as a required cost to prevent the city from picking up the bill for putting your head back together.
I have already stated my thoughts on this. I would wear one anyway but I don't feel like I should be forced to do it.
So most that know me would be unsurprised that I am against bicycle helmet laws. I think it should be my choice whether I should or not wear a helmet. Well in King County the department of health (no idea what they actual do) enforce a helmet law. Now let me say I think it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I do, however I feel like it should be a personal choice. I also 100% support health insurance company's option to not pay medical expenses on a bicycle if you are NOT wearing a helmet. I think that is fair because it allows you to craft a policy which covers your lifestyle but I digress.
So anyway the booklet they give you when you buy your bike says there are 1000 injuries on a bike this year (way under the actual number based on the shittiness of drivers around here) and that 750 of them are head injuries (a claim I set out to prove wrong). For reference here is the organization that puts out the booklet.
(Ok, first of all why does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have a section on bicycles? You can't even ride a bike on the highway. This is another example of government bloat. If I was elected president I would at least make sure all of this shit was in the correct places.) So the NHTSA has a booklet on helmet laws, one of the things it says is that helmets are the best way to avoid head injuries. Really no shit. Do apples fall down or up? Please don't keep me on the edge of my seat. What would do better (no cycling?) putting a huge foam #1 hand on your head. Come on we pay for this shit? (Again I completely encourage people to wear helmets, including children but making it required is stupid.) Well they conducted a study which included statistics on helmet use, summary here (really who pays for this stuff?). Basically a lot of people don't wear them. Which is interesting to me given how many people use them around here. Also interesting is that helmets cost too much was a major factor for a lot of people (maybe if the government stopped legislating this the cost would go down or make it optional). Here comes the bicycle helmet tax break (I am sure it already exists
There is a couple of interesting links on this site about helmets and various other bike laws. I have to say to Seattle, 'There are other preventable injuries why single out this one to legislate on. For instance, use cameras to ensure safe driving speeds, outlaw the sale of tobacco and alcohol, etc. Why pick on one, it seems stupid.'
Anyway I finally found the law (it took forever). What is frustrating is that all of the research is on child deaths and injuries yet the law applies to all people. Why should someone else put their morality on me? What if I want to live on the edge? People can still sky-dive can they not.
Now let me summarize the other side of the coin because the intent has value and I don't want to trivialize that. Basically the law is meant to protect people from themselves. If they decide not to wear a helmet the city has stepped in and said that it is important enough that everyone be safe that they have a law. I mean who wants their neighbor to be a vegetable because of brain damage. Most accidents with bicycles happen because of bad drivers (in cars). And since the city acknowledges that it will not properly regulate the drivers in the area they are trying to mitigate the risks when they do hit bicyclists. The law also affects emergency rooms because that is where you will be taken once hit and the helmet is seen as a required cost to prevent the city from picking up the bill for putting your head back together.
I have already stated my thoughts on this. I would wear one anyway but I don't feel like I should be forced to do it.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
I am America
So I recently read "I Am America and So Can You" on my recent trip to Las Vegas. My recommendation: skip it. The book was actually pretty thin in comedy. It seems like most of the entertainment value from Stephen Colbert and his writers is made for television. It seems like they just didn't transfer to the page. Basically I was disappointed, I didn't laugh out loud as much as I did from "America the book". I found most of the over the top conservative statements needed something more. Also the running commentary (like during the 'Word' segment on the show) was too sparse, too irrelevant, and not funny. It was distracting mostly. I feel like this book was pushed by a publisher who was like, milk it for more money. I feel the best part of the book was the shameless plugging for it on the show. Anyway as I said, skip it. You'll be glad you did.
P(x_n | x_(n-k) = x_n) ...
So I was in Vegas recently and was interested in the Roulette tables. So they display a list of the most recent spins of the wheel. So one thing I noticed is that almost all had at least a pair (many had more). So what is the probability of this? Could you use this to game the system (some people believe so). The lists I saw had 14 elements on them. So the probability of all of them being different is (assuming statistically independent runs):
Product of (38)!/((38-14)!(38^14)). (There are only 38 possible outcomes.) Which is: 0.064394.
Sounds to me like a bad game. If you always ran the last 14 numbers (all on the board) and the payout on the field is only 30x, then after 2 spins you are in the hole even if you win. Sounds like a bad deal. So I did also notice that about 40% of the boards had a double spin within the last 5 elements. So if you always played the last 5 and always one once in every 5 spins then you would make money. So the probability of no repeats in 5 spins is: 0.76018. So the probability (statistically) is 0.24. So this means (from my informal data collection) that the probability of winning on the last 5 numbers is higher than it should be. However this could be a data collection problem.
I will say this is similar to the birthday problem which is: What is the probability of any pair of people having the same birthday in the room. I have included a small table to help you out. (Remember there is 365 days in 1 year.) (This assumes all days are equally likely which is not true, and also people tend to group with other people like them which is dependent on birthday. For instance if you a star hockey player and you are in a room with other hockey players the probabilities go WAY up.)
Two people : 0.27%
4 People : 1.64%
10 People : 11.70%
15 People : 25.29%
22 People : 50.71% (Yes, you only need 22 people to have 50% probability of a double birthday.)
I would like to say however that the best thing to do whenever you are gambling is to walk away. The house always wins.
Product of (38)!/((38-14)!(38^14)). (There are only 38 possible outcomes.) Which is: 0.064394.
Sounds to me like a bad game. If you always ran the last 14 numbers (all on the board) and the payout on the field is only 30x, then after 2 spins you are in the hole even if you win. Sounds like a bad deal. So I did also notice that about 40% of the boards had a double spin within the last 5 elements. So if you always played the last 5 and always one once in every 5 spins then you would make money. So the probability of no repeats in 5 spins is: 0.76018. So the probability (statistically) is 0.24. So this means (from my informal data collection) that the probability of winning on the last 5 numbers is higher than it should be. However this could be a data collection problem.
I will say this is similar to the birthday problem which is: What is the probability of any pair of people having the same birthday in the room. I have included a small table to help you out. (Remember there is 365 days in 1 year.) (This assumes all days are equally likely which is not true, and also people tend to group with other people like them which is dependent on birthday. For instance if you a star hockey player and you are in a room with other hockey players the probabilities go WAY up.)
Two people : 0.27%
4 People : 1.64%
10 People : 11.70%
15 People : 25.29%
22 People : 50.71% (Yes, you only need 22 people to have 50% probability of a double birthday.)
I would like to say however that the best thing to do whenever you are gambling is to walk away. The house always wins.
Lack of Ladies
So those that follow my permanent pages (that links at the top of the blog) know that I have been watching a course called "Global Population Growth" on academicearth.org. (I am on lecture 17 of 24 for reference.) Well recently the conversation has been about the lack of ladies in India and China. Well to my surprise the economist has a couple articles on it this week:
Anyway I thought it was interesting that the economist had a huge article on this just as I am learning about online.
3/8/09 - Added 3rd article in list.
- Header Article - Overview of the problem.
- Personal Article - By a Women there.
- Leader Article - Main Article.
Anyway I thought it was interesting that the economist had a huge article on this just as I am learning about online.
3/8/09 - Added 3rd article in list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
