06 November 2010
03 November 2010
So, That Happened
Congratulations to the Republican Party, which won big last night. This election was very much a correction, not a realignment. Right now, it looks like the Republicans will end up with between 235-239 members in the House. This is a return to the number of Representatives (232) the Republicans had in the 109th Congress, 2004-2006. I still remain convinced that this movement rightward is the underlying long-term trend as the population moves south and west.
In other good news, attacking immigrants once again doesn't lead to victory.
Finally, the 2010 census will lead to redistricting before the next Congress and the Republicans have made extraordinary gains at the state level, giving them a chair at the table in most states. Unfortunately, this will lead to the two parties divvying up highly gerrymandered seats for short-term gain. Leaving aside the obvious democratic arguments against gerrymandering, I'm convinced that Republicans would benefit from districts drawn without regard to party strategy. (The Democrats seem to think so, too.)
In other good news, attacking immigrants once again doesn't lead to victory.
Finally, the 2010 census will lead to redistricting before the next Congress and the Republicans have made extraordinary gains at the state level, giving them a chair at the table in most states. Unfortunately, this will lead to the two parties divvying up highly gerrymandered seats for short-term gain. Leaving aside the obvious democratic arguments against gerrymandering, I'm convinced that Republicans would benefit from districts drawn without regard to party strategy. (The Democrats seem to think so, too.)
02 November 2010
02 October 2010
And Sturgeon Was An Optimist
Brit has kindly suggested that, as the iconoclast's iconoclast (making me an iconophile, and indeed I quite like a nice icon), I might one day write for the Dabbler on things that everyone knows but that aren't true. (For example, that the Chevy Nova in fact sold very well in Latin America.)
Obviously, ever since I've been wracking my brain for something sufficiently obvious to be worth disproving, and I haven't really come up with anything. The closest I've come is to knock down that terrible piece of trendy job advice: follow your passion.
Whatever you do, don't follow your passion. Following soon becomes stalking; stalking becomes sneaking into it's bedroom late at night and abducting it; and abducting it becomes burying it at the crossroads while eating its still warm heart. Following your passion will kill it.
This follows from Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. So, if your passion is movies and you become a film critic, what you actually spend your time doing is mostly watching crappy movies. If you love cooking (which usually means you like making one big meal on the weekend after planning a menu and shopping for specific ingredients), what you actually spend your time doing as a chef is cooking crap. (If you open a restaurant, rather than just become a chef, what you actually spend your time doing is losing money.)
Telling people to follow their passion is telling people that, if passion is their passion, they should become a prostitute. Actual prostitutes are not in it for the sex.
Obviously, ever since I've been wracking my brain for something sufficiently obvious to be worth disproving, and I haven't really come up with anything. The closest I've come is to knock down that terrible piece of trendy job advice: follow your passion.
Whatever you do, don't follow your passion. Following soon becomes stalking; stalking becomes sneaking into it's bedroom late at night and abducting it; and abducting it becomes burying it at the crossroads while eating its still warm heart. Following your passion will kill it.
This follows from Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. So, if your passion is movies and you become a film critic, what you actually spend your time doing is mostly watching crappy movies. If you love cooking (which usually means you like making one big meal on the weekend after planning a menu and shopping for specific ingredients), what you actually spend your time doing as a chef is cooking crap. (If you open a restaurant, rather than just become a chef, what you actually spend your time doing is losing money.)
Telling people to follow their passion is telling people that, if passion is their passion, they should become a prostitute. Actual prostitutes are not in it for the sex.
27 September 2010
As I've Always Suspected,
Virgin to launch space tourism in 18 months
I could have achieved so much more had I been less distracted.
I could have achieved so much more had I been less distracted.
17 September 2010
Three Guys and a Strategy: There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done
Three Guys and a Strategy: There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done: "I've never quite understood what the Beatles meant to tell us with this line, but it turns out to be a very nice way to think about why many..."
For anyone out there interested in the Strategic Management stuff I post from time to time, two friends and I are now blogging Strategy at Three Guys And A Strategy.
14 September 2010
Roman Holiday
The Secret Blog is in Rome, half to attend a conference and half on holiday with the Secret Wife. (This academic life is kind of a blast).
Anyway, following on ten things about Montreal, here are ten things about Rome:
1. When it comes to the Internet, Rome is still in the 20th Century.
2. Paris and London are modern cities. Rome and Venice are not.
3. Rome, on the other hand, is cheaper than Paris or London.
4. Romans really are garrulous, at least with each other.
5. If I lived in Rome, I, too, would seriously consider a motor scooter. Parking in Rome is about as organized as hide and seek at a child's birthday party.
6. It is just incredibly hard for Americans not to tip.
7. Historic Rome is surprisingly small, accessible and walkable.
8. The Piazza Novanno (shown in the video) is beautiful and in all ways excellent. A good day would be to sit in the shade at one of the many trattoria, watching the pretty women and art that fill the Piazza, drinking cup after cup of Italian coffee.
9. There is a larger and more obvious police presence in Rome than in any American city.
10. English pops up everywhere, and not just in ways meant for tourists.
Anyway, following on ten things about Montreal, here are ten things about Rome:
1. When it comes to the Internet, Rome is still in the 20th Century.
2. Paris and London are modern cities. Rome and Venice are not.
3. Rome, on the other hand, is cheaper than Paris or London.
4. Romans really are garrulous, at least with each other.
5. If I lived in Rome, I, too, would seriously consider a motor scooter. Parking in Rome is about as organized as hide and seek at a child's birthday party.
6. It is just incredibly hard for Americans not to tip.
7. Historic Rome is surprisingly small, accessible and walkable.
8. The Piazza Novanno (shown in the video) is beautiful and in all ways excellent. A good day would be to sit in the shade at one of the many trattoria, watching the pretty women and art that fill the Piazza, drinking cup after cup of Italian coffee.
9. There is a larger and more obvious police presence in Rome than in any American city.
10. English pops up everywhere, and not just in ways meant for tourists.
21 August 2010
To PhD Or Not To PhD
I was minding my own business surfing through Roger Ebert's website, when I stumbled (do surfer's stumble?) across the following letter:
Q. I have watched and read your reviews for years with great honor. I disagree so strongly with your review of "Eat Pray Love" that it makes me sick. You just don't get it, and many others like you don't get it. You do not know at all what it is like being a woman in this day and age (or previously) who did not want to be defined by a man or married off to one. If you think Stephen in the movie was an OK husband, you are out to lunch. He was horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (except on paper to people who do not need emotional sustenance). David was the narcissist from hell that many of us have fallen for… do you not get that??????????? Many of the males of the species are frankly overrated and the women's movement has proven this (or frankly not sufficiently). I hope your wife will bring you up to speed. (Jeanine Carlson, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist)
Earning a PhD is quite an achievement; something of which to be proud. Certainly, it is as much worthy of advertising as being an adult male (Mr.), adult female (Ms.), married female (Mrs.), physician (Dr.) or lawyer (Esq.), but for some reason people who attach PhD to their casual signatures seem to be mentally unbalanced at rates higher than that of the general population. It's a useful signifier, but I'm not quite sure what it means. As with much social science, causation is ambiguous and it might just be that psychologists are both nuts and very proud of their degrees. Just in case, and assuming I do eventually earn my degree, I think I'll still sign my name without adding PhD, unless there's some good reason to do so.
12 August 2010
"A court-ordered publication ban on the proceedings prevents the media from reporting on what was said in court."
Here we have the number one difference between the US and Canada: not only a prior restraint on the press, but a ban on publishing what as said (in public) in open court. Short of preventing certain people from speaking out on an election, it is hard to imagine a more core violation of the First Amendment (if, of course, the First Amendment applied). Had I known, I would have been sorely tempted to go to court and then report what I heard once I returned to the (aptly named, in this case) Home of the Free. Not because what was said was interesting -- I'm sure that it's anodyne eye-wash to the effect that she loves her mother -- but because governments simply shouldn't be allowed to get away with this shit.
The case is, as it happens, interesting. A 19-year old woman came home late and was stabbed by her mother. People seem to assume that the reason was the dishonor reflected on the family by having a late daughter. All we are told about the family is that their name is Ebrahimi and they speak Farsi at home. It also seems likely that they have not absorbed the majority culture.
The case is, as it happens, interesting. A 19-year old woman came home late and was stabbed by her mother. People seem to assume that the reason was the dishonor reflected on the family by having a late daughter. All we are told about the family is that their name is Ebrahimi and they speak Farsi at home. It also seems likely that they have not absorbed the majority culture.
11 August 2010
Oh, Canada!
We tend to think of Americans and Canadians as a single people divided by Quebec, but after a week, more or less, in Montreal, I have to admit to some differences:
1. They are serious about this French thing. In fact, the more urgent the information on some sign, the less likely it is to have English on it.
2. They really are nice, even the French speakers. They are gracious enough to pretend to be fooled by my jaunty "Bonjour" and immediate douse me with a torrent of French. I then say, "En Anglais, por favor," and off we go.
3. They call their pastrami "smoked meat." But it is just as delicious.
4. In the stalls in public accommodations, the slide is on the door frame and the hasp is on the door.
5. The McDonalds sell "double Big Macs," which are exactly what you think they are.
6. More restaurants have full bars than you would find in the States.
7. Waiters and Waitresses are both overly solicitous and subtly rude.
8. Much more smoking.
9. Even the casual food is better. The croissants are much better.
10. The portions are more reasonable (except at McDonalds).
All in all, Montreal would like to be the Paris of the New World, but succeeds in being the New York of Canada.
05 August 2010
No Presents For Peter
The Secret Blog is in Montreal, having been admitted to Canada despite the following conversation.
Canadian Border Guard: Good Afternoon.
The Secret Blog: Good Afternoon. (Hands over passports.)
CBG: Where are you going?
TSB: Montreal.
CBG: What's the purpose of your visit?
TSB: Pleasure..
CBG: (Skeptically) Pleasure?
TSB: A vacation.
CBG: Do you have anything to leave in Canada?
TSB: [NO BATHROOM HUMOR!!!] No.
CBG: Do you have any alcohol or tobacco in the car?
TSB: No.
CBG: (Starting to wrap up) Do you know anyone in Canada?
TSB: (Hit by a stray gust of honesty.) Yes, Peter Burnet.
CBG: (No longer wrapping up; suddenly paying attention.) How do you know him?
TSB: (Spell of honesty passes; I imagine myself trying to explain BrothersJudd or even just saying, "I met him on the Internet." I need an honest, plain-vanilla answer) I've known him for years.
CBG: (Look saying, that's not what I asked.)
TSB: He's a personal friend.
CBG: (Pause)
CBG: Are you bringing any presents into Canada?
TSB: No.
CBG: Welcome to Canada.
Canadian Border Guard: Good Afternoon.
The Secret Blog: Good Afternoon. (Hands over passports.)
CBG: Where are you going?
TSB: Montreal.
CBG: What's the purpose of your visit?
TSB: Pleasure..
CBG: (Skeptically) Pleasure?
TSB: A vacation.
CBG: Do you have anything to leave in Canada?
TSB: [NO BATHROOM HUMOR!!!] No.
CBG: Do you have any alcohol or tobacco in the car?
TSB: No.
CBG: (Starting to wrap up) Do you know anyone in Canada?
TSB: (Hit by a stray gust of honesty.) Yes, Peter Burnet.
CBG: (No longer wrapping up; suddenly paying attention.) How do you know him?
TSB: (Spell of honesty passes; I imagine myself trying to explain BrothersJudd or even just saying, "I met him on the Internet." I need an honest, plain-vanilla answer) I've known him for years.
CBG: (Look saying, that's not what I asked.)
TSB: He's a personal friend.
CBG: (Pause)
CBG: Are you bringing any presents into Canada?
TSB: No.
CBG: Welcome to Canada.
04 August 2010
Can Kagan Be Confirmed?
Despite public apathy towards her, Elena Kagan was sliding towards confirmation. There was no big reason to oppose her and she was about as good a nominee as Republicans were likely to see from President Obama.
But now a federal judge in California has ruled that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, marriage cannot be restricted to one man and one woman. That decision will likely end up in the Supreme Court. To predict that this improves Republican prospects for the mid-terms is easy; gay marriage loses whenever people vote. But I wonder if it also puts pressure on sitting Republican senators (and, for that matter, Democratic senators from strongly anti-gay marriage states who need to get reelected in November) to oppose Kagan. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow, which means a lot would have to happen quickly.
But now a federal judge in California has ruled that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, marriage cannot be restricted to one man and one woman. That decision will likely end up in the Supreme Court. To predict that this improves Republican prospects for the mid-terms is easy; gay marriage loses whenever people vote. But I wonder if it also puts pressure on sitting Republican senators (and, for that matter, Democratic senators from strongly anti-gay marriage states who need to get reelected in November) to oppose Kagan. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow, which means a lot would have to happen quickly.
30 July 2010
Don't Buy Green Bananas, Apparently We're Doomed
A recent study published in Nature claims that global warming kills phytoplankton. A blogger claims that this means the end of life on Earth. Kevin Drum argues that we could avoid certain death if we were willing to pay another $100 a year on our electric bill. Megan McArdle, in a remarkably balanced post, points out that this is nonsense on stilts.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. One of the reasons that I'm skeptical about global warming is that is too perfectly fits the agenda of the far left. Capitalism is evil, the environment uber alles, our only hope is that we cede power to international institutions of technocracy and, by the way, we're going to need a whole lot more taxes. If your recommended solution to a new, serious problem that pops up out of nowhere is exactly the same as the solutions you were recommending to our pre-existing problems, you'll have to excuse me if I suspect that the new problem is more convenient than real.
Which is why its somewhat annoying that, more and more, my preferred policy responses to the possibility of induced global climate change are exactly the same as my responses to most other policy problems we have: we (meaning the entire human race) need to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can. At this point in history, richer functionally means smarter. Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research. We can put more minds to work trying to understand the problems facing us and more minds means more possible solutions. Once we have a theoretical solution, being richer improves our chances of being able to turn theory into practice and makes us better able to withstand whatever problems global warming causes.
That of course assumes that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand, if it's not a threat, well, we'll just have to make do with being richer and smarter.
Contrast that with the left's plan to impoverish the world because of the chance that global warming is a real threat. We will live miserable lives and still -- taking the science seriously -- suffer global warming. If the science is wrong, we will have made ourselves poor for no reason at all.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. One of the reasons that I'm skeptical about global warming is that is too perfectly fits the agenda of the far left. Capitalism is evil, the environment uber alles, our only hope is that we cede power to international institutions of technocracy and, by the way, we're going to need a whole lot more taxes. If your recommended solution to a new, serious problem that pops up out of nowhere is exactly the same as the solutions you were recommending to our pre-existing problems, you'll have to excuse me if I suspect that the new problem is more convenient than real.
Which is why its somewhat annoying that, more and more, my preferred policy responses to the possibility of induced global climate change are exactly the same as my responses to most other policy problems we have: we (meaning the entire human race) need to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can. At this point in history, richer functionally means smarter. Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research. We can put more minds to work trying to understand the problems facing us and more minds means more possible solutions. Once we have a theoretical solution, being richer improves our chances of being able to turn theory into practice and makes us better able to withstand whatever problems global warming causes.
That of course assumes that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand, if it's not a threat, well, we'll just have to make do with being richer and smarter.
Contrast that with the left's plan to impoverish the world because of the chance that global warming is a real threat. We will live miserable lives and still -- taking the science seriously -- suffer global warming. If the science is wrong, we will have made ourselves poor for no reason at all.
Say What, Now?
The New York Observer is reporting that a Democratic incumbent congressman, representing Staten Island, is circulating a list of "Jewish Money" donors to a potential Republican opponent.
The file, labeled "Grimm Jewish Money Q2," for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.
"Where is Grimm's money coming from," said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon's campaign spokeman. "There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees."I know that the Left is the new home of antisemitism in the US, but this is pretty remarkable. Taking as a given all the "what if a Republican did this" points, what could this jerk possibly have been thinking? Presumably, he thinks that he knows his constituents.
29 July 2010
It's Focal Bias Day Here At The Secret Blog
Recently, I've been seeing focal bias everywhere. Both this post at Volokh Conspiracy and this post from Megan Mcardle are examples of focal bias, which is our tendency to think that a particular factor must be important because we're focusing on it.
19 July 2010
You Can't Make This Stuff Up
U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize' (NewsCore, 7/17/10)
American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."
Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."
17 July 2010
12 July 2010
28 June 2010
Initial Reactions To McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court has just held that the Second Amendment, interpreted in Heller to protect a natural right to self-defense by ensuring access to firearms, applies to (i.e., limits) the states as well. This probably (but not necessarily) means that Chicago's gun ordinance, which has the practical effect of preventing private citizens from owning guns, is dead.
My off the cuff reactions:
1. The privileges and immunities clause, which for more than 100 years has been thought to be dead, is really, really dead.
2. Justice Thomas' lone opinion that the Second Amendment applies against the states because of the privileges and immunities clause, rather than through the due process clause, was necessary for him to concur in the result because he disbelieves in due process clause incorporation (as do I).
3. Thomas' opinion is defensible, because the right to keep and bear arms really is a privilege of federal citizenship and arguably the amendment applies against the states on its own terms ("the right of the people" (emphasis added)), although the Supreme Court has long since rejected that idea.
4. This opinion will be a seven day wonder, much like Heller and the corporate free speech decisions, with the media lamenting conservative judicial activism. A few laws will be tweaked and someone in Chicago will get a new gun, but not much will actually change.
5. The only exception might be that McDonald will weaken the NRA. Not much existential threat to gun ownership if it's a recognized constitutional right.
My off the cuff reactions:
1. The privileges and immunities clause, which for more than 100 years has been thought to be dead, is really, really dead.
2. Justice Thomas' lone opinion that the Second Amendment applies against the states because of the privileges and immunities clause, rather than through the due process clause, was necessary for him to concur in the result because he disbelieves in due process clause incorporation (as do I).
3. Thomas' opinion is defensible, because the right to keep and bear arms really is a privilege of federal citizenship and arguably the amendment applies against the states on its own terms ("the right of the people" (emphasis added)), although the Supreme Court has long since rejected that idea.
4. This opinion will be a seven day wonder, much like Heller and the corporate free speech decisions, with the media lamenting conservative judicial activism. A few laws will be tweaked and someone in Chicago will get a new gun, but not much will actually change.
5. The only exception might be that McDonald will weaken the NRA. Not much existential threat to gun ownership if it's a recognized constitutional right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)