Home
Noumenon [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Noumenon

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| My Best Posts | My Comments Blog | Kevin Drum | Comics ]

(no subject) [Oct. 30th, 2009|06:09 am]
I have knowledge that the rest of the Internet doesn't know, at least per my Google search. If you want to use Yahoo Calendar to schedule something every other week, what you do is pick "Repeat Every Week", and then change "Every" to "Every Other."

Google Calendar is even worse, you can't see any way to do it until you select "repeat weekly" and then Ajax scripts pop up the option of doing it every other week -- but at least you can Google how to achieve that one. Yahoo Calendar totally stumped me to the point I was ready to switch to Google, and only the fact I couldn't figure out theirs either stopped me.
linkpost comment

My D&D character art is up! [May. 28th, 2009|09:18 am]
AvatarArt.com has finished illustrating my very first D&D character! His name is Chroma, and he's standing underneath a thin magical membrane holding back a boiling underwater lake -- the "boiling bubble" from the classic D&D adventure White Plume Mountain. Here he is (click on picture for the larger size):



Here's how I described Chroma when I commissioned the art:
Description: A D&D wizard who uses spells like Color Spray to blind opponents with all the colors of the rainbow.

A chameleon familiar, shifting colors from red to yellow. His name is Skittles.

An ankle-length black robe with a thin gold braid spiraling around the body twice and up the right arm. Beside the gold braid is one of dark green, blue, and red for a rainbow effect.

Holding his dagger overhead in his right hand, pommel up, point down. The prism in the pommel is emitting a flare of colored light. His other hand has a rainbow swirl around it, the start of a Rainbow Pattern or Color Spray spell.

Chroma's schtick is color; his favorite spells are Color Spray, Glitterdust (in red, green, and blue glitter), and Rainbow Pattern. The prism in his dagger's pommel is the focus for Rainbow Pattern, but it's also enchanted with the cantrip Flare. Chroma's too flashy to go totally invisible and sneak attack people, so the flare when he hits advertises his presence and dazzles them for a round. He can also pop a flare to give him +5 on his Bluff check to feint in combat and set up a sneak attack.
I think it's amazing how well AvatarArt was able to match the image I had in my head, while adding tons of little details. And I'm especially grateful they went through all the rounds of revisions necessary to create the boiling bubble, which I didn't have fixed in my head from the start. In the beginning, I thought the most I could expect them to create was a portrait of Chroma standing outside White Plume Mountain, which would basically have been a tiny volcano in the background. But the background just kept getting more dynamic and interesting the more ideas I bounced off them.

I'm hoping I can find someone to print it so it will look as good as it does on my computer screen. Big props to AvatarArt!
link2 comments|post comment

the Iraq war is over, do you know why? [May. 5th, 2009|05:35 am]
[Tags|]

The people who served in the Sunni Awakening no longer want to cooperate with the Americans. The Iraqi government hasn't tried to assimilate them at all. But it doesn't matter:
What has not followed the drop in violence is a political settlement: for the past year analysts have worried that the failure to disarm or integrate the Sunni Awakening groups into the state risked sowing the seeds of a new insurgency. But the tepid response to the arrest of Mashhadani and other Awakening men suggests that a political reconciliation may not have been necessary. The burgeoning Iraqi state, embodied by Maliki himself, can simply continue to expand its power and crush any rivals. One US Army Iraq expert, who worked closely with General David Petraeus to plan and implement the surge, told me in 2008 that the civil war would end when the Shiites realised they had won and the Sunnis realised they had lost. Based on the conversations I had during a trip through Iraq last month, both sides seem to accept that this is the case.
This is by Nir Rosen, who speaks Arabic and has massive antiwar cred to his name, so I really trust him when he says it's over.
There is nothing the Awakening groups can do. As guerrillas and insurgents they were only effective when they operated covertly, underground, blending in among a Sunni population that has now mostly been dispersed. Now the former resistance fighters-turned-paid guards are publicly known, and their names, addresses and biometric data are in the hands of American and Iraqi forces. They cannot return to an underground that has been cleared, and they still face the wrath of radical Sunnis who view them as traitors. They have failed to unite and as their stories demonstrate, they are on the run.
So here's how it worked:
The cleansing of Sunnis from much of Baghdad deprived Sunni insurgents of sanctuary among the population as they were losing battles with al Qa'eda, the Americans and Shiite militias. The Shiite bloc had numerical superiority, backed by the force of the Iraqi state and its security forces. And so, one by one, groups of Sunni resistance fighters struck ceasefire agreements with the Americans and joined the fight against al Qa'eda and other radical elements.

The "surge" of American forces allowed Maliki to strengthen the authority of the state and its security forces, while the establishment of the Awakening groups neutralised anti-government Sunni militias (in some cases simply by paying them salaries not to fight the state). The decline in sectarian violence gave Maliki space to weaken competing Shiite militias, who had been integral to cleansing Sunnis from mixed areas and establishing Shiite dominance but whose presence prevented his fully consolidating control.
So the story this is telling is that we hastened the end of the civil war by getting people to stop fighting each other temporarily, allowing them time to realize that they were beaten. I understand the part where we got half of the Sunnis fighting al Qaeda instead of the Shiites. I don't understand the part where the non-government Shiite militias stopped competing with the government Shiites. Did they spend their time fighting Sunnis, while the government had Americans fighting the Sunnis for it and could spend time fighting the militias?

The part I can't quite remember is, who were the Americans fighting exactly before and during the surge? Both the Sunnis and al Qaeda, but no Shiites? Or were we fighting Shiites too? I can't remember because during the ethnic cleansing I felt like we were just turtling up and not accomplishing anything.

It looks like the civil war was the essential element to ending the violence. Without the Shiites letting loose and destroying the Baghdad Sunnis with horrific violence, the insurgency could have continued much longer. Then the Anbar Awakening got enough Sunnis to call a truce, without feeling like they were surrendering -- but it turned out that's basically what they'd done.

What a complicated situation, do you think David Petraeus could have sat down and thought, "OK, we have group A1 and A2 fighting group B, group C fighting group B and D, and group D fighting groups A through C, we need to get B and C fighting D so that A1 can fight A2, leaving us with A2 and D defeated and A1 dominant over B, so that group C can go home?" (A1 being Maliki, A2 being al-Sadr, B being Sunnis, C being the Americans, and D being al Qaeda.)

Did actual military victory, with kills and arrests, have anything to do with this? Or would the Sunnis still have beat al Qaeda and Maliki beat al Sadr without the surge? If they would have, then the co-opting of the Sunnis would have been the only thing that really mattered. Of course, if you knew this was the situation you wouldn't take that chance. You'd throw the extra troops in there to make sure the Sunnis knew they'd win if they took your side.

And once you'd planned this all out, you'd never be able to sell it in public, because you couldn't say "Our plan is to get the Sunnis to help us beat al Qaeda and then sell them down the river." All you could do is say "We're gonna, um, kill some terrorists and hope the Iraqis reconcile together." You have a plan now, but you have to keep saying the same thing you said when you didn't have one and hope the public trusts you.

So what does this mean for the question, "Was I wrong to oppose the surge?" Before, I would have said "No, they weren't proposing any new strategy that we could expect to work, and the old one was a proven failure." But now, I'd say "Yes, I was wrong not to see that the civil war made for a very different balance of forces in Iraq and therefore the prospects for any strategy succeeding were different than before."

And finally I don't want to fall into the trap of talking about how the surge worked out in the end and letting people think that means the Iraq War was OK. Out of the three questions "Given what we knew at the time, was it right to support 1) the invasion 2) the occupation and 3) the surge?" my answer to 1) and 2) is still decisively "No." Out of the three questions "Were the consequences of 1) the invasion 2) the occupation and 3) the surge better than doing nothing?" my answer to 1) is "No" and the answer to 2) is "Hell no." But I am glad that we broke our streak and things finally started getting better from 2007 to 2009.

I don't especially want to argue about that last paragraph in comments. I'm more interested in discussion about the surge and how it worked.
link16 comments|post comment

My response to that is pending a Google search. [May. 1st, 2009|12:26 am]
Get Fuzzy has given me a new catchphrase, or at least expressed what it's like to talk to me these days.

link1 comment|post comment

Stories my Psychology Teacher Told Me [Apr. 24th, 2009|08:29 pm]
While I was reading an article about how the Kitty Genovese story was misrepresented, I also found links to similar treatments of Phineas Gage and Little Albert. I never really doubted any of those stories, since I learned them as case studies out of psychology textbooks. It's like learning that Enrico Fermi never really split the atom.

Psychology textbooks are full of those graphic examples -- Kitty being murdered in front of 38 observers who didn't call the police, Phineas having his personality changed by a metal rod that pierced his brain, Little Albert being conditioned to fear rats by scaring him with loud noises whenever he saw a rat. I wonder if the real achievement of psychologists is being able to manipulate their students to feel like they're learning something?

I actually had a separate book in PSY-201 called "40 experiments in psychology" that contained all these. There was also the one about applying electric shocks to dogs to induce "learned helplessness" -- the NYT said that story played a role in convincing the US that torture was effective. I wonder if it's true or just another story they tell freshmen?
linkpost comment

I need a healthcare champion [Apr. 4th, 2009|10:52 am]
[Tags|]

Do we have to rely on the general practitioner plus referrals model for all our health care problems? I have a complex problem in my lower back that I just can't see anybody diagnosing in fifteen minutes, or even remembering what the symptoms are. Would it be possible to hire a "private medical investigator," "personal health advocate," or "healthcare champion" of some sort to work on a problem for you? Like a travel agent only for hospitals.

This person could do things like
  • Making a comprehensive list of your symptoms (a trained medical person can find out exactly what hurts by making you twist just so, they did it to me in therapy and when I tore my back muscle)
  • Doing a thorough search for possible diagnoses (WebMD or Google is the best I can do, I have not succeded in "becoming an expert on my condition")
  • Identifying possible treatments (even stuff like "get a computer desk you can put a recliner under," which just occurred to me last week after a random link to the Ergopod 500)
  • searching out real experts in your condition, connecting you to them and setting up appointments (that last part is trivial but would be great for alleviating the procrastination). I have no idea where to find someone who's actually good at this kind of puzzle or whether they exist.

I just don't get the sense that my primary care physician is going back to his office after I leave and sitting down poring over textbooks and looking up weird therapies. I really want to find someone who will do that. No matter how much the hourly rate is. Do they exist? What would they be called? If there's no market for this, how do you get someone smart to pay attention to your problem? Bribes?

There's my little bleg/cry for help. I hope someone's heard of something like this.
link3 comments|post comment

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. [Mar. 30th, 2009|05:19 am]
Post title is from Dennis Miller's rants, which sadly aren't available in good quality on YouTube.







This graphic also doesn't mention how reaching under the back of the roll causes your germ-infested fingers to brush the wall behind the roll, in the exact same place the last guy's did. That's much more likely to cause disease than sharing the toilet seat. As long as you don't have cats unrolling your toilet paper, this is the way to go. Or you could just set the roll on the laundry hamper in front of you and solve the whole debate.

(ps: I found this image on myconfinedspace.com with no source credit, but I used TinEye.com Reverse Image Search to find out where the image was posted initially. Google can't do that!)
link2 comments|post comment

Warning: System At Work [Mar. 29th, 2009|08:56 am]
Back when Zay N. Smith was writing Quick Takes for the Chicago Sun-Times, he used to have a standard model for reporting stories like this about CEO pay.  First he'd quote the story:

Philadelphia Media Holdings admitted to its failure to pay out the withholdings from employee paychecks to the proper third parties... They didn't pay their employees' 401k contributions and health insurance premiums, though they were deducted from their employees' paychecks. (We can only hope that none of those employees got sick and were denied care.) Hundreds of people have been laid off in the last two years, and workers have had to take several rounds of cuts. Now the company has filed for bankruptcy. And yet, strange to say, right before they filed for bankruptcy they found a way first to raise their CEO's salary by nearly 60%, to $850,000, and then to give him a bonus.

Quick Takes wouldn't waste a lot of time getting outraged or bashing the CEO.  He'd just post the story, and then write,

"The system works."
linkpost comment

Naruto [Jan. 6th, 2009|01:24 pm]
(I think I'm gonna start copying random forum posts here like this was my comments blog. This is from enworld.)

Actually, Naruto crushes Miley Cyrus on Google Trends. Actually, Naruto crushes "Britney Spears" -- what's going on here? Because Yahoo said Britney was #1. But "Naruto" was #7 on their list, I see.

That's really weird -- I just picked Naruto to trend against because I, personally, like it, because I saw a cool AMV of it when I was searching YouTube for music. I had no idea it was a big phenomenon. For all I knew it was the size of Full Metal Alchemist, which I had at least heard of. So I've been comparing D&D's Google statistics to this gigantic juggernaut of Internet searches by mistake!
linkpost comment

Christina Aguilera [Jan. 4th, 2009|01:02 pm]
(quote) Christina Aguilera has really changed.
She really has -- this is her when she got famous (I still like this song and listen to it quite a bit by the way) and here she is in her Dirrty period (the song is just OK but I love a good break dance battle video and it really benefits from YouTube's new high quality option).
linkpost comment

speeding [Jan. 2nd, 2009|09:49 am]
Here's an article that says governments are stepping up speeding tickets to increase revenue. I've been doing stuff like driving 80 downhill so I can coast uphill, so I have to watch out too. And look at the cost of a ticket (I was not aware of this):
Let's say you're an experienced driver in California with a single-car policy and a good driving record, paying average rates statewide for liability, collision and comprehensive insurance coverage. That's about $920 annually. If you were an Allstate customer, you'd get a 20% good-driver discount and pay only $736.

One speeding ticket would bring that to $1,129 annually, Allstate says. Get a second minor ticket and you'd lose your good-driver discount, and your premium would rise again, to $1,479, the company says. After a third ticket, expect to pay $1,631. Over three years you would end up paying about $2,685 more than if you'd kept your nose clean.
I was not aware of that. It's just like drunk driving where the cost of the insurance premium dwarfs the cost of the ticket. I wonder if that's some kind of scam where the government has "outsourced" fee collection to for-profit institutions?

Anyway, now when I drive the speed limit, I can think "I'm not only saving gas, I'm making money."

I wonder if all the people out there on the freeway going 80, who I usually think of as being not-cowardly people (unlike me) who are not scared away by a very small risk, are actually the same population of foolish people who live paycheck to paycheck and freely accept very large financial risks. (But it seems more like it is everyone except for me.) I wish someone would do a study on the actual odds of being pulled over so you could tell how fast it is safe to drive.
link6 comments|post comment

Amazing new D&D technology [Dec. 20th, 2008|04:39 am]
[Tags|]

I really can't get enough of [info]katemare's new approach to D&D statblocks. Check out his bulette and bloodseeker wolf designs. The combination of art, flavor, tactics, and encounter suggestions makes those monsters so cool, I really want to run them -- and thanks to the great design, I could do it almost on the fly without looking up rules. All monster manuals should be designed this way.

I have several posts in each thread with further rhapsodizing about how specifically these designs are awesome. I really hope he does more.
linkpost comment

Bailout megapost [Nov. 27th, 2008|07:46 am]
I wrote this giant post about bailout-related stuff on my family website. I post there several times a day, which is why no one hears from me here anymore. But bailout coverage is rare enough I thought someone might actually want to see this one.

The Plank:
Washington’s approach thus far has been to prop up the banks and assume that they will know how to fix the problem, and that they'll want to. Of course, they haven’t; rather than loosening credit or resolving troubled assets, they’ve gone on spending sprees, burning through the cash without any clear sense of how to right themselves. The really galling thing about the Citi deal is that the industry’s recalcitrance is now readily apparent--and yet the government negotiators continue to give it the benefit of the doubt.

As someone with accounts at Citibank, I am personally happy to see it get bailed out. But as a taxpayer and a citizen, I am furious at the government’s willingness to spend enormous amounts of money without any apparent strategy.

In short, the banks haven't learned their lesson and are doing the same thing with the new money that they did with their old money. Felix Salmon:

the US taxpayer might be funding -- and, worse, guaranteeing -- a brand-new subprime bubble.

The rise of the originate-to-distribute model destroyed enormous amounts of institutional knowledge on the subject of responsible underwriting, as bad lenders drove out good ones. And while there's an inchoate impression out there that underwriting standards have tightened up sharply, I suspect that in reality they haven't, and that what we thought was higher underwriting standards was in fact simply a lack of money to lend.

After all, he says, the subprime mortgages started defaulting in 2007, and the banks didn't tighten up new lending even then.

-------------

Meanwhile, the person in charge, Henry Paulson, can be relied upon to call the banking system "safe and sound" right before the next bank collapses. The Economist does a little psychoanalyzing of Bush's Treasury Secretary compared to Clinton's that might explain the lousy results:

Mr Rubin rose to the top through risk arbitrage. As a trader, he knew that the important thing was to understand the big picture, and get big calls right. He knew to keep his mouth shut: talking about your ideas might let someone else steal your profits. This may be the perfect skill set for a Treasury Secretary, which is why the trader currently running Goldman, Lloyd Blankfein, might one day make a good one.

Mr Paulson, by contrast, rose to the top of the firm through investment banking, which is largely about dealmaking. The caricature of a dealmaker is someone who only wants to get the deal done, and cares not one fig for the consequences. Indeed, a lot of investment-banking deals involve undoing mergers put together by previous dealmakers.

The meltdown in the financial markets was arguably due in large part to dealmaking while ignoring the bigger picture. And Mr Paulson has stumbled from one crisis to the next, often fixing one in a way inconsistent with his approach to the next, with little indication of having a bigger strategy.

-----------

Having had no strategy for dealing with the obvious, expected subprime problems, we are sure not gonna be ready for what comes over the horizon. For example, not only are people so unsure of banks that they are taking a negative interest rate to hold Treasury bonds instead, but people are not delivering bonds they sell, which might be breaking the Treasury bond market.

------------

It's hard for the average person to tell how bad things are because the media can't scare people about this story the way it usually does. Financial problems have no dramatic footage like floods, they aren't driven by the government so journalists can't simply copy down the President's press releases, and of course a lot of people simply don't know what's going on.

----------

I realize this is link overload but here's Brad DeLong explaining how we ended up with the Fed ruling us:

All this evolved not by design but by accident. The Bank of England did not start out thinking its job was to rescue the banking sector in crisis; it just found there was a crisis and thought it could do some good. Robert Peel did not set out to create a central bank, but prosecuting the Bank of England for charter violations seemed a mistake at the time. The Bank of England did not set out to supplant the market and turn the interest rate into a centrally planned and administered price, but monetary management in extraordinary times led to monetary management in unusual and then in ordinary times. The 1913 U.S. Congress did not set out to turn Ben Bernanke into a philosopher-prince, but the absence of an American central bank was blamed for the dire panics and depressions that struck between the Civil War and World War I. And post–World War II presidents and congresses did not set out to cede all effective powers of national macroeconomic management to the philosopher-princes of the Federal Reserve; it just seemed like the least-bad idea at the time.

He concludes that the current crisis is going to actually strengthen the Fed's independent control over our economy.
link3 comments|post comment

Democracy in action [Aug. 22nd, 2008|02:10 pm]
On this day in history for August 18:
1941 - On this day in 1941, Adolf Hitler orders that the systematic murder of the mentally ill and handicapped be brought to an end because of protests within Germany.

In 1939, Dr. Viktor Brack, head of Hitler’s Euthanasia Department, oversaw the creation of the T.4 program, which began as the systematic killing of children deemed "mentally defective"...

It wasn’t long before protests began mounting within Germany, especially by doctors and clergy. Some had the courage to write Hitler directly and describe the T.4 program as “barbaric”; others circulated their opinions more discreetly. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and the man who would direct the systematic extermination of European Jewry, had only one regret: that the SS had not been put in charge of the whole affair. “We know how to deal with it correctly, without causing useless uproar among the people.”

Finally, in 1941, Bishop Count Clemens von Galen denounced the euthanasia program from his pulpit. Hitler did not need such publicity. He ordered the program suspended, at least in Germany. But 50,000 people had already fallen victim to it. It would be revived in occupied Poland.
Just because you occasionally see a government respond to public pressure, does not mean it is a "democracy" or that "the system works." I had a link comparing the sacking of Alberto Gonzales to the rise and fall of politicians in the Roman Empire, that made the same point, but I lost it.
linkpost comment

I talk funny one day [Jun. 16th, 2008|06:45 pm]
If you ever hear me talk kinda stupid, like saying "Is you ready to go?" instead of "Are you," just know that I am not trying to sound like "I can has cheezburger?", but rather, I am trying to make myself sound as endearing as, say, this beatonna chick and wishing I was so awesomely smart that I could get away with the roguish grammar.

(Just so you don't have to spell it here is the Wikipedia entry for Kosciuszko.)
linkpost comment

flood response [Jun. 13th, 2008|10:24 pm]
I live close to Wisconsin Dells where Lake Delton just emptied out into the Wisconsin River. The Main Street bridge in my town was flooded over and there's little rows of sandbags everywhere. Seems like the local government has responded OK. I even heard a fun human interest story about the amphibious WWII-era Wisconsin Ducks being pulled off tourist duty to rescue people from their homes.

So this Salon article about Hurricane Katrina almost feels topical now. (must watch skip an ad to view article). At least according to Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, Bush's political response was so much snappier than the emergency response that it really interfered with it:

I looked at the governor and she looked at me, like, 'Why is David Vitter on the phone with Karl Rove?' I mean, he could have been talking to generals, the president himself, but Rove is just a political hatchet man..."

"I found my staff having to do public relations in the middle of the most disastrous days Louisiana has ever experienced. The talking heads had been turned on. My staff was saying, 'My God, governor, they are crucifying you politically.' I finally pulled all of my staff together and said, 'We are wasting our energy. We do not have a stable of talking heads. We cannot control the national media. We have lifesaving missions to accomplish, so let's do it.' My staff was upset with me."

Of course there are more subtle things you can do to shift blame than just spin:

"Kathleen," Bush said in their meeting, which was attended by Joe Hagen from Bush's staff but no one from Blanco's staff -- a fact that troubled Blanco -- "I'm going to need you to sign a waiver that the Louisiana National Guard needs to be turned over to the federal government. I can't take them from you but I'm going to need you to federalize them."

Blanco had no intention of signing a waiver. She was concerned about a variety of legal ramifications that could result from her signing over her National Guard, but her main fear was that, without the leverage Blanco had as a free agent in what had now turned into a protracted negotiation with the administration, she would have no means to force Bush to provide any assistance at all. Blanco told Bush she would not sign a waiver. "You need to give General Honore some soldiers," Blanco told Bush...

By federalizing her guardsmen, Blanco would have been admitting that it was the state that was unable to handle the disaster, not the federal government. The Bush administration could have argued that they had had to save the day for Blanco because she was not up to the task. However, if Blanco did not take the bait, the scheme was dead.

[Bush eventually released federal troops without the waiver.]

Here are some facts I did not know about Mayor Nagin (although it seems like he took more heat than Blanco anyway):

Instead of supplying relief to the city, Rove had devised a scheme whereby he could blame the failure of government to take action on someone besides Bush. “They looked around,” Landrieu says, “and they found a Democratic governor and an African American Democratic mayor who had never held office before in his life before he was mayor of New Orleans — someone they knew they could manipulate. Ray Nagin had never held public office and here he was the mayor of New Orleans and it was going underwater.”

In short, Rove was going to blame Blanco for the failure of the response in Louisiana, and to do that he was going to use Nagin. He had already set the plan in motion on Tuesday with Nagin, who, even though he was a Democrat, was so close to the Republican Party that some members of the African American community in New Orleans called him “Ray Reagan.” In 2000, Nagin had actually contributed $2,000 to Bush’s campaign when he ran for president.

Rove knew of Nagin’s ties to the Republican Party, so more than likely Nagin could be convinced to level his criticism at Blanco and to support Bush when he could. Here was Rove’s strategy: Praise Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi; praise Michael Brown and FEMA; blame Blanco, the Democrat. It was not a stretch for Nagin. He and Blanco so disliked each other that in Blanco’s last race Nagin had endorsed her opponent.

Rove and Nagin were communicating through e-mail. "I heard Nagin was bragging about being in touch with The Man," Blanco says. "Nagin took the position that they were the people who could help the most to do what he wanted. People get highly complimented when they have contact with the White House."

And finally, the story ends with a familiar political tale:

Of all of the stories and subplots, there would be one that, in many ways, symbolized the whole of Katrina, what it revealed about the Bush administration, and how it would affect the lives of so many people. On Friday, Mary Landrieu had been with Bush and Blanco as they toured the 17th Street Canal, where, at last, major work had commenced to repair the damage that had been caused when the levee broke. "Then, on Saturday," Landrieu says, "George Stephanopoulos called and asked to do an interview with me, and I said, 'George, I'm tired of doing interviews. I have to work. And nothing you are airing is accurately showing what's going on down here.' He wanted to go to the Superdome, and I said, 'We still have people stranded on their roofs. If you want to tell the right story, I will help you tell the right story. You get a helicopter and I'll go up and I will show you what is actually happening. It's awful what's happening at the Superdome, but the reason the people can't understand the story is because the entire region is under 20 feet of water. People can't get into the Superdome to help. They can't get out. People are drowning in their homes.'

"So George and I went up in the helicopter and for three hours his jaw was dropping. Then I said, 'George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can't send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.' So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there -- people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it." There, in the cabin of the helicopter, as they flew above the breached canal below them, Landrieu sat devastated.

"I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life."

No one's perfect in an emergency, but it looks like the Bush administration spent a lot of time on things that weren't even trying to help.
linkpost comment

The Happiness Game [Apr. 3rd, 2008|04:50 pm]
OK, the theory behind the happiness videogame is that your stress hormones take just seconds to react to insecure thoughts like "Are they laughing at me?" So they want to suppress those insecure thoughts by beating them to the punch. They get you playing a video game like Tetris, where you need hair-trigger reactions -- only instead of matching blocks, you are matching smiling faces and ignoring frowning faces.

The demo is playable on their website. I'm telling you, it brought a smile to my face. There's also games that prime your mind with words like "compassion" or "helpful." A neat idea!
linkpost comment

Income Composition of the top Fractiles - Piketty and Saez [Mar. 3rd, 2008|01:50 pm]
This is a chart from the Piketty and Saez paper Income Inequality in the United States. What you see is that the rich in America used to get that way by owning things, but now they get that way by doing things -- working and founding businesses. The original is in a stupid PDF file so I could never link to it when it came up.

Read the chart like this. It is showing how the top 10% earned their income -- first in 1929, and then in 1998. The leftmost column is labeled "P90-95". That's the bottom half of the top 10% -- the 90th to 95th percentiles of income. The rightmost column is labeled "P99.99-100". That's the top .01% -- the top 1% of the top 1%. This format makes it easy to see that, for example, wage income is a much larger part of the income for the 90th-percentilers than it is for the top 0.01%.

Income Composition for Top Fractiles - Piketty and Saez
linkpost comment

government education [Dec. 4th, 2007|08:09 am]
Well said...
People are used to the idea of state schools, so they don’t think about how uneasily government-controlled education fits with liberal democracy. If someone said that Australia’s media should be owned by the state, with journalists told by the state what they should say, with media audiences examined to make sure they had absorbed the official line, there would be predictable and justifiable outrage.

Yet public education means essentially that for Australia’s young people. The government owns most schools, employs most teachers, tells them what to teach through state-set curricula, and examines students to make sure they have it right—even kids escaping to private schools can’t avoid these last two aspects of state-run education. And unlike state-owned media, there are severe consequences for ignoring state education.... link
For example, does every science textbook start out with an explanation of the "scientific method" and the difference between a "theory" and a "law" because a) you actually use those concepts later in the course, or b) because the government is trying to indoctrinate you to find the "theory" of evolution legitimate? I wasn't old enough when I learned that to know it was from a compromised source. And knowing now still doesn't help me because everyone else believes it's an established fact.

(This is just an example, every textbook I ever had pussyfooted around evolution instead of teaching it, so it wouldn't annoy Christians. If anything I think the "theory" section is evolutionists trying to sneak a little evolution past the government textbook boards.) I probably should have found a better example, but I don't really need one. Having the government control what children are taught is just anti-freedom on the face of it.
link1 comment|post comment

my second tenth million [Nov. 12th, 2007|11:01 am]
When I was looking through my memories for the last post I noticed my old blog post My First Tenth Million. Coincidence! I just passed the $100,000 mark a second time a few days ago. It took me 41 months to earn the first $100,000, but it only took me 30 months to earn the second $100,000. That meant all my monthly expenses like rent should be only 3/4 as large this time.

What's different on the income side is I made $10,000 more in overtime and $10,000 less in regular time. I got three times as much in dividends and interest ($5600 total). I made about $500 in credit card rebates compared to $625 last time.

Expenses:
I spent $17,400 on transportation instead of $513 last time. Buying a car hurts!
I spent $15,450 on taxes instead of $14,300.
I spent $12,000 on rent for 30 months instead of $10,785 on rent for 40 months.
I spent $10,628 on charitable donations instead of $13,900.
I spent the same $6500 on food in only 3/4 the months.
I only spent $574 on computer stuff and $727 on Magic instead of $2100 and $1300.
I saved $1150 by not having cable.
I spent $1088 on health care with physical therapy and stuff. On the other hand, I saved $815 by not going to the stupid health club any more.

Of my first $100,000, I saved 42%. Thanks to buying that car, I only saved 28% this time. Either rate is pretty frugal, but the difference is important. Living on 58% of your income lets you retire for 7 years for every 10 you work (because you only have to replace 58% of your income with savings). Living on 72% of your income gives you less than four years of time off for each decade of work. I am hankering after that time off already.
linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

Advertisement