Spareink

August 31, 2005

Mark Your Calendars, I'm going to this

A Debate: George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens (Sept 14th)

Found via KesherTalk

Posted by Morgan at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 30, 2005

My new favorite place to people watch in NY

Sitting outside the Dunkin Donuts at 40th & 2nd

Posted by Morgan at 10:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

August 29, 2005

The Mind of Adolf Hitler by Walter Langer

A book-length psychological profile of Hitler published in 1943, that I found for 50-cents in a bookstore in New Hope, Pennsylvania.

Some interesting quotes.

First, I had heard that Hitler might have been quarter-Jewish; but I had never heard that he might have been a Rothschild!

As a result of this investigation, a secret document was prepared that proved that Maria Anna Shickgruber [Hitler's father's mother] was living in Viennsa at the time she conceived [Alois, Hitler's father]. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschilds is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Adolf a quarter Jew. [p. 107]

Next: look at the dangers of showering too much love and taking care of someone too much!

According to Dr. Bloch, who treated her, she [Klara Poelzl, Adolf's mother] was a very quiet sweet and affectionate woman whose life centered around her children and particularly Adolf, who was her pet. [p. 111]

...The result was that she catered to his whims, even to the point of spoiling him, and that she was overprotective in her attitude toward him. We may assume that during the first five yeras of Adolf's life, he was the apple of his mother's eye and that she lavished affection on him. In view of her husband's conduct and the fact that he was twenty-three years her senior and far from having a loving disposition, we may suppose that much of the affection that normally would have gone to him also found its way to Adolf. The result was a strong libidinal attachment between mother and son. [p. 155]

This is the kicker, I was left speechless but laughing hysterically not just at the alleged accusations (oh my God, Hitler masturbated!) but at the great perversion it turns out he has: Golden Showers!

Hitler's sexual life has always been the topic of much speculation. As pointed out in the previous chapter, most of his closest associates are absolutely ignorant on this subject. This has led to conjectures of all sorts. Some belive that he is entirely immune from such impulses. Some believe that he is a chronic masturbator. Some believe that he derives his sexual pleasure through voyeurism. Many believe that he is completely impotent. Others, and these are perhaps in the majority, think that he is homosexual. It is probably true that he is impotent, but he is certainly not homosexual in the ordinary sense of the term. His perversion has quite a different nature, which few have guessed. It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derives sexual gratification from the act of having a woman urtinate or defecate on him. [p. 139]

So science of course is only as good as its predicted power. And this author--as a good scientist--writing before the end of WWII, predicted various possible outcomes in regards to Hitler. I won't transcribe the whole chapter, but rather the title of each possible outcome:

1. Hitler may die of natural causes 2. Hitler might seek refuge in a neutral country 3. Hitler may get killed in battle 4. Hitler may be assassinated 5. Hitler may go insane 6. German military might revolt and seize him 7. Hitler may fall into our hands [p. 213 - 217]

Okay, this list both reminds me that the only test of science is its predictive power and, with that it mind, it demonstrates to me, once again, that psychiatry [as of 1943, at least] is not a science.

Hitler might die of natural causes? Now that's wishful thinking: in the middle of fighting a deadly war (this was 1943), it would be unbelievable luck if the leader of the enemy just happened to develop a severe case of lung cancer and drop dead. Hitler might seek refuge in a neutral country? Hitler growing old with Eva by his side on a small estate in the south of Chile? Or Hitler might go insane? Do you mean, until this point, he wasn't insane? (Any sane man would try to kill off all the Jews, of course!)

What is funniest is that, the author didn't even include on the list of possibilities the actual outcome (which was, suicide): they thought it was more likely that he would just happen to get cancer, or seek refuge in a neutral country, or "go insane," than kill himself.

So much of psychiatry in 1943. I hope it's gotten better since.

And I will never be able to think of a Golden Shower again without imagining Eva Bran peeing on a naked Hitler. Oh, Führer!

Posted by Morgan at 01:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

August 27, 2005

Etymology of "Dog Days"

[Included, as a surprise bonus, is an etymological comment on Sirius--no, not the radio station!]

dog days
pl.n.

1. The hot, sultry period of summer between early July and early September.
2. A period of stagnation.

[Translation of Late Latin dies caniculares, Dog Star days (so called because the Dog Star (Sirius) rises and sets with the sun during this time) : Latin dies, pl. of dies, day + Late Latin canculares, pl. of cancularis, of the Dog Star.]

From Dictionary.com

Posted by Morgan at 02:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Myths to Live By (Joseph Campbell)

"The word zen itself is a Japanese mispronunciation of the Chinese word ch'an, which, in turn, is a CHinese mispronunciation of the Sanskrit dhyana, meaning 'contemplation, meditation.'" [p. 126]

"One of the most amazing images of love that I know is Persian--a mystical Persian representation of Satan as the most loyal lover of God. You will have heard the old legend of how, when God created the angels, he commanded them to pay worship to no one but himself; but then, creating man, he commanded them to bow in reverence to this most noble of his works, and Lucifer refused--because, we are told, of his pride. However, according to this Moslem reading of his case, it was rather because he loved and adored God so deeply and intensely that he could not bring himself to bow before anything else. And it was for that that he was flung into Hell, condemned to exist there forever, apart from his love." [p. 148]

Posted by Morgan at 01:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2005

Towels in Guiana

I was talking to an older, lower middle class woman from Guiana I know and she made three noteworthy points about her home country:

1.) In Guiana now (where the primary local language is English), people don't use the word "beggar" anymore: political correctness (although she did not call it such) has come to country and they are fighting poverty--in this deeply poor country--through language.

2.) Although they speak English there, they have a very strong and distinctive accent. For example, the majority of the population (or at least a very significant portion) is descended from immigrants from India, so the accent is closer to the Indian accent than any other. However, when she now speaks to her grandchildren or goes back to her country, all the young people speak in an accent that, to her, is undistinguishable from English.

3.) The greatest gift you can give someone in Guiana is a towel. Towels there are infrequent and expensive -- and when you do have them, you constantly have them with you and use them for a seemingly unlimited number of uses. She's going back to Guiana soon to visit and taking with her a whole suitcase of mostly towels to give to "the poor people, I can't say 'beggar' any more" there.

Maybe the Hitchhikers Guide was based on reality, then?

Posted by Morgan at 01:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 25, 2005

Why did people join the Nazi Party?

In 1934, the Columbia academic Theodore Abel launched an essay contest for Nazi party members (in Germany), to write a personal essay on why they became Nazis. In 1938 he published his results in Why Hitler came into Power, including both a couple of complete essays as well as an overall analysis.

Rereading the book for the first time since college, here is a passage that stood out, from the essay entered by an anti-Semite (p. 225):

I had still not bothered with politics. One day I went to Koslin to shop with my brother-in-law from Berlin, who had returned from captivity and was visiting me. It was during the time when government officials also claimed the right to strike. There was talk an intended strike of the railroad men. And then in the evening the strike had come and we could not return. We remained in the hope of getting away the next day by some sort of conveyance. To kill time, we went that evening to a meeting called by the Schutz- und Trutzbund, [editor's footnote: "an anti-Semitic organization"] of which we had read on posters. The hall was overcrowded, we could find seats only in the front row by the stage. We perceived from conversation that some were indignant, that people dared to hold a meeting directed against the Jews. A retired Captain Schmidt of Stettin made the speech, which lasted on and a half hours. During the first quarter of an hour he was often interrupted. Then he succeeded in fixing everyone's attention. It seemed to me as though scales had fallen from my eyes. THere were no more interruptions; at last even those had had come with the purpose of breaking up the meeting seemed to be enthusiastic. Representatives of nine parties had applied for discussion. The first eight said things that were of no account. The last to speak was a rabbi who was received with laughter. At first he was not taken seriously at all; after a quarter of an hour he had the audience on his side. I too was once more tormented by doubts. Yet there was something in me that struggled against the Jew despite his convincingly uttered remarks. At last not a soul in the hall seemed to have a different opinion from the Jew. The applause grew louder and louder. FOrtunately, probably inspired by the applause, he became impudent, and inveighed against Hindenburg, Ludendorff, and our two million dead. Now the ban was broken. Everyone cried: "Out with the Jew!" More quickly than he had come he was outside again. A final talk by the main speaker restored my inner balance. That evening had shown me the danger of the Jewish intelligence. When on econsidered now that public opinion was created almost exclusively by Jews, one was filled with horror. Every honest German artisan was of the firm conviction that everything printed in a newspaper is true. If it were not true, the state would have to take a hand. From this evening on I occupied myself with the Jewish problem, and the more I understood it, the greater opponent of the Jews did I become. In this connection I also began to occupy myself with politics. Unfortunately I found only too soon that none of the existing parties paid any attention to the Jewish problem.

This is powerful enough so that I have responses to say to almost every sentence. Here is the text again, with some comments interwoven:

I had still not bothered with politics. One day I went to Koslin to shop with my brother-in-law from Berlin, who had returned from captivity and was visiting me. [Note how "returning from captivity" is something so normal that that is is mentioned in passing, like it is not a big deal: only now do we live lives without this deadly aspect to it] [] It was during the time when government officials also claimed the right to strike. [Good to remember: the right to strike wasn't always an obvious, universal right. Ought it be?] There was talk an intended strike of the railroad men. And then in the evening the strike had come and we could not return. We remained in the hope of getting away the next day by some sort of conveyance. To kill time, we went that evening to a meeting called by the Schutz- und Trutzbund, [editor's footnote: "an anti-Semitic organization"] of which we had read on posters. The hall was overcrowded, we could find seats only in the front row by the stage. We perceived from conversation that some were indignant, that people dared to hold a meeting directed against the Jews. A retired Captain Schmidt of Stettin made the speech, which lasted one and a half hours. [Today, only the Billy Grahams and Castros give speeches this long, but it was common then!] During the first quarter of an hour he was often interrupted. [Heckling, too, as a part of public gatherings then! Just like in the third world today] Then he succeeded in fixing everyone's attention. It seemed to me as though scales had fallen from my eyes. There were no more interruptions; at last even those had had come with the purpose of breaking up the meeting seemed to be enthusiastic. Representatives of nine parties had applied for discussion. The first eight said things that were of no account. The last to speak was a rabbi who was received with laughter. [Interesting that they invited a rabbi, at all!] At first he was not taken seriously at all; after a quarter of an hour he had the audience on his side. I too was once more tormented by doubts. Yet there was something in me that struggled against the Jew despite his convincingly uttered remarks. At last not a soul in the hall seemed to have a different opinion from the Jew. The applause grew louder and louder. [If this is an accurate representation, then they at least listened to him] Fortunately, probably inspired by the applause, he became impudent, and inveighed against Hindenburg, Ludendorff, and our two million dead. Now the ban was broken. Everyone cried: "Out with the Jew!" [Ah, so the problem is that the Jew was doing okay but he went too far--the Jew is accepted but then oversteps his bounds--this is probably the best summary of the anti-Semitic attitude I have seen] More quickly than he had come he was outside again. A final talk by the main speaker restored my inner balance. That evening had shown me the danger of the Jewish intelligence. [Notice the phrasing: "the Jewish intelligence"] When on econsidered now that public opinion was created almost exclusively by Jews, one was filled with horror. [Even back then? Notice how the rhetoric is identical today--in the US] Every honest German artisan was of the firm conviction that everything printed in a newspaper is true. [Notice both the association of 'artisan' with the common working man--as opposed to the sense the word has today, where the artisan is someone different and artistic. Also note the condescension, how the common man is stupid and controlled by the media] If it were not true, the state would have to take a hand. [A true socialist: the solution is the state!] From this evening on I occupied myself with the Jewish problem, and the more I understood it, the greater opponent of the Jews did I become. [The more wrapped up you become in anything, the more extreme you become: the challenge is to fight that, or to make sure you're extreme on the right things] In this connection I also began to occupy myself with politics. [Funny how the socialist thinks that the solution is in "politics"; I think the solution is in just doing it, and that may take the form of a business, association, or possibly even politics.] Unfortunately I found only too soon that none of the existing parties paid any attention to the Jewish problem. [Notice how one night can change someone, if he is retelling his story honestly.]

Posted by Morgan at 03:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2005

Why Wealthy Neighborhoods Have No Good Cafes

The reason why wealthy neighborhoods have so few cafes--or even corner stores--is so obvious I should have figured it out years ago. Here is the explanation in case it's not obvious to you, either:

If you owned or rented a storefront in a wealthy neighborhood, would you make more money selling to the wealthy people $1 coke cans or $4 coffees... or $10,000 dresses and $5,000 necklaces? Clearly the later--it's not even a close call. Therefore, of course the nicer the neighorhood, the more expensive retail items they will sell and since retail storefronts are limited, the stores with the cheapest items--and what's cheaper than a canned drink?--vanish.

One possible solution to this is that, if you think there's enough demand for, say, a nice cafe in a nice neighborhood, you can just raise your prices to compensate for this. To a degree, this is what happens (and why, every once in a while, I buy a $7 coffee). But there is a natural ceiling price to certain products. People are willing to pay thousands of dollars for a bottle of wine--but they just won't pay more than a few dollars at most for a can of Coke. If a local cafe in an expensive neighborhood tried to charge $35 for a cup of coffee, then everyone would go elsewhere -- despite the fact that every single one of the potential customers could easily afford the extra $30 on the price tag. So it's not about charging too much to price out your customres; but it's that, when something is much more expensive than we expect, we feel cheated, and if we feel cheated, we won't make the purchase. Therefore: cafes in fancy neighborhoods have difficulty sustaining themselves and as areas gentrify, they will at first propagate (as the area becomes "cool") but then diminish in number (as it becomes too expensive).

Posted by Morgan at 01:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 23, 2005

Google Sidebar

Yet another tool that is useful and works correctly.

Posted by Lonne at 11:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Pardon My French (Etymology)

What is the origin of the phrase pardon my French?:

This phrase, in which French refers to "bad language", is employed when the speaker feels compelled to use an obscenity despite having listeners who might be offended. It's a late 19th century euphemism which first appeared in Harper's Magazine in 1895.

It is thought that the term French is employed in this sense as it
already had a history of association with things considered vulgar.
As far back as the early 16th century, French pox and the French
disease were synonyms for genital herpes, and French-sick was another
term for syphillis. The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] also equates
the adjective French with "spiciness", as in French letter for
"condom", French kiss (1923) and French (i. e. "sexually explicit")
novels (from 1749).

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue058.html

Posted by Morgan at 01:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

August 22, 2005

Humor, Games & Evicting Settlers

See this game.

Some comments on the game:

• Note the very explicit political message
• Note the nonchalant attitude towards killing protesting settlers
• How come the Bush haters haven't done something similar against Bush? If they have, please leave a comment in the thread pointing me to such games!
• Note how I can imagine anti-Bush people creating a game where Bush is killing, say, innocent Iraqis, and this game catching on. But I can't imagine at all a game in which Stalin is killing innocent people catching on (outside of certain limited circles). This is thus either a failure of my imagination--or a double standard as to which wars we tolerate and which ones we don't.
• Note the use of online games as political propaganda. During WWII, political propaganda was propagated through movies, television, radio, advertisements. Today is is propagated by games--just as the gaming industry is growing immensely and taking away audiences from these other media.
• Also note how these games are surely created by individuals acting alone, and not through coordinated government or institutional efforts.

Posted by Morgan at 01:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 21, 2005

The Blackberry UI

The Blackberry has one of the best User Interfaces I have seen. All the navigation is done with two buttons: a small wheel placed by the thumb so you can easily scroll up and down on any list--and you can push it in (to be the equivalent of a mouse-click or enter button), and a button below it that is the equivalent of a "back" button. And that's it. A full keyboard for when you need to type. They've done a superb job of simplifying something very complex into something trivial--and that's the heart of good UI design, and the heart of good insight as well.

Posted by Morgan at 07:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 20, 2005

Editing: Back to the Typewriter

So one of the strengths - and weaknesses - of writing on the typewriter is the difficulty editing what you write. It is so annoying to go back and revise anything you write while using a typewriter, that you both think through what you are going to say better than you would if you know you have an unlimited number of iterations you could perform, and you also go back and edit mistakes only in extreme cases.

The desktop and laptop computers changed all of this: you know that, when using MS Word, you can edit as much as you like. The result? You write without thinking through it, then rewrite, and rewrite, and rewrite.

Does this method produce better writing? The case isn't clear yet because, on the one hand, iterations improve quality; on the other hand, better planning also improves quality. But this is a testable proposition: we can compare the quality of writing, say, 30 years ago to the quality of writing today and see who comes out on top.

Writing obsessively on my new Blackberry recently--my first such device--I've come to regress to writing in the typewriter mode. Writing on the Blackberry I find very easy and I can type on it very quickly, only slightly slower than on a normal keyboard. But moving the cursor around, cutting, pasting--is such a hassle that I avoid it at all costs. I've stopped editing what I write. We've come full circle.

This leaves the question: is my writing on the Blackberry better or worse than my writing on the computer? My friends and colleagues whom I email daily through it can answer that question. But what I can tell you for sure is that, at the very least, anything I write on the Blackberry is full of typos--therefore, judging a work only by its most superficial (used literally: surface-related) and also most objective characteristics, it has gotten much worse.

The funniest part, however, is that I have become so accustomed to writing on the Blackberry these last two weeks that this style has permeated back to all of my other writing. My blog posts one month ago I would edit over and over. This one, I'm on the last sentence now, and I am about to press the 'Save' button on the count of 1, 2, and... 3.

Posted by Morgan at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2005

UI to Life

One of the keys to usability could be boiled down like this:

Say what you're going to do before you do it; Say what you're doing while you're doing it; and, after you've done something, say what you've done.

This guide applies not just to online usability--although that is its genesis--but to the usability of life. The people who are best to work with are the people who follow this guideline. The people who are the best ones to date--well, marry--are the ones who do this, too (although they may not be the most fun ones: this formula lacks an element of surprise).

Posted by Morgan at 01:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2005

Colors & their Cultural meanings

From a PDF on usability I was reading:

(Click on it for a larger version)

Posted by Morgan at 04:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Free The New York City Subways (Sell the stations)

The New York City subways are a good example of a high fixed cost, low marginal cost enterprise. The actual marginal cost of the extra passenger at non-peak time is much closer to $0 than it is to $2. Charges for non-peak riders pays almost entirely for the existence of the subway system and not for the actual cost of the rides themselves. Peak time riders, on the other hand, are almost all taxpayers, riding at peak times to and from their income and therefore tax revenue producing jobs. For them, subway fares are just a de facto tax. However this method of collection costs them more because now they have to deal with the hassle of buying/managing metrocards, waiting in line at turnstiles for that person ahead who keeps swiping unsuccessfully, etc. They also pay for the whole metrocard infrastructure and the losses they incur from expired metrocards, etc. It would be much more efficient if they paid once a year and could get on and off the subways as they pleased.

One could make an argument that paying for subways out of tax revenues is unfair to people who don't ride the subways very often. On the other hand, the city currently pays for street maintenance and that is just as unfair to people who rarely drive or take taxis. Freeing the subways actually just evens the score here.

More generally, non-subway riders bear the transaction cost of metrocards anyway in the form of lost tax revenues, dead weight loss from monopoly pricing, every interaction they have with anyone who does ride the subway, etc. (A sophisticated economic model version of this argument is available but beyond the scope of this blog post).

For now I'll observe the following:

• The rich should like this idea because they value their time highly and this decreases contention for cabs and overall street traffic (street traffic is currently subsidized by the lack of street tolls)


• The poor should like this idea because they pay relatively little taxes and regular subway fairs take a substantial bite out of their overall budget.


• The middle class should like this idea because net it saves them money and time.
  
• Business should like this idea because it just subsantially lubricates the flow of traffic in New York and because they end up paying the cost of the subway system either way (through taxable income or through buying metro cards on behalf of their employyes -- the status quo).

Lastly, a big noticable advantage of this plan is that New York City could sell off the subway stations. Private owners would expand the stations to offer more retail space, air conditioning in the stations, etc. Now, you have to pay $2 just to enter a subway station. If the subways were free, each subway station could become a small shopping center with all the conveniences and accourtements that that brings.

Update: Forgot a BIG point here. Selling the subway stations would convert them from cost generators to revenue generators as the city collected the money from sales and then the tax revenue from the commercial operation of the facilities. How much is Union Square Station worth? How much tax revenue would it generate?

Note: I suggested this idea to Andrew Rasiej last night at a fundraising dinner in his honor last night. He expressed interest and asked me for a short write up and I am providing it now. He hasn't endorsed this idea, but I have my hopes that he will. Either way, he will make a GREAT Public Advocate for New York City. But, to win, his campaign needs your help. Please donate.
Note: He is most definitely campaigning to lower the cost of wireless Internet in New York. That too is a reason to support him.

Update: Talked to a lawyer friend. She says that the city should lease rather than sell the stations. Either way, the same point applies. Net revenue from newly air conditioned stations.

Update: A very short summary of this whole post is: There are too few off peak riders, on-peak riders can simplify their lives by paying for the subways through tax revenue, and the stations would be nicer if they were run by private firms.

Update 9/19/2005: A described this idea to a libertarian friend of mine and she commented that New York should simply privatize the subways. I explained to her that the subways are a de-facto monopoly and a privatized subway would charge monopoly prices resulting in dead-weight loss (the economists name for the costs of monopolies). She accepted that one and then commented that the government isn't in the business of making money. If it is going to operate a service, it shouldn't be charging for it. She has a point.

Posted by Alex at 04:12 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (3)

August 15, 2005

Quote of the Day (not an Overheard!)

Yuppie: "Remember when we were in high school, and everyone would think of band names? Now, we think of blog names!"

Posted by Morgan at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2005

Why teach intelligent design in science class

From a comment by Jeff of ProteinWisdom on VodkaPundit.

I must admit that I'm struck by how many smart people seem so stubbornly averse to introducing ID in a science class. From my perspective, acknowledging the field of ID while teaching evolution provides the teacher with a number of object lessons: 1) distinguish the "theory" of ID from a scientific theory by addressing falsifiability, scientific method, etc. 2) distinguish the science of evolution (as not concerned with first causes) from the metaphysical concerns of ID (which necessarily is -- despite what it's current proponents claim), and 3) show how, in theory, the science of evolution is unperturbed by the philosophy of ID, and vice versa.

I love this idea. I think that kids understanding the nature of scientific inquiry is wayy more important than the details and this subject is a good opportunity to do that.

Posted by Alex at 01:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

August 13, 2005

Bush's Intelligently Designed Plan

Bush, all of my leftist friends are complaining these days, has said recently that intelligent design ought to be taught alongside evolution in schools.

If he is in fact claiming this (which I don't know because I haven't read what he said and the context directly yet; and with people quoting Bush, you always have to watch out), then maybe - just maybe - it's not as ridiculous as an idea as it sounds. Here's one plausible argument for doing so:

Clearly one of the principle reasons why our pre-college education is so poor is because the government controls the vast majority of the schools; no competition and control from distant (government!) authorities is the formula for mediocrity. The converse of this is of course why our college education is so good.

Public education is bad--but it's just good enough so that the people don't revolt and start forming their own (thus, private!) schools en masse. It's not--yet--bad enough to be worth our energy to change it.

Therefore, what is the best way to seriously get people to start forming their own schools, thus taking the role of education largely out of the government's hands and allowing each person to make their own educational choices (and the inevitable huge improvement in quality as a result)? Make the education as ridiculous as possible. And by teaching intelligent design on equal footing to evolution does that.

This is similar to Marx's opposition to labor reform laws, that supposedly helped improve the condition of the working class that Marx loved so much. Marx opposed it because he knew that, with only marginal gains in comfort, the people would be satisfied enough to stop fighting for the revolution he wanted so much. He would rather the workers be more oppressed so that they made the revolution happen, rather than a bit less oppressed so that they would remain content with the current system.

Teaching intelligent design, therefore, accomplishes three key goals:

• It makes the fundamentalist Christian constituency happy (insofar as it exists: See Alex for more details)
• It drives the middle class towards creating their own private schools (which is only a great thing for the future of the country that drastically needs to be done!)
• It gets the right people angry--and it does so over an issue that, ultimately, is entirely unimportant. It's like the school prayer debate a few years ago: Bush's opponents, rather than concentrating their energies to fight Bush on the issues that matter, will waste more energy fighting him on something almost entirely symbolic and nothing more.

Posted by Morgan at 09:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 12, 2005

Why I am blogging today.

I've been working on a project pretty intensely for the past few months that I am finally ready to handoff to others to finish and put into production. I am actually in a "wait-state."! W00T!! Look for an announcement of the project itself in the next month or so.

Posted by Alex at 11:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Why the housing "bubble" will continue

Guest blogging at instapundit, Megan McArdle (aka JaneGalt.net)talks about why the dollar will continue to go down. Her argument is, more or less, that we have a large current account deficit and the european economies have no where to go but up. To me the current account deficit isn't really evidence of anything either way. What is more interesting is that she assumes that european economies recovering will make the dollar less attractive even as recovering economies will probably import more goods from the US resulting in a lower trade deficit. Growing economies will demand more dollars to purchase US goods.

That being said, if her argument holds then the value of the dollar should keep falling and therefore the price of real assets that dollars buy should keep rising e.g. real estate, oil, etc.

However, today oil prices are at record highs and the dollar is down against the Yen, but it is UP against the Euro. So Europe now faces much higher oil prices (compared to us) and still has no growth potential. I bet real estate prices in europe are going up, but nothing else is. I've always believed the Europeans would eventually get their groove back. These days I'm not so sure.

Posted by Alex at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Leaders, Smart Talk, and the LIberal Cultural Elite

People who talk frequently are more likely to be judged by others as influential and important--they're considered leaders.

That is Photon Courier quoting Why Great Leaders Don't Take "Yes" for an Answer, by Michael Roberto of Harvard Business School. He continues to quote:

At first glance, that finding may not alarm you. Leaders do need the ability to articulate their ideas in a concise and persuasive way in public settings. However, Pferrer and Sutton have also discovered that "smart-talk" tends to be overly negative and complex. When people strive to impress others in meetings, they tend to explain how and why a proposal will not work rather than describing why it might succeed. (Based on their research) Pfeffer and Sutton argue that an individual is more likely to bolster others' perceptions of his intelligence by offering critiques rather than positive pronouncements about proposals and ideas under consideration. They find that many organizations encourage "the tendency to tear an idea down without offering anything to put in its place." Smart talk becomes an impediment to open, constructive dialogue and an obstacle that prevents firms from moving from analysis to action.

To me this sounds a lot like academic and cultural elites positioning themselves to be critical of the US and its leadership. It makes them sound impressive without getting anything done. I was thinking about this concept while reading Ginny's review of Class: A Guide Through the American Class System over at Chicago Boyz. She quotes Fussel's description of Xers as follows:

What kind of people are Xs? The old-fashioned term bohemian gives some idea; so does the term talented. Some Xs are intellectuals, but a lot are not: they are actors, musicians, artists, sports stars, “celebrities,” well-to-do former hippies, confirmed residents abroad, and the more gifted journalists, those whose by-lines intelligent readers recognize with pleasant anticipation. X people can be described (to use C. Wright Mills’s term) “self-cultivated.”
[....]
They adore the work they do, and they do it until they are finally carried out, retirement being a concept meaningful only to hired personnel or wage slaves who despise their work. Being an X person is like having much of the freedom and some of the power of a top-out-of-sight or upper-class person, but without the money. X category is a sort of unmonied aristocracy.
[...]
They occupy the one social place in the U.S.A. where the ethic of buying and selling is not all-powerful. Impelled by insolence, intelligence, irony, and spirit, X people have escaped out the back doors of those theaters of class which enclose others. (186)

In other words, they have positioned themselves to engage in smart talk critical of the establishment without having to do anything of consequence to change things. Here is Ginny saying much the same thing without the benefit of the smarttalk research:

“Occupational class depends very largely on doing work for which the consequences of error or failure are distant or remote, or better, invisible, rather than immediately apparent to a superior and thus instantly humiliating to the performer” (48). A reputation for intelligence and irony are best achieved by those with the ability to critique others without being critiqued. That is, of course, practically a role description for the media; it can be the role of State Department bureaucrats, and this has become more and more (with the theories of post-modernism and post-colonialism) the role in which academics see themselves.

But here are some other flashes of brilliance from Ginny:

To become a critic often means other commitments, various other ways of belonging, are sloughed off.

Politics are chosen. But what is sloughed off? Well, family. Fussell notes that Xers flee family and forbears. The deep ties of ethnicity he sees as prole – and of course, such socializing within the family is often blue-collar and more often true of communities in which the tribal still has some power.
[...]
Religion, in Fussell’s discussion, is “embarrassing.” In a revealing approach, he begins a paragraph discussing the Xer’s creativity: “they adopt toward cultural objects the attitude of makers, and of course critics.” As the paragraph continues, we find such people “[a]lthough they know a great deal about European ecclesiastical architecture and even about the niceties of fifteen centuries of liturgical usage, X people never go to church, except for the odd wedding or funeral. Furthermore, they don’t know anyone who does go, and the whole idea would strike them as embarrassing” (185).

Nope. Can't have a stake in anything real. Only in made up shibboleths.

Fussell mocks those who think themselves sophisticated, but he believes a worldly and ironic sophistication characterizes the Xers. But they are (perhaps always were) deeply conventional--their conventions are merely different. To be an Xer requires disburdening oneself of all the passions that drive us and give our lives meaning, all duty-bound commitments. This empties a man no less than does wearing a gray flannel suit to an office on Madison Avenue.

And that folks, is the postmodern condition that they always talk about. The repetition of traditional forms without belief in their referents. It positions one as being smart without having to invest anything or actually to be smart. To be ironic is, in effect, to be lazy and/or weak. Ginny concludes:

To the Xer this is marked not by the depth of understanding - of evolution, of foreign policy, of the tax system – but rather by the ability to wield irony against others’ arguments. The cynic’s task is to diss – and he relishes it.[...]
for to worry abut status, as to worry abut money, is to confuse the means with the end. We need respect for who we are and what we do – not for a cynicism accompanied by disencumbrances that threaten our integrity. A society that encourages cynicism is not likely to get productivity, a society that discourages passion will not be able to revive itself.

And that so perfectly captures the fecklessness of both much of Europe and the American blue state elite (and explains their failure to have children) that there is little I can add here except to say Read the Whole Thing.

Posted by Alex at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Got New Product Ideas?

One thing that comes to mind is rollerblades with removable blades and a few other bells and whistles. (I met a woman who was happy with her "Hypno Blades" a few weeks ago, but ... why are those so unknown?)

I have some relevant contacts (industrial designers, factory-intermediaries, etc.) and I'm brainstorming cool product ideas. Let me know if you have ideas to share.

Posted by Matt at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Fantasy Baseball

I've been thinking about Fantasy Baseball recently, and the Wikipedia says:

The landmark development in fantasy baseball came with the development of Rotisserie League Baseball in 1980. Magazine writer/editor Daniel Okrent is credited with inventing it, the name coming from the restaurant where the game was invented.

Daniel Okrent, Daniel Okrent, I know that name... he was the first "Public Editor" of the NY Times, who would write weekly articles in the Week in Review exposing the fundamental flaws & biases of the Times. Funny how these smart public figures have consistently made contributions to the world in ways that don't connect with the reason why you may know them. Intelligence, this reminds us, is not a particular skill set but a general skill set, that can be applied everywhere.

Posted by Morgan at 09:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 10, 2005

p2p banking

England's Zopa.com is starting to do it.

Posted by Matt at 01:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 09, 2005

The Long Road to Pacification

Europe: "You are welcome to come over here, and
we can understand if you feel inclined to
study and work on war against our civilization,
but please understand that at some point we may
stop serving you tea."

Reply: "No tea?! You wouldn't dare! Damn you
bastards to hell!!!"

[Monday's WSJ mentioned some convert-to-Islam
British reporter comparing Tony Blair to Pol Pot.]

Posted by Matt at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 03, 2005

Woof, woof, woof, woof

More news from the Korean peninsula, this time from the South. It was reported today that Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University in South Korea cloned the first dog, Snuffy, who is very cute. Apparently cloning a dog was tricky, and it took "123 tries to create two puppies," one of whom died of pneumonia shortly afterwards. What use is a cloned dog (besides, of course, for creating a cloned dog army to send after the dog jedi)? Cloned dogs may yield research developments that may allow dogs to live longer. Once they start living 7 times as long, they will be living longer than their owners, as life-prolonging research on human stem cells falls behind. We may also be able to look forward to an unusual coalition between the religious right and PETA, opposing the research.

Posted by Lonne at 08:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Please Explain the DailyKos to me

I just don't understand Kos. He says that:

Yet again the US is forcing Iraqis to rush through a process [elections & constitution-writing], against their will, so that the Bush Administration can make folks like the WaPo Ed Board feel better.

How do you know if their will is to have a democracy or not? Clearly the answer is to ask them. And asking the people what they want is the definition of democracy. Therefore: by definition, they need a democracy in order to express their will.

Is there something I'm missing? This is so obvious it is confusing me. Does he honestly that small groups pursuing an armed struggle is an alternative to democracy as a representation of the popular will?

Even if he does think this, Kos is taking the wrong approach, too. It makes more sense to focus on, say, the Islamist & anti-Israel portions of the new consitution that the "democrats" are writing instead: this will hit the neocons where it hurts most.

Posted by Morgan at 10:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 02, 2005

No Real Estate Bubble

This piece found via Carnival of the Capitalists, argues that we are in a real estate bubble and that we should be selling real estate and buying gold, silver, and other commodities. The overall theme is that governments have printed too much money and it is causing asset price inflation.

You can buy the whole premise without buying the result. He notes that the dollar has declined 40% against major currencies. What he is not also noting is that it has declined by about this amount against all other "real" asset classes including oil, gold, and real estate.

You can't simultaneously make the argument that we are in a currency bubble AND that real asset prices are about to decline catastrpohically. If real estate prices are about to go down, that means the value of the dollar is about to go UP and that means you don't want to be holding other "real" assets either.

Not sure where actually to put money. But I do think the advise to shift from real estate to gold is bad based on the logic being used.

Posted by Alex at 02:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)