Oh Noes!

I really hate things like this:

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2010/08/striving-for-mediocrity.html

The U.S. as a second rate power? Second rate to whom? Sure everything listed is a problem, but I fail to see how the cumulative lack of an industrial policy, transportation policy, energy policy, and research and development policy automatically equals second rate power status.

This type of declinist jeremiad is boring, disgusting, and lazy.

The first question one needs to ask when faced with a statement about relative power status in the world is: Power to do what?

If the person making the statement cannot answer that question, if the purposes of power in the world cannot be defined, then there is no need for any further inquiry. Relative power becomes irrelevant at that point.

These types of jeremiads also need to be put within the proper context of post World War 2 international relations analysis.

At the end of World War 2 the United States was a gigantic colossus astride the international system in terms of industrial output and military power projection. Only the Soviet Army was a real counterbalance to U.S. power.

This is mostly because the Continental European and Japanese economies and industries were essentially non-functioning. Additionally, India was still a Crown Colony and China had not recovered from the instability of the early twentieth century. China was also suffering from an ongoing civil war. All of these factors changed in the next 30 to 40 years. Europe and Japan recovered, China's economy grew, India's economy grew, the Asian "tigers" (how racist is that?) emerged. These changes led to an apparent diminution of relative U.S. power. Political science and international relations scholars scrambled to explain what lay in store for a world without U.S. relative power dominance. Domestically, the theme of the decline of the U.S. vis a vis the world was used by conservatives to oppose everything from desegregation and women's rights to rock and roll.

Yet, by the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, political scientists and international relations scholars were writing of unipolarity and the hegemony of the United States, willfully forgetting how wrong they had been about the importance of relative industrial output. The point here isn't that Political Scientists and international relations scholars are idiots, although a strong case could be made in support of that goal. The point is the overemphasis on relative power in the world without any solid definition of the point of that power is foolhardy.

I mentioned above how this type of analysis, relative power rises and declines, is lazy. It is lazy mostly because the author has a 50 percent chance of being right, and finds that probability high enough to justify the jeremiad. If the analyst is right, then book deals and I told you so tours begin. One gets lauded for one's prescience. However, no consequences result from being wrong. Very few people remember Louis Agassiz, and how spectacularly wrong he was in regards to the origin of humans.

Its primary election day!

And I am not voting.

Primaries are really dumb.

Parties should pick the candidates through party mechanisms, not mechanisms of the state.

Furthermore, there should be 1 election day. Everything necessary to be voted upon should be on the ballot on that one day. That day should be a holiday, and no one should have to work.

While I am at it, I want a pony.

2010 MO Primary-7th Congressional District Republicans

I don't actually know much about this race. It occurs to me though that it is Billy Long's to lose.

Gary Nodler probably has the best shot against long, but I don't think Nodler has raised more money than Long.

The Nodler-Long competition is a microcosm of the Republican party overall. Nodler is going for the Sarah Palin/Tea Party vote and Long is the establishment/pro-business Republican.

From the left, both Nodler and Long are indistinguishable. In the Every True Scotsman Party though, they are apparently quite different.

To some extent, the race is a contest between Springfield and Joplin. Joplin will lose, they always do.

I don't know any of the other chumps running in the Republican Primary, they really aren't important.

It doesn't matter what Democrats are running.

They will all lose in November.

Locks and Lockpicking

Slate has an article up about locking picking videos on the intertubes, and the implications for locksmiths and lock manufacturers.
Apparently, amateurs interested in lockpicking have been organizing themselves on the internet and forming "locksport" clubs. They then videotape how to pick progressively more difficult locks, and put it on the internet. In the article, the author, Farhad Manjoo, compares the problems presented by amateur lockpicks revealing how to break into locks to computer hacking. This comparison is somewhat problematic though, because locks and computer security have different functions.

Locks are not meant, by themselves, to keep someone out of a place. The crucial function of a lock is to increase the time and effort required to enter a given location, be it a building, a safebox, or a car. Ultimately, the function of a lock is to slow down the person attempting to gain access to a location. There is an assumption in placing a lock on something that by slowing down access to a place through greatly increasing time and effort to enter there, someone or something can provide further warning of the security breach. Locks by themselves cannot make something safe. The time bought by the lock is the protective value of the lock.

For example, and one can think of many examples, if someone wanted to break into my house, they could simply smash a window and climb in. Now there are really high costs to this type of entry. Namely, the likelihood a neighbor or I will hear or see them doing smashing the window and be properly alerted to call the cops or arm myself. Someone smashing a window is a pretty rare occurrence, which is what would give the action the alarm value. If I didn't have locks on my house they could just walk in the front or back door, a rather normal occurrence, not provoking any potential alarm value. Similarly, someone kneeling in front of my doors, apparently picking the lock, would also provide a similar amount of warning.

This expectation that locks only provide time is further evidenced by door alarms in houses, where if a door is opened and the alarm is not disarmed in enough time, it begins issuing a warning through sound or calling the alarm company.

The point ultimately is that although you can apparently find videos on how to pick the locks of the White House and Buckingham palace, this knowledge is useless because other security measures exist to protect those places. Perhaps the greater problem with lock picking videos online is the damage it does to lock companies in the sense that they want to sell you on the strength and security of their locks, but to a large extent the strength and security of their locks is a fiction. In other words, a lock company wants you to believe that their locks can keep anyone out, but that simply isn't the case. It seems unlikely anyone would buy a lock if they were told that the lock will slow down potential burglars/thieves, but after that you are on your own.

An Idea for Helping Generate Free electricity

I think this idea is so dumb it just might work. Would it be possible to develop a work out gym where the people in the spinning class, or rowing class, or on the stair master, or whatever, some how generate electricity to help power the building? Think of all the wasted energy that could be captured. I think it would be cool. Furthermore, you could have competitions between work out types, as in "I generated X-watts of electricity today dude!" and "Oh Yeah? Well I generated X+1-watts and therefore am better than you!".

Damn I am smart.

I came across this statement in an article I was reading today

"You can play “what if?” until the cows come home, and it will make no difference to what was, and what is, and what will be." citation

Sophistry, at its finest!

Well, not entirely, but the statement is only about half true. One can play "what if" until the cows come home. So that is true. It will make no difference on what has happened, so the what was part is also true.

Where the statement fails is on the last two parts. The past, and debates about it, including "what ifs" form what is the current world. So on this point the statement is false, because playing what ifs do make a difference in what is. Similarly playing what ifs informs the future, and this gives the game of what ifs its other power. To some extent playing what ifs is simply the exercise of understanding the world. Obviously the author of this piece wanted to take the intellectually lazy way out of the situation, and attempt to cut of further discussion by damning all of what ifs.

A random thought I hope to expand at a later date

I was thinking this morning that it might be possible that the only thing that separates traditional conservatives and more socialistic liberals is their views on altruism and greed. I would like to expand this more at a later time, but am putting it up now so I won't forget.

Rule of Law?

Can you have the rule of law when the laws are vague, unspecified, and utterly lacking in modern content?

I am not sure you can, and I don't know what this means for the United States and its archaic constitution.

Thinking about the Tigers

In light of the last post, and thinking about the Tigers again. Man that Cotton Bowl win over Arkansas was satisfying.

I hate lazy journalism

So I was reading about my hometown favorite college football team on ESPN.com this morning and I came across this sentence:

"Now, the Tigers just have to do it all over again, only better. And they'll have to do it without a few key figures from last year's team, and with an even bigger target on their backs."

This is a supremely lazy statement for a journalist to write in a college football preview piece. One could write that sentence about almost any team, in any league, in any given year. With free agency in the pros, and with the pressure to go pro at the collegiate level, it is very rare, if not impossible, for every team to have every "key figure" back, every year. The part about doing it "all over again, only better", goes for any team that has a great year, but doesn't win the championship in any sport. I don't know what to make of the "even bigger target" because in college football with the one loss and you are out of the national title picture set up, every team has a huge target on for every game.

I just wish the sentence was more informative and not so much just filler.

Poor editing ESPN.com, poor poor editing.

Updatin' is so much fun!!!!

Alright, its been awhile, and much has happened in the political world.

More importantly I have moved, still in the central timezone, thank god, but much much further South. Not much news about that, but it is warm.

Bush as Brezhnev? Maybe. That should remain for a much further discussion later, if I gets around to it.

Obviously I quit updating the electoral college predictioning. Basically, I don't care anymore. Obama "moved to the center" and that was dumb. I will probably still vote for him, but I am not enthusiastic about it anymore. Boo on him. If he wins, I hope he brings the pork chops. (shout out to GC)

Furthermore, on this front coupled with the dead comedic giants, I read some where that part of what led Obama to support FISA was he began receiving the daily intelligence briefings. I don't know if that is true or not, but it reminds me of Bill Hicks' point about why nothing ever changes with elections of new presidents. Where some people take the new president to a darkened room and show him the Kennedy assassination from a never before seen angle. If you know what I am talking about, then, tautologically, you know what I am talking about. If not, listen to Bill Hicks.

I am sure I had other things on my mind, but they are gone now.

Maybe post later.

Not News

White chocolate is fucking gross. It isn't even chocolate, it is chocolate fats or something like that. It wouldn't matter if it is made from tears Jesus cried on the Cross. It is fucking gross.

What Happens When

What happens when global factor prices actually converge? Specifically in the global labor market? What happens when it is no longer possible for a company to move to another country to get cheap labor? Could this occur due to shipping costs increasing from the price of fuels increasing such that it no longer becomes profitable to sell goods made in one country all the way around the world?

I really don't know and the problem is eating at me.

I wish I knew some smart economists who could help me unpack these questions and find good answers for them.

The Importance of Doing Something

So over at mydd.com, Jerome Armstrong has post up about how McCain's offshore oil drilling gambit appears to be helping McCain make headway with Florida and Ohio voters in that according to Rasmussen more voters support McCain when they find out he is for offshore oil drilling and Obama is opposed. Now, this is appears to be a tricky problem for Obama. On closer inspection however, the political problem isn't that difficult. Just like his gas tax gambit, McCain is banking on the "well at least we are trying to do something to alleviate your pain at the pump" type of support. Much like Roosevelt's actions in the Depression, as described by Jonathan Alter, just doing something, anything, to help Americans is a good way to get support. To address this, Obama, and the Democratic party, need to get all populist on McCain. This requires making the argument that McCain is willing to risk great environmental damage for what will amount to a give away to Oil companies who are making record profits. This argument is going to require leadership to walk Americans through the fallacious reasoning of the Republican Party and the McCain campaign. There are several key talking points here that need to be hammered again and again.

-Any gains from offshore drilling won't occur for at least 10 years.
-McCain is relying on Big Oil Companies, with their record profits, to pass any savings on to consumers.
-This is another typical Bush Republican give away to oil companies with no protections in place for the Consumer, and after 8 years of these policies, America deserves better.
-America deserves a future of renewable energy that will strengthen the national economy, not plans to extend the life of tired old technologies at the expense of the people as a whole.

Obviously those aren't as refined as they could be, but I am just throwing things out. Properly structured this is a political fight the Democrats can win, but simply attacking McCain as I described isn't enough.

As I mentioned above, McCain is going for the "well at least he is trying to help us" support. Attacking McCain as I described tries to change that thought process to "He isn't trying to help us, he is trying to help the oil companies." There is still an opening, if not a necessity, for Obama to also come out with some proposal that makes sense as a way to help Americans. I am not sure exactly what the best proposal would be, but it must do two things: 1) continue the incentives brought about by high fuel prices to develop transportation technologies that are not reliant on the burning of fossil fuels at the current rate of consumption and 2) alleviate the pain to the individual consumer/voter of the transition away from those technologies. Put differently, Obama should articulate a way for the United States to move away from fossil fuels, and the prosperity that will bring with it, while at the same time helping those feeling the fossil fuel pinch.

Dang, I rewrote that last sentence and it still sounds too wordy. That idea needs to be simplified down more for talking points/sound bite purposes.

Tied! The Media Narrative

All abouts the Liberal Blogosphere is disgust at the fact that the apparent narrative selected by the media for this election is that it is a dead heat tie between John McCain (I wrote John W. McSame initially, but I don't want to resort to such name calling) and Barack Obama. Many in the blogosphere are moaning the fact the media doesn't tell the true story which is the impending Obamanami that will sweep the nation around November. I personally am coming to like the chosen narrative for several reasons, that in true bloggin' fashion, will follow.

First, the narrative of a tie is good because it means we have to work harder. We don't get lulled into thinking that we are ahead so that means we can coast. Obama looks terrible when he coasts. He is going to have to be a scrapper to win this election, and even if the campaign's internals say they should coast, the media narrative prevents that coasting from occurring.

Secondly, what are the alternative narratives? We could have the Obama inevitability narrative, or Obamanevitability, as the kids are calling it. This is a terrible narrative for many many reasons, not the least of which Clintonevitability worked out so well for Hilldozer (I miss her). Related to this point is that if Obama is the front runner by far, Little Mac (go go Boxing Rapist's Punch Out!) becomes the underdog. That is a bad narrative to have because we don't want McCain to be the underdog. With the way McCain and Bush are tag teaming on policy these days it should be impossible for McCain to be considered the underdog. That will change if the liberal blogosphere gets its way in shaping the media narrative to be Obamanevitability though.

If the liberal blogosphere succeeds though, the question will become is the success of changing the media narrative worth the potential harm to Obama by becoming seen as inevitable. I don't think that success is worth it though because the Obamanevitability has the advantage of becoming closer and closer to being true. Which means the liberal blogosphere shouldn't need much help in getting it to become the media narrative. What would be harder is forcing the media narrative to remain "the Elections tied!"

Electoral Vote Prediction Wednesdays!

Welcome to the inaugural Electoral Vote Prediction Wednesday! Hopefully this will become a recurring feature. Like most prediction things, this will probably end up telling the dear reader more about what I think about the Presidential race than any thing close to reality. I have done my cursory look at the polls and am feeling pretty good about an Obama landslide, even though McCain is the Lazarus of the 2008 election. Not letting that get in my way, I feel like the electoral college will come out thusly:

Obama-412

McCain-126

Insanity? Probably. But it is the first prediction, and I am feeling frisky.

Here is the breakdown state by state. Starting on the East Coast

Obama-ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DC, PA, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, MT, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR, and CA.

McCain-KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, NE, KS, OK, TX, WY, ID, UT, AZ.

At this point, I see Obama taking the Coastal South including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. I also think Obama will make gains in the Northern Plains and Mountain States of the Dakotas and Montana.

Remember there are no hard and fast rules here, and if anything I played really fast and loose with this prediction (Ah, mixing metaphors and playing with the meanings of words). We will just call this the Landslide Prediction Version 1. Version 2, if it appears likely will have other states switching like Mississippi and maybe Arizona.
We will return to this next Wednesday. Maybe.

Do Not Try to Disarm

I was reading a long today about potential vice presidential candidates for Obama. A common theme in every article regarding vice presidential candidates is how each candidate neutralizes potential attacks against the top of the ticket. For example, some folks say Obama should choose Wes Clark or Jim Webb because they will help inoculate him against attacks on his foreign policy credibility. Another example is that Obama should choose McCaskill or Sebelius to help himself with women. This type of reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons. Perhaps the greatest problem with this reasoning is the belief that simply having a person who has military experience or is a woman is enough that one will not be attacked on that issue. John Kerry proved this not to be the case. Anyone can be attacked on any point regardless of what that person specifically embodies. The attack isn't what is important, the given candidate's response is the crucial matter. Relatedly, simply being a war hero (using that term in the loosest possible sense as most in the media and politics do) or being a woman doesn't forward a winning political argument in and of itself. This is best seen in John McCain in the current cycle, but John Kerry and Al Gore also embody this point. Specifically, relating to McCain, what about flying attack aircraft (the awesome A-1 Skyraider and the A-4 Skyhawk), getting shot down, and spending years in a POW camp does not seem to me to provide any relevant experience to being President of the United States. The only tenuous link is to the commander in chief powers, but flying aircraft, getting shot down, and spending years in a POW camp means one specifically does not have the experience leading large groups of people similar to being the civilian commander of the armed forces. Now, I realize that McCain retired a Captain, and his Navy career extended beyond his time in Hanoi, but the point is still there. It is incumbent upon McCain to make the argument why that experience matters. Simply having it means nothing. Ultimately, Democrats should stop making this mistake, and instead should seek a Vice Presidential nominee who is going to best make the arguments (read as rhetorical skills) the Democratic Party needs to win the White House and increase our majorities in Congress. It doesn't matter if that person has a great biography.

On a similar note, regarding the connecting of experience to arguments, Obama does this very well when talking about his experiences as a community organizer exposed him to all sorts of people and helped him gain a greater understanding of what people face on a daily basis in this country. This is a great example of what we need in a candidate and vice presidential candidate. Just being a community organizer or a war hero means nothing on its face.

A Loaded Question

Shouldn't the Right wing world view, and its detachment from anything approaching "reality", be enough to disqualify a right wing President such as John McCain?

Sometimes I think McCain is actually smart enough not to believe the insane points of view of the far right. Other times not so much.

Part of the problem facing the Democrats this election bears on this point. Out of touch needs to become the watchwords. However, the republicans are attempting to make their greatest weakness, their being completely out of touch with the times and with the destruction their policies have wrought, into a slam on McCain's age. I am sure they believe this will inoculate them from electoral disaster in the fall, and it might if the Democrats don't step up to the plate on hammering this point home.

Also, at some point, I will begin making electoral college predictions. These will be completely by the seat of my pants with no real methodology behind each prediction, other than cursory looks at whatever polling data is available and my own gut feeling on it. I will update my predictions repeatedly as we get closer to the election stopping on the Monday before. Maybe if I think about this more, I can schedule when I make a prediction, but I am not making any promises.

What 60s bands still deserve respect?

So I was ponderin' the 1960s today. Part of my thoughts involved how much Boomers ejaculate themselves over their music. Really want to start a fight with someone over 50? Tell them their music sucks. You won't hear the end of it. In light of this, I had the question that makes up the title of this post. What bands from the 1960s still deserve respect? Or for a finer point, what bands from the 1960s are true classics, not just Boomer viewed classics. My list would probably start with Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones. All of which are obvious, although I would say a case could be made against each as well (My case against the beatles would be all their music sounds the same, be it early or later stuff, and their innovations were coming anyway. They were also sell outs, both early on and as their career progressed but that is another argument.) The whole goal here is to develop the canon of 60s bands, who were the most essential at the time and for later development of popular music.

Joe Loserman

Why is it so hard for the Democrats to beat this guy? To shut him up so that he has no credibility with the American people? Obviously the narrow majority in the Senate figures into this equation, but Lieberman really is a terrible politician and shouldn't be that hard to smack down.

Wouldn't an effective strategy for beating Lieberman be emasculating him the same way he consistently was emasculated by the Right during the 2000 election? It just seems like that the easiest way to get rid of Lieberman would be, in the next Congress, when the Democratic Majority is larger, to simply amend every bill cutting any money in it for Connecticut placed there by Lieberman. Couple this with a full out assault on Joe Lieberman as a person to the point he has no credibility left. If the Democrats were daring, they would implement this strategy now. Daring and aggressive are two things that haven't defined the Democrats for some time though.