10. Sarah Palin has named her kids Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig.
9. She has taken on corrupt Alaskan bureaucrats. She has angered Senator Ted Stevens and strongly supported her Lieutenant Governor’s bid to unseat 18-term congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary.
8. In light of McCain’s health problems: Sarah Palin runs marathons.
7. She is a moose hunter. Not a Bull-Moose hunter, but actual Moose. (Mooses? Meese? Moosen?)
6. Palin’s husband works as a commerical fisherman and is in a labor union…can’t much more blue-collar than that.
5. Palin’s husband is a champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.
4. Her eldest son, Track, will be going to Iraq with the US Army next month, not unlike the other VP candidate
3. In 1984, Palin was named Miss Wasilla and runner-up as Miss Alaska.
2. Her youngest son, Trig, was born in April with Down’s Syndrome. Palin has made a point to talk about her son and her decision to not have an abortion despite knowing about Trig’s condition during pregnancy.
And….the best thing about Sarah Palin is:
Her parents were called this morning by their son-in-law to listen to the radio for a special announcement. They almost missed hearing about their daughter’s VP nomination because they were *drumroll* CARIBOU HUNTING.
Lest there be no doubt: the GOP has returned to the party of small government, increased transparency, and support the working-class!
In what is the most “No ‘Effing Way” of every “No ‘Effing Way” I have written, McCain has pulled a rabbit out of his hat. Everyone had Romney, Pawlenty, or Lieberman as the top 3 with Condi, Cantor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the second tier. Instead, he completely hoodwinks the entire country and launches Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I always thought she was a great pick, but her lack of media coverage and speculation made me think it wasn’t going to happen. Serious props to The Midnight Ride, who called Palin as a VP pick in late June. Also, Madison Classical Liberal talked about her in early July. Finally, Extremism in Defense of Liberty also called it in late June. I privately talked to Extremism, Midnight Ride, and The Silent Majority about it, but I didn’t have the onions. I was weak and didn’t want to the risk in formally endorsing her. I was wrong.
Palin is a TREMENDOUS pick for a ton of reasons, increasing in legitimacy:
1. She is a woman. There is no bigger middle finger to Obama’s “post-racial” campaign than putting a woman on the ticket. It’s hard to argue you have a monopoly on change when Palin is the first woman with a serious shot to be in the White House (no, Geraldine Ferraro does not count).
1A. Moreover, this could get the Hillary supporters. Clintonites have long argued that Obama and the media were sexist and unfairly cruel to Hillary. Now that Clinton is out of the race, female voters who want to fight sexism will be drawn to Palin. She has a son with Down’s Syndrome and is a former beauty queen. Palin is feminine and has definite appeal to disgruntled female voters looking for a role model.
1B. Palin is tough to beat in a debate. As someone who spent 5 years in speech and debate, I would dread going toe-to-toe with a female, especially an accomplished and intelligent one. It is hard to be a male and go offensive against a female. The fact of the matter is that anytime a guy gets aggressive, he runs the risk of being perceived as a know-it-all sexist pig. While Palin has to face the prospect of being seen as an icy bitch if she gets aggressive, this puts a huge burden on Biden in the VP debate.
1 C. Palin is EXTREMELY attractive. This is a stupid reason. Okay, it’s a really stupid reason. At the end of the day, thousands upon thousands of males will vote for “The Hot Chick”. I think it is exceedingly shallow to vote based on aesthetics, but if it means helping out the conservative movement, I won’t resist. Behold, the new White House Hottie:
2. Palin has real conservative credentials. Any Evangelicals who didn’t trust McCain, must vote GOP. Any small-government libertarians don’t have to waste a vote on Bob Barr. Palin took on the most corrupt state in the country, Alaska, at a time that what was really hard. Ted Stevens is terribly corrupt. The Murkowski family is a dynasty of corrupt, incompetent leaders. Palin has gotten rid of superfluous government expenditures and slashed the budget. She has sound energy policy and is the ultimate on how to reduce oil prices.
3. She balances out this ticket in a way that no other candidate could. Male-female. Old-young. Experienced-fresh. Senator-Governor. There is nothing “missing” from this ticket. There is no weak link that applies to both candidates. They have strengths which back up the other’s weaknesses. Even if Obama wants to hammer Palin on experience, it’s tough-sledding. Obama has 3.5 years of experience in the Senate and Palin as 1.5 years experience as Governor. That difference is relatively small. Also, Palin has been in the City Council from ‘92-’96 and served on Alaska’s Oil & Gas Commission, before resigning in protest of the lack of ethics. She is on the young side, but has achieved great things.
Perhaps Palin’s (and McCain’s) greatest achievement? Taking ALL of the wind out of Obama’s sails, bumping him from the top of the headlines and making this race even more competitive.
I’m currently sitting between two of my liberal buddies and figured I should document my thoughts.
(note: one of them comes up with, “I consider myself progressive, thank you very much”. The other comes up with, “I’m a socialist, if anything”.)
Nancy Pelosi: I only caught the tail end of it, but I heard a lot about Barack Obama being right and John McCain being wrong. It was kinda funny, actually. The crowd was very quiet…I’ll cut the Dems some slack and say that they are too busy eating their organic, tri-color food in organic packaging. (Reminder: I’m not kidding. The DNC has strict rules on food being 70% local and/or organic and at least 3 colors must be represented…but Obama is BI-racial, not TRI-racial. Perhaps he isn’t as progressive as we were told)
highlight: Pelosi says that Obama has brought bi-partisanship back to Washington. WHEN? The ethics bill and …um….well….
Oh, yea. I forgot. History doesn’t matter in Obamaland!
Tribute to Jimmy Carter. Democrats haven’t realized they should pretend he never existed? Democrat is elected in a very weak economy, facing a global scourge by an enemy of the US, and facing an energy shortage and then absolutely makes it worse? THIS is the image? Go for it, guys!
Jesse Jackson Jr.: His attempts to channel his father and Barack Obama fall a bit short. He tried hard. And if we know anything about liberal ideology, if you try, that’s good enough. We can always add a government subsidy to hook him up. Somehow his father’s goal of physically emasculating Obama goes unmentioned.
Highlight: Jesse Jackson Jr. talks about great moments in American history; Lexington & Concord, Appomattox (apparently not the courthouse), Selma, and Denver. Really? Revolutionary War. Civil War. Civil Rights movement. Obama’s nomination.
it’s official, they’ve gone off the deep end.
Caroline Kennedy comes out to introduce Ted Kennedy. She is a train wreck of a speaker. She seems awkward and uncomfortable. She also makes the obligatory comparison of Obama to JFK.
Random list of “Democratic” accomplishments that she is attributing to Ted Kennedy.
“If your taxes are about $5,000 too much because of unnecessary government, Teddy is your senator, too!”
Highlight: There are about 16 camera cut-aways to Maria Shriver, a member of the Kennedy Clan. No Schwarzenegger, thankfully. Is this a reminder that there are other living Kennedys? Or is it to suggest that Arnie doesn’t support Obama.
The tribute to Ted Kennedy is odd. It’s more documentary than tribute. There is an odd infatuation with the ocean…I guess too much of a hardened conservative to get this. Ted fought for better equipment for troops. DIDN’T OBAMA OPPOSE FUTURE SPENDING IN IRAQ? Wow. The Democrats are now officially supporting stances on key issues that their own Presidential nominee proudly opposes?
Let the cannibalism continue!
Ted is alright. The speech is pretty good and is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme. It’s rosy. It’s optimistic.
lull in the action as commentators talk about Ted Kennedy’s legacy and the attempts to humanize Barack Obama. Does it bother anyone else that Obama needs to be humanized? Shouldn’t all presidential candidates be human, anyway? Unless, of course, he is *drumroll* MANCHURIAN!
Highlight: “The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years towards regulating values”. Wait, wait, wait. The Democratic Party is the one that DOESN’T regulate values? Was that before or after Democrats waged a war on trans fats, SUVs, and the minimum wage while supporting hate crime legislation and Affirmative-Action. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?
enter: some random former Republican congressman from Iowa. This guy is a vanilla speaker and clearly there to prop up the notion of Barack’s bipartisanship. Is this the best they have? They think this guy, who was never famous and will never be famous, is the answer? Damn, even the Republicans didn’t pretend to be bipartisan in 2004 and they had this guy:
Claire McCaskill: Senator from Missouri
She starts off way too cheery. It’s a little creepy. Is this how Obama wants Clinton? A Stepford Senator?
She tells her story and her husband’s story and calls Barack’s and Michelle’s American stories. She skips out on when Michelle became a racist in college and Barack was supported by William Ayers and married by Jeremiah Wright.
On second thought, her creepy smile isn’t so bad. She is doing a nice job providing a “pragmatic” and “friendly” view of Obama. I could see middle-aged mothers seeing themselves in McCaskill and playfully agreeing. This might be the best speech of the night. The only hitch for Democrats is that McCaskill will only make the contrast between her and Michelle that much more obvious.
Here we go: Michelle Obama!
Here is her bio pic. It’s about her love for South Side. This attempt to humanize her is really laying it on thick. Michelle loves her kids (I’d hope). She has reached out to others (unless they are proud Americans. Then they’re ignorant). She makes people feel better (unless they are greedy capitalists. Then they should become teachers)
She is introduced by her brother, who happens to be the basketball coach of Oregon State (Go beavers?). There is a series of odd basketball analogies. I’m a sports fan, and even I think this is bs. He tries to deliver this line on Michelle and Barack helping the American people and it comes across flat. He doesn’t even believe his own crap!
Here’s Michelle! She is wearing a kelly green dress-like thing. There is some sort of broach (brooch? breach? I’m not sure what its called) at the neckline.
How many times she has said “change: 1
9:39 CST - she plays the humanizing card with jokes and sentimentality about her family
9:43 CST - give dignity to strangers (the same bitter American strangers or the friendly, self-righteous Princeton undergrads who hate black people?)
9:44 CST - America should be a place where you can make it if you try (unless you support an expansion of unemployment programs and government entitlement programs, then you don’t have to try)
9:45 CST - “We settle for the world as it is, not as it should be” (life lessons from Ray Nagin!)
9:46 CST - Obama channels woman’s suffrage and MLK…in case we couldn’t tell she was a black woman (my “progressive” friend smirks as he reminds me that Switzerland did not have woman’s suffrage until 1979).
9:47 CST - Michelle Obama supports Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The Clinton reference gets a huge ovation (the contrast between Michelle and Hillary is too clear to be overcome, sorry speech writers)
9:49 CST - “I love this country” - THIS BRINGS A STANDING OVATION FROM THE CROWD. In case you haven’t figured it out yet: the Democrats are definitely in trouble when there is surprise and excitement to hear that a potential first lady loves her country.
9:51 CST - “Give each child a world-class education”…by throwing money at the problem? by supporting the federal government’s incursion into education? The same federal incursion that Democrats condemn in their staunch opposition to NCLB? Hypocrisy: it’s in the air.
9:54 CST - She’s almost crying talking about how Barack wanted to give his daughter a father’s love. (soooo we ARE allowed to talk about how Barack had an absentee Kenyan father who had scores of children through multiple women. Including one child who currently starves to death Kenya, only meeting his famous half-brother twice in 30 years?)
9:55 CST - “A girl from teh South Side can..” do whatever she wants. (Was that the WHITE values of success and high-paying jobs in law firms? I can’t keep her racist tendencies straight)
9:57 CST - Barack shows up via live feed from Kansas City. He shows some comedic chops with the reference to his courting of Michelle and his “persistence’.
My thoughts: I think Michelle gave a good speech and played up the Trophy Wife that Americans expect from a First Lady. She gave a nice look at Barack Obama as a person, but Barack still has serious (and legitimate) obstacles to be seen as anything other than elitist socialist. David Brooks had great analysis saying that Michelle missed the opportunity to make Barack a person, not just a savior.
I hope to be live blogging each night of the DNC and provide a post each morning on a DNC-related topic. So log on here each night this week for all sorts of shenanigans.
The rhetoric will get more ridiculous, but I’ll be sure to stay Pragmatically Political
Useless News & World Distort has released its annual college rankings today. From the very top to the very bottom, all schools deeply care about how they are ranked. A simple move of 2 or 3 spots brings tears of pain or tears of joy. It has become the measuring stick for comparing schools. High-achieving students will decide which schools to apply to, and attend, based largely on the rankings. Without further ado, the top 25:
1. Harvard
2. Princeton
3. Yale
4. MIT & Stanford
6. Cal Tech & UPenn
8. Columbia, Duke, & UChicago
11. Dartmouth
12. Northwestern (w00t w00t!) & Wash U in St. Louis
14. Cornell
15. Johns Hopkins
16. Brown
17. Rice
18. Emory, Notre Dame, & Vanderbilt
21. UC-Berkeley
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. Georgetown & University of Virginia
25. UCLA
Here’s the USNWR formula (and my assessment of the quality of each factor):
25%: Peer Assessment
P.A. is the most weighted factor and asks universities officials to rank other schools on a scale from 1 to 5. How fitting that the dumbest metric has the most importance. If you ask Northwestern what it thinks about Wash U, it is in its best interest to give a very low score. There is no reason to help out the competition, right? Worse, since the schools are distributed randomly, Northwestern is more likely to judge Purdue, SW Missouri State, Bowdoin, and Berea. How in the world can anyone intelligently grade those schools? University officials deal with their own university and the immediate competition. Worse, scoring from 1 to 5 makes each point needlessly important. At what point does a a 3 become a 4? Small scales only serve to accentuate and exacerbate the most minute of differences. Small differences turn out huge on the assessment, but big differences can be muted if one school is a 3.6 and the other is a 4.4. I won’t even touch the hypocrisy of objectively rating schools with a measure as subjective as this. Is there a bell curve? Doubtful.
20% Retention
16% goes to 6-year graduation rate and 4% to freshman retention rate. I like the idea of schools graduating their students. However, 6 years is far too high. The issue is not how soon I can get out of school (students often co-op and take 5 years minimum), the issue is if I graduate with a good degree and great memories. Therefore, I reluctantly accept this metric, but would like to see more emphasis on freshman retention and less on graduation.
20% Faculty Resources (6% is percentage of classes with less than 20 students, 2% is pecentage of classes with more than 50 students, 7% is faculty pay, 3% is percentage of faculty with highest degree, 1% is student:faculty ratio, 1% is percent of faculty who are fulltime)
Again, this is a well-intended portion of the formula. Students to learn better in smaller class environments. Professors generally are better when they are well-paid, have the highest degree, and are fulltime. However, there are loads of exceptions. First, some classes shouldn’t be small. Intro to Microeconomics need not be a 15 person seminar. Intro to Sociology does not require constant class discussion. Moreover, most universities have discussion sections, which allow students to meet in 15-20 people groups to discuss course material with a Teacher’s Assistant.
Also, professors’ success is not always based on money, tenure, and degrees held. Good professors get paid more, not the other way around. Throwing money at faculty helps the rankings, but might build complacency. Some of the best professors I have had are not full-time. Some professors are visiting from another university or simply a guest lecturer. Spending a career in academia makes you an academic. Sometimes having a professor with very different life experiences and interpretation of course material can be extremely gratifying. That said, I again accept the USNWR’s need for uniformity.
15% Student Selectivity (7.5% ACT/SAT score of enrollees, 6% is the amount of students who graduated in the top 10% of their class, 1.5% is the acceptance rate)
This is the best metric in the whole damn rankings. Students with good grades and high standardized test scores make a university more challenging. A key part of college is learning from fellow classmates. Therefore, your potential classmates should be as hard-working, tracked by grades, and innately intelligent, tracked by test scores, as possible. Also, a low acceptance rate suggests that the college is highly sought after. Yes, SAT scores aren’t the be-all-and-end-all, top 10% of the class requires different levels of intellect depending on the high school attended, and some schools have high acceptance rates because they self-select (think: BYU only attracts mormon applicants). However, the biggest flaw in this part of the equation is that weighs too little. Smart kids create smart universities. Simple.
10% Financial Resources
This counts university spending per student on academic resources. It intentionally does not count sports and dorms. However, I think it should. A university that drops millions on the football team is offering a great service to the student body. During the fall, I have the opportunity and privilege of seeing my Northwestern Wildcats play Big 10 football. We aren’t the best, but we frequently get on television, draw big crowds, and play the best teams in the country. This is a tremendous asset, as it builds school spirit and provides great on-campus events. Homecoming just means a bit more when it is followed by a football game. Tailgates, pregame activities, postgame activities, and sports all have left an indellible mark on my college experience. Dorms also are important. I want to live in a well-maintained dorm with good facilities and large living space. Those who live in small quarters with leaky faucets struggle. College is a LIVING-learning environment. It’s unfortunate that USNWR forgets that most students live on the university.
5% Graduation rate performance
This one is by far the weirdest. It looks at the proportion of students receiving Pell grants and their test scores and predicts what the graduation rate should be. Whether or not, and by how much, a university outperforms/underperforms the “expectation” is this variable. It’s way complicated and I don’t like statistics with variables I don’t have access to. I like the thought process, because universities that take low-income, low-achievers and help them graduate should be rewarded. However, the low-income student who gets a Pell grant to go to Harvard is probably self-motivated enough to graduate, regardless of what the stats say.
5% Alumni giving rate
This one is by far the dumbest stat. The percentage of living alumni that give to the university is too manipulable. For example, Northwestern offers free events to graduating seniors in the week preceding commencement. However, you must donate $20.08 (creative, no?) to the alumni fund to get access. Formals, free beer, and trips to Six Flags cost well more than the donation, but it is NU’s way of gaming the system. It sets up the events at a huge loss to boost alumni giving rates and, maybe, to send seniors out on a high note. And I seriously doubt that the folks up in Evanston are the first ones to figure out how to game the system.
So there it all is. That’s the big, scary US News and World Report College ranking methodology. Let me lament on how sad of all of this. As a Northwestern Tour Guide, I waited on pins and needles for the rankings to come out. I desperately wanted to know how we stacked up and if we improved. I shouldn’t care, though. I should sell prospective students and their bankrolling parents on strong academics, numerous extra-curriculars, and a great living-learning environment. Unfortunately, I know that many on the tour are only visiting because they want to go to a top __ school. It’s horribly sad and reflects poorly on us. We are so status-driven that we are willing to let our college decisions be based on a shoddy formula. What university you attend can be one of the most important life decisions. It sets up your academic perspective, offers a wealth of experiences, fosters great friendships, and is the setting for countless mistakes that can only be made on a college campus.
To the fact that high school seniors will let a crappy news magazine dictate how they spend 4 years of the life, I respond, “NO ‘EFFING WAY”.
To the fact that USNWR has built a monopoly on understanding American universities, I find it to be Pragmatically Political (or Economic…but I’m not changing my user name for those bastards)
The media is liberal. Unabashedly, unrelentingly liberal. There I’ve said it.
On the Daily Kos liberal icon and sex god Keith Olbermann proudly announced that Rachel Maddow will be getting her own show on MSNBC. Who is Keith Olbermann? I fondly remember this guy from ESPN:
Now he’s become this guy:
And after Hillary’s (admittedly stupid) comment about RFK’s assassination, he came up with this:
I know he seems like the same guy, but you gotta trust me. Olbermann is actively trying to be the liberal reincarnation of Bill O’Reilly. And now he proudly champions his role in bringing in Air America All-star Rachel Maddow onto the air. MSNBC has made a tremendous leftward shift in the past year. I won’t pretend that Fox News is right of center, but I cannot accept that MSNBC is as, if not more, partisan. No one really takes Bill O’Reilly seriously. He brings on helpless liberals and beats them with logic and/or manipulation. Olbermann has launched surgical strike after surgical strike against Bush, McCain, and any candidate with an “R” that precedes his/her name.
I’m okay with partisanship in the media. I’m not naive or arrogant enough to suggest that objectivity is possible, let alone real. However, I simply cannot sit by idly and watch as a news organization builds up its leftist army of “journalists”.
To her credit, Rachel Maddow is the most open about her leftist leanings. Air America is admittedly, and intentionally, liberal. People listen to Air America with the intent of hearing liberal viewpoints. Not nearly enough are aware that MSNBC is entering the same mold.
MSNBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell has joined Olbermann and Maddow in the McCain assassin camp. She has LIED not once but TWICE on behalf of Obama.
First, she falsely reported that Obama was not allowed to visit wounded American troops in Europe and the Middle East. She said about Obama’s inability to visit troops
Still, Mitchell has neither retracted nor apologize for her gross misrepresentation of the thoughts and actions of Senator Obama, and, more importantly, McCain supporters in the Pentagon.
More recently, she has suggested that John McCain could hear Rick Warren’s questions during Saturday’s debate. And that explains how and why John McCain completely outclassed Obama. Of course. Because there is NO possibility that John McCain is actually the better candidate and is able to better connect in a more personal, impromptu environment. Rick Warren in this interview says that there is no chance that McCain knew the questions beforehand.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to spout off lies and conspiracy theories on behalf of Obama, then she has no business masquerading as an unbiased political reporter. So unless and until Andrea Mitchell has “Obama Spokeswoman” has her official title in all MSNBC dealings, I will remain angry. So angry that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent a complaint to the president of NBC.
And THAT is why conservatives dominate book sales and the radio waves. When the market of ideas and information is opened, the American people choose “right-leaning” options.
And THAT is why 49% of Americans believe the media is favoring Obama and only 14% for McCain
And THAT is why polls are shifting and more states are moving into Toss-Up or Lean-Republican status.
And (hopefully) THAT is why John McCain will win the White House.
Mid-August is here. For most people that means enjoying the last few weeks of summer by hanging out at the beach. For those college students who aren’t on the trimester schedule, they are excited to get back to campus. For me, it means something very different.
FANTASY. SPORTS. OVERLOAD!!!!
For those who aren’t familiar, fantasy sports involve leagues of “teams” (usually 8-12 per league) which “draft” real-life players onto their rosters. How players perform in real-life is then super-imposed onto the fantasy teams. Fantasy teams face each other throughout that particular sport’s season, with playoffs at the end to determine the league champion. You can make trades with other teams to swap players, set a starting lineup (players not in your starting lineup don’t help your team’s performance), and add/drop players. In many ways, joining a fantasy league is very similar to being a general manager of a real-life team.
Mid-August is the best because the two biggest fantasy sports collide: baseball and football. Some play fantasy hockey, basketball, golf, auto racing etc. But baseball and football are far and away the most popular. I currently have 3 baseball teams and all are in first or second place as the season winds down. The trading deadline (at which no point I can no longer swap players with other teams in the league) either just passed or will in the next few days. This is my last chance to make final roster moves to ready my time for the playoffs.
Fantasy football is also on the horizon. With the “real” season starting in 2 weeks, I am in the midst of the annual draft (where teams pick the players they want on their team) season. I have spent hours thinking, researching, and analyzing which players will overachieve and who will disappoint.
So my hunch is that people who read this are thinking, “So this supposed political junkie is talking about fantasy sports? How unrelated! This kid must have really needed a topic and went to his last resort”. You would largely be correct. However, fantasy sports does give a unique look at how we think and interact.
One of my baseball leagues is with a group of friends back from New Jersey. We cycle some new people in every year, but we have had 6 people stick together for 6 years. From my freshman year in high school to what will be my junior year in college, we have stuck together. With team owners in Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, and New Jersey, we all stick together through fantasy sports. Though I have lost contact with many of my high school friends, my fantasy competition remains close. When we all get together, we still talk about who won what league in 2004 and what dumb moves we have made in years past. But there is that bond. It’s a common experience that isn’t based on anything real. Barry Bonds never cared that he was on my fantasy team and that I needed him to perform. Tom Brady never knew that I was facing him in the playoffs and I was praying he would have a bad game. Fantasy gamers create their own reality out of reality.
On the flip side, I care about the athletes to the extent that they can help my team win. I have spent many Thursday nights rooting like hell for a little-known pitcher on an otherwise irrelevant team. I track player’s careers and obsess over any trends I can pick up. But if they are off my roster, I don’t care. Some poor 24 year old has a career-ending injury and I curse him for ruining my team. I don’t care about him for his well-being. It doesn’t matter that his livelihood and passion have been taken away. It matters that now I have to scramble for a substitute. It’s a brutish, calculated worldview. But is it any different than how we treat most strangers? I don’t pretend to own Derrick the barista, but if he misses his shift at Starbucks to attend his mother’s funeral, I still am frustrated by the long line. Most people in this world serves us somehow. Fantasy sports simply codify that fact.
But I know that isn’t true. With the exception of unusually loud football stadiums and expert hecklers, fans don’t impact the game. There’s nothing I can do in Evanston, Illinois to support the New York Giants if they are playing in Buffalo. But I watch and I root. In some ways, fantasy sports forge a stronger bond than regular fandom. I selected my fantasy players and believe(d) in them. I root for the Giants, Giants, and Knicks because my dad told me to. I now casually support the Cubs because they happen to be the baseball team near my university. The only problem with fantasy is time. Fantasy sports leagues last one season. So while this year I beg and plead Chase Utley to dominate, but hope he breaks his leg next year if he is on another roster. Long-term bonds rarely exist. It’s fleeting greatness. Winning a league this year doesn’t mean a thing next year because the teams will be all scrambled.
But that’s life. Sometimes you do things because your father told you that the guys in blue shirts are good and the guys in gray shirts are evil (this was how my father first explained the Giants-Cowboys rivalry). Sometimes you want people to succeed for wholly selfish reasons. Sometimes you don’t know why you do it. And when you find yourself staying up until 2 AM to wait for that damn Seattle-Los Angeles game to end so you can record all the stats, you understand it. You do it because you want to win. You want to have your knowledge, skill, and effort rewarded, even in the most intangible of way. And if Chase Utley can hit enough home runs in the next 6 weeks, I will gain my fantasy sports immortality…until next season.
We are counting down to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado here at blogivists. The coronation of Barack Obama as the savior of humanity is nearly complete. I’m not a huge fan of the Democrats, but I don’t wrecklessly bash them, either. However, I will put some fun facts up.
1. Kwame Kilpatrick will be attending the convention. In case you were curious, Mr. Kilpatrick is the disgraced mayor of Detroit. Aside from facing previous scandals, he most recently was thrown in jail for violating his probation after assaulting a policeman. The cop’s offense? He was serving a subpoena to one of Kilpatrick’s “friends”.
I know you think Kwame’s mother must be very proud of her baby boy, right? Well, the voters in the Detroit area thought so highly of her as to re-nominate her as the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s 13th congressional district.
If you were concerned about Democrats doing the Larry Craig tap dance, just do the Kilpatrick shove, find an attractive mater and tell him/her that John Edwards says “help is on the way”.
2. The Democrats have no idea what to do with Hillary Clinton. The woman whose husband has been the face of the party for almost two decades and nearly won the nomination is stuck in purgatory. The party needs to satisfy Clintonites and win them over. However, this convention must be about Barack Obama. They have settled on letting her speak on Tuesday night. Traditionally, Monday goes to someone cool, Tuesday goes to a rising star, Wednesday to the VP, and Thursday to the candidate. The Dems made the wise move of giving Hillary her time in the sun on Tuesday night. One small hitch: SHE WILL NOT BE KEYNOTING! Hillary is being upstaged by *drum roll* Mark Warner. Way to go, DNC. You found a way to make a compromise that ticks off both sides.
3. While Hillary will be speaking Tuesday night, Monday night’s keynote will be Michelle Obama. I may be opposed to Michelle more than most, but this is an unfathomably bad idea. Her favorable-unfavorable is 30-35! When more people think negatively than positively about you, it’s unfortunate. When you are married to a presidential candidate and speaking in front of tens of millions, it’s a trainwreck.
Some of the things I hope Michelle brings up during her DNC speech:
A.
B. Her senior thesis at Princeton ranges from scary to racist. Some of the highlights (and these are quotes)
i. “…I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation” - since when is being successful a “White” goal?
ii. “Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments,” - aside from capitalizing “white”, why is offering unparalleled opportunities a “White” thing and why is it bad? Princeton doesn’t force anyone to take racist jobs as capitalist pigs.
iii. “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before” - this coming from the wife of the first post-racial candidate? Are you ‘effing kidding me? NO. ‘EFFING. WAY.
Michelle Obama is so scary that Democrats have created the… Michelle Obama Truth Squad. Funny, I don’t remember Laura Bush ever getting a Truth Squad.
4. The actual convention itself redefines what it means to be liberal. Here are some facts:
A. The convention will have 800 people in a trash brigade to make sure all garbage is disposed of properly (no word on whether or not Obama’s speeches count as “recyclable trash”)
B. The host committee lamented its inability to find 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. And the packs have to be made in the USA. By unionized labor. And out of organic cotton.
C. All food served is highly regulated. Fried food will not be allowed. Each meal must include at least three of these colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white. 70% of ingredients must be grown organically and/or locally.
D. Those sinning, conservative, greedy capitalists at Coors finally have come to reason - and will donate biofuel made from beer waste. This one ticks me off the most, because every college student knows: there’s no such thing as “beer waste”. Wasting beer is downright un-American!
Beer waste? Republicans don’t believe in beer waste. They believe in beer-amids!
E. The DNC is actually proud of their insanity and showcases its arrogance here.
So there it is. The Democratic National Convention is simply unbelievable. It is over-the-top liberal and oppressive in its inner-workings.
The only way it will win voters is if this country is farther to the left than I can possibly imagine. Please let it NOT be pragmatically political.
I had the honor/horror of listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning and heard Rush bash Obama for the “tire gauge comment”.
Making Obama look like an idiot by mocking him is really easy. But here’s the rub: Obama’s got a point. We can greatly reduce our oil consumption by being more efficient on the roads.
The Department of Energy has a host of tips, along with the projected increase in gas mileage. Among the most helpful are:
Not slamming the gas or brake pedal/accelerating, decelerating and driving more smoothly (5-33% improvement)
Drive 60 mph, instead of 65 mph (7% improvement)
Replacing air filters (10% improvement)
Properly inflating tires (3% improvement)
So there it is. If we have new air filters, inflated tires, and drive reasonably, we’re looking at improving fuel economy by roughly 25%. There it is. While Republican hacks can ridicule, the fact of the matter is that they are putting politics ahead of principle.
Lest I drift too far to the Obama camp, I do think we should drill offshore. On second thought, Obama now thinks we should drill offshore. Damn.
In any event, increasing the supply of oil without funding Petro States is a great idea. The problem is that in the quest to polarize politicians and provide clear choice, politicians have created a false choice. The false choice is that we have to choose between conservation or drilling. Just because the law of supply and law of demand are separate does not necessarily entail that they can’t be simultaneously altered. Let drills improve supply and conservation drop demand. This is basic stuff.
Obama’s possible/maybe/potential/what-do-voters-think opposition to offshore drilling is based on his preference of protecting the environment. I adamantly disagree with such a stance, but can understand why Obama would want to stick to conservation, ethanol subsidies, and magic.
McCain’s dismissal of Obama’s suggestions (let’s be honest, they aren’t policy solutions) is both unnecessary and bad policy. Slamming Obama for being a “wussy” or “immature” perverts the energy issue and genuinely undermines aspirations of energy independence.
Obama and McCain on oil: letting politics get in the way of policy.
The campaigns are simply being pragmatic and political. They each have found a solution to the energy crisis that is consistent with their national agendas. But they are far from being pragmatically political.
EDIT: After talking to some conservatives, and reading the below comments, I fear that my argument is being confused. So with the benefit of hindsight, I’ll summarize my view:
1. I completely and unequivocally support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. I think increasing the supply is the best thing we can do in the short-term (I’ll leave long-term solutions to previous and future posts). On this issue, I am completely at odds with Barack Obama.
2. Obama’s suggestions are on-point. Each individual American can save some money by conserving gas. As outlined earlier, simple things such as inflating tires, replacing air filters, and being judicious about window/AC usage can make a significant impact.
3. When McCain and his surrogates (i.e. the conservative community) bashes the tire gauge comment, they are misguided. The attacks need to stay on-topic. Beat Obama on the drilling issue, not on the conservation issue. Encouraging voluntary conservation is good policy. When anti-Obama people mock Obama with the tire gauge, they are actually mocking conservation. I think it is inappropriate and counterproductive to mock those who deal with high gas prices as individual consumers.
Nicky Cheese shed some light on the topic of instant runoff voting in his post yesterday. The video at the bottom of his post is pretty sweet and explains IRV quite well.
IRV allows voters to rank their candidates 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If no candidate has a majority of the vote, then those who voted for the 3rd most popular candidate have their 2nd-choice candidate receive their ballot.
This concept is hard to explain, but easy to show.
Under the current system, Obama would win Georgia and all of its 15 electoral votes.
Under an Instant Runoff system, voters would have already decided which candidate is their 2nd and 3rd choices. Since Barr’s Libertarian Party is ideologically closer to the Republicans, let’s assume that 5% of the voters voted Barr, but put McCain as their 2nd choice and 1% of voters voted Barr, but have Obama as the second option.
This recalculates the vote totals to be: McCain 51%, Obama 49%.
The benefit of Instant Runoff Voting is huge. It allows voters to actually reveal their preferences. Though I am deeply dismayed by many of McCain’s policies and thoughts, I feel that I must vote for him to knock off Obama. If I knew that the vote would go to a run off in the even that neither candidate garnered a majority I would be free to vote for my preferred candidate without the pragmatically political ramifications.
To this end, we can get an accurate and non-damaging look at the popularity of candidates (and their parties). Those Georgians who do vote for Bob Barr risk helping Obama. Those who don’t vote for Bob Barr are denying the Libertarian candidate his rightful support.
While Instant Runoff Voting may seem appealing, it will never get off the ground. The reason is intuitive: Democrats and Republicans lose the most from IRV. They also control every level of government and the bodies which enact the switch to IRV. In a great paradox, the only way to achieve IRV is to outright win elections, which is nearly impossible without IRV.
As I have argued many times, the best way to enact large-scale political change is to use pre-existing political machinery. libertarians (small “l”) need to hijack the GOP and dominate the primaries. If they all voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, Bob Barr wouldn’t be so damn attractive. The Democrats’ support of Obama over Hillary, though the race was close, helps to define their party.
Given this post’s title, I expect lots of PragmaticallyPolitical “virgins” who are disappointed to see such a bland blog. Please forgive my shameless attempt to fuse fun and web traffic, economics with pornography.
This post is mainly to carry the message from an article on wired.com: Sex isn’t selling! Sales are down .3% and rentals are down 10-15%. Conventional wisdom always held that in a down-trodden economy, invest in illicit smokables, drinkables, and watchables. From 2000-2002, the Standard & Poor’s Casinos and Gaming index grew 115% and the S&P 500-stock index fell 47%. The reason is that people who are struggling, will continue to spend money on booze, cigarettes, and pornography. No way to kill the pain of unemployment like lighting up, knocking back a couple, and …well, you know. Also, these industries are so highly regulated that entry is nearly impossible. While regulation is the reason alcohol is so damn expensive, it also insulates brewers and distillers from competition. With artificial protection, there is no wonder why these companies do so well while everyone else struggles.
Charles Norton famously developed the Vice Fund in late 2002, which solely invests in gaming, alcohol, tobacco, and brewer/vintner companies. The fund has fallen almost 9% YTD, but otherwise has had good returns over the past few years. I say let hippies and philanthropists invest in “Green” and “Humanitarian” funds, I’d have much more fun knowing that buying some 6-packs and playing slots is boosting my portfolio.
Yet, there is this odd case of pornography, which hasn’t benefited from our economic woes. My hunch is that sales and rentals are falling off because the government can no longer protect the industry. If a company goes online, and especially if it isn’t attempting to turn a profit, there are no barriers to entry. As myriad celebrities have proven, any idiot with a video tape and a computer can distribute a sex tape. The government is, thankfully, powerless to stop the free market.
The other cause of hard times for the adult film industry is pirating. Even those movies which are professionally produced and distributed can be had for free. Various torrent websites allow for illegal downloading of anything from Tommy Lee’s new CD to Tommy Lee’s sex tape. Therefore, there is little reason for anyone with high-speed internet access and a desire for law-breaking to go to a store and buy a DVD.
While the internet has made nearly every industry (except for USPS) harder, better, faster, stronger, adult films have seen a skyrocket in supply and a decreased demand. All of this spells doom for our video vixens.
Though I adamantly and truthfully deny any illegal behavior, I don’t think it is immoral, unimportant, or even childish to worry that the formal viewing of the world’s oldest profession may be going out of style.
Powered by FireStats
