Quotulatiousness

September 25, 2011

Jim Souhan makes a subtle case for starting Christian Ponder

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:00

At least, that’s the way most Minnesota fans are going to read this little history lesson:

For those considering the Vikings a playoff contender, this week represents a severe test of Frazier’s abilities. For those with a more realistic view of this team, these losses could have been predicted. Even coaching legends lose early in their tenures.

Bill Belichick went 6-10 his first year, didn’t post a winning record until his fourth season, and didn’t win a Super Bowl title until his seventh, and then only after Tom Brady replaced injured Drew Bledsoe.

Tom Landry went 0-11-1 his first season and didn’t post a winning record until his seventh season. Chuck Noll went 1-13 his first season and didn’t post a winning record until his fourth season. Bill Walsh went 2-14 his first season, Jimmy Johnson 1-15.

Vikings history, too, suggests that becoming a head coach requires a learning curve. Norm Van Brocklin went 3-11 his first year. Bud Grant was 3-8-3. Les Steckel went 3-13, then Grant returned to go 7-9.

Mike Tice lost his first five games; Brad Childress went 6-10 his first season. Only Jerry Burns and Denny Green made immediate inroads. Burns went 9-7 in 1986 and didn’t suffer a losing record until 1990. Green assembled one of the best coaching staffs in recent NFL history — including Monte Kiffin, Tom Moore, Willie Shaw, Tyrone Willingham, John Michels, John Teerlinck and Tony Dungy — and went 11-5 after replacing Burns.

[. . .]

All those NFL coaching legends have two things in common: They lost early, and they looked much smarter after a young, future Hall of Famer started taking snaps.

September 24, 2011

Gary Johnson’s authenticity is not mere “authenticity”

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:00

An interesting profile of Gary Johnson at The Economist:

The truly strange thing about Mr Johnson, qua politician, is his authenticity. But as Andrew Potter argues in his fascinating book “The Authenticity Hoax”, authenticity has lately acquired scare quotes, has become simply another marketing ploy. Rehabbed exposed brick is “authentic”. Buying your certified organic mangoes out of wooden crates in shops with buffed concrete floors is “authentic”. In American politics “authenticity” is a put-on populism, a regular-joe, bible-thumping bonhomie, an American flag lapel-pin persona. Rick Perry’s drawling, alpha-male Christ-love is fearsomely “authentic”. That’s his supposed advantage. But Gary Johnson’s authenticity seems, well, authentic. The media especially doesn’t know what to do with Mr Johnson and his indifference to optics, other than to ignore it. Because how can a man dispositionally allergic to pandering get ahead in politics? Yet his anti-charismatic charm seems to have worked in New Mexico. I know it has worked on me. I very much doubt Mr Johnson will get anywhere near the Republican nomination. But if he stays in the debates and keeps getting attention from the press, I think a lot of people are going find themselves surprised by the way the governor’s guileless can-do competence sneaks up on them.

It also links to Lisa DePaulo’s recent GQ profile:

A few things you need to know up front about Gary Johnson. There is nothing he will not answer, nothing he will not share. For six straight days, we spent virtually every waking hour together, which might have had something to do with the fact that there wasn’t another reporter within ten miles of the guy. Or that when you’re polling in the low digits and your campaign fund is less than Mitt Romney’s breakfast tab and your entourage is Brinck and Matt, you tend to be more forthcoming. But in fact, Johnson is fundamentally incapable of bullshitting, which is one of the many, many things that make him so unusual for a presidential candidate. (When a reporter asks him, after he gushes about how great New Hampshire voters are, if he says the same thing in Michigan, he replies, “No, Michigan’s the worst.”) He finds presidential politicking of the sort we’ve grown accustomed to—slick, scripted, focus-grouped, how-does-the-hair-look—to be “absolutely phony.”

Another thing you need to know: He was never supposed to be the fringe candidate, and his campaign is no lark. Before he officially declared, he visited thirty-eight states — on his own nickel — to get a sense of whether he’d be a viable candidate. He was the first GOP candidate to announce, in early April, and for about twenty seconds seemed like a contender. The wildly popular (still) two-term Republican governor from a state that is two-to-one Democrat. A guy who’s confident that he knows how to manage the purse strings and balance a budget because he did it — eight years in a row — in New Mexico. His fiscal conservatism is unmatched by anyone in the race. And his socially liberal cred — the only pro-gay and pro-choice Republican candidate — is unmatched even by some Democrats. (Of course, while this could be an asset in the general election, it’s a bitch of a liability in the GOP primary.) Even the backstory had a self-made charm: Born fifty-eight years ago in Minot, North Dakota, the son of a tire salesman turned teacher and a mom who worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Johnson started a one-man handyman operation when he was 21, grew it into a construction company with a thousand employees, and sold it in 1999 for about $5 million. Oh, and he named it Big J (for Big Johnson). “It didn’t have the same connotation at the time,” he swears.

But still. Do not confuse his Zen-like quality for a lack of cojones. The guy has brass ones. He’s a five-time Ironman triathlete. He paraglides and hot-gas balloons. (Not hot air, hot gas.) He biked across the Alps. And from the right angle, he looks like Harrison Ford.

So what on earth is so radioactive about Gary Johnson? And how did he become Nowhere Man in a field as chaotic and uninspired as this one?

Canadian military: “the bureaucratic tail is wagging the Parliamentary dog”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:48

Christie Blatchford looks at the amazing ability of the military bureaucracy to frustrate, delay, obfuscate, and disobey their parliamentary masters:

Written by distinguished military scholar and veteran Dr. Jack English, it shows how the bureaucracy in Ottawa — an incestuous nest of regular army bosses with turf to protect and intractable civil servants — has consistently ignored or thwarted government directives to increase the size of the reserves.

What’s more, either those defence ministers whose pledges came to nought had the collective attention span of gnats, or they failed to grow a set of nuts sufficient to demand their instructions be followed, or they were simply shifted within Cabinet and the new fellow came in.

Any way you look at it, Dr. English says, the bureaucracy is calling the shots.

In the result, despite pledges to grow the reserves, the militia part-time head count remains still at about 16,500, or, as Dr. English wryly notes, about the size of National Defence Headquarters, or NDHQ as it’s called.

By the way, just getting the damn numbers out of NDHQ is a trick.

[. . .]

Virtually everyone who has studied the Canadian army, and their number is legion, agrees on a couple of things: The bureaucracy is obscenely bloated, far out of proportion for the size of the army; the citizen soldier, who until called up to full-time service costs only about 20% of the regular one, is a bargain for the taxpayer; the militia is more diverse, ethnically and otherwise, than the regular army.

This week in Guild Wars 2 news

Filed under: Gaming — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:14

I’ve been accumulating news snippets about the as-yet-to-be-formally-scheduled release of Guild Wars 2 for an email newsletter I send out to my friends and acquaintances in the Guild Wars community.

(more…)

NFL week 3 predictions

Filed under: Football — Tags: — Nicholas @ 00:07

Last week’s predictions were rather better than in week 1, but not so much against the spread. Here’s my guesses about this weekend’s games, and you can take these to the bank. (I don’t know what you’d do with them there, but feel free.) Favourites are listed first, my picks are in bold.

  • New England vs @Buffalo (8.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • @Cincinnati vs San Francisco (2.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • @Cleveland vs Miami (2.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • @Tennessee vs Denver (6.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • Detroit vs @Minnesota (3.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • @New Orleans vs Houston (4.0) Sun 1:00pm
  • @Philadelphia vs New York (NYG) (0) Sun 1:00pm
  • @Carolina vs Jacksonville (3.5) Sun 1:00pm
  • New York (NYJ) vs @Oakland (3.5) Sun 4:05pm
  • Baltimore vs @St. Louis (4.0) Sun 4:05pm
  • @San Diego vs Kansas City (14.5) Sun 4:05pm
  • Green Bay vs @Chicago (3.5) Sun 4:15pm
  • Arizona vs @Seattle (3.5) Sun 4:15pm
  • @Tampa Bay vs Atlanta (1.5) Sun 4:15pm
  • Pittsburgh vs @Indianapolis (10.5) Sun 8:20pm
  • @Dallas vs Washington (0) Mon 8:30pm

Last week 13-3 (8-8 against the spread)
Season to date 21-11

September 23, 2011

The cliché-meister strikes again

Filed under: Books, Economics, Environment, Media, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:04

Andrew Ferguson reviews the book That Used To Be Us by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum. He didn’t find it a pleasant read:

Mr. Friedman can turn a phrase into cliché faster than any Madison Avenue jingle writer. He announces that “America declared war on math and physics.” Three paragraphs later, we learn that we’re “waging war on math and physics.” Three sentences later: “We went to war against math and physics.” And onto the next page: “We need a systemic response to both our math and physics challenges, not a war on both.” Three sentences later: We must “reverse the damage we have done by making war on both math and physics,” because, we learn two sentences later, soon the war on terror “won’t seem nearly as important as the wars we waged against physics and math.” He must think we’re idiots.

The slovenliness of our language, George Orwell wrote, makes it easier to have foolish thoughts, and while Mr. Friedman’s language has been tidied up a bit, the thinking remains what it has always been. The authors call themselves “frustrated optimists.” Their frustration is owing to the depredations of the last decade, which they call (Mr. Mandelbaum nods) the Terrible Twos. But self-contradiction is also part of the Friedman brand. In many other passages, the authors specifically trace the American slide to the end of the Cold War — though still elsewhere they remark that the 1990s were “positive for America.” It doesn’t help their argument, such as it is, that the evidence of decline they cite — crumbling infrastructure, a failing public-education system — predates both 2001 and 1989 by a long stretch. Our potholes and schools have been favorites of declinists for generations.

If the authors’ frustration is unoriginal and ill-defined, their optimism is terrifying. America will rebound — we will become the us that we used to be again, you might say and Mr. Friedman does — when we regain our ability to do “big things” through “collective action.” Collective action is a phrase that means “the federal government.” Among the big things that we will do are rework American industry, through regulation and taxation, to drastically cut carbon emissions. Another one of our big things is a big increase in the gasoline tax. We will also impose on us a new big carbon tax. We will use revenues to create a “clean energy” industry with millions of “green jobs” like the ones that were eliminated earlier this month at Solyndra. Readers will wonder, like the early environmentalist Tonto, “What do you mean ‘we,’ kemo sabe?”

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord, for the link.

Mexico to try market solution to drug wars

Filed under: Americas, Economics, Government, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:54

Jesse Kline reports on the sudden conversion to drug legalization on the part of the Mexican government:

The United States imports a majority of it’s cocaine from Mexico, which has been embroiled in a brutal war among rival gangs for control of the lucrative trade.

Over 42,000 people have been killed in Mexico as a result of gang violence since President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006. Not a moment too soon, it appears the President is starting to recognize that the current approach to dealing with illicit drugs is not working.

“We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs. But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions — including market alternatives — in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations,” Calderon said in a speech in New York.

Using the term “market alternatives” is a key choice of words. The reason organized crime has so successfully dominated the trade is the blanket prohibition on drugs, forcing the market underground. The same thing happened in the United States when alcohol was made illegal during Prohibition.

The solution to removing the criminal element from the drug trade is the same one that solved the problem with booze: legalize it. Allow drugs to be produced by private industry in a regulated environment. After all, gang violence has become more deadly than the substances they’re peddling. And we don’t see beer companies shooting each other for control of distribution networks.

Solyndra: “They doubled down, just like some chump who lost his stake at the Vegas blackjack tables”

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:55

Megan McArdle tries to figure out how Solyndra managed to spend nearly a billion dollars in two years:

By my count, Since September 2009, they borrowed $535 million from us to get their second fab up and running, raised $219 million in a private equity offering, got $175 million from issuing convertible promissory notes after their IPO was pulled, received $75 million in the last-ditch round where the DOE allowed their seniority to be subordinated, and maybe got a loan from a different bank. By the time they filed bankruptcy in August, my understanding is that they were basically out of cash.

The Washington Post‘s rather scathing new account, full of employees saying that post-loan, Solyndra started spending money like it was about to be discontinued, says the new facility for which we loaned them all that money cost $344 million to build. So it seems that in the space of two years, Solyndra managed to spend $344 million building a factory and $660 million . . . doing what?

Gary Johnson on the “job creation” idea

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 00:42

The Guild S5E9

Filed under: Gaming, Humour — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 00:06

<a href='http://video.msn.com?vid=6cbea512-0d90-43df-adab-b7b083f4702c&#038;mkt=en-us&#038;src=FLPl:embed::uuids' target='_new' title='Season 5 - Episode 9 - Invite Accepted' >Video: Season 5 &#8211; Episode 9 &#8211; Invite Accepted</a>

September 22, 2011

We need to borrow another word from German

Filed under: Germany, Randomness — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:29

The English language is adept at picking up bits of vocabulary from other languages — it’s one of the greatest strengths of English. I’ve just read of a word in German that I have needed for decades:

Schadenfreude captures a much more complex psychological concept, and therefore lacks a single-word counterpart in the English dictionary (Schadenfreude itself is a combination of the German words Schaden and Freude; meaning damage and joy respectively).

Nonetheless, Schadenfreude is such a basic human experience, that it is only natural that — if you don’t develop your own word for it — you would certainly want to adopt somebody else’s word for it into your vocabulary.

Another word that seems similarly essential to describing a particular feeling that most humans experience at some time or another, but which — unlike Schadenfreude — has somehow evaded incorporation into the English language, appears in the verb “Fremdschämen“:

Fremdschämen describes embarrassment which is experienced in response to someone else’s actions, but it is markedly different from simply being embarrassed for someone else. In particular it is different from being embarrassed because of how another person’s actions reflect on us or because of how another person’s actions make us look in the eyes of others.

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved “mockumentaries” such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais’ Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain’s got Talent and Deutschland Sucht den Superstar so discomfortingly entertaining…

I can now use the correct word to express how almost-physically-painful I feel when I see someone else get embarrassed or humiliated. Fremdschämen. I must remember that.

BT is worth negative £30bn

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:11

The British telecoms firm is actually worth much less than the scrap value of its copper wire network:

British Telecom is, as a telecoms company, worth minus £30bn. Yes, that’s a negative number there. And yet it is literally sitting on top of billions in assets.

[. . .]

Ten pairs of copper cabling weighs around 132kg per mile. Which by the miracle of multiplication can be seen to be about 10 million tonnes of copper. Which, at current LME prices of just over £5,000 a tonne, is £50bn.

BT’s current market capitalisation is just north of £20bn. So, as an operating telecoms company they’re worth £30bn less than the mountain of copper they’re sitting upon: that is, they’re worth less than the physical assets or they have, as a telecoms company not a mountain of scrap copper, a negative value.

This is why the Ontario election has been such a snooze-fest

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:56

Scott Stinson explains that there is barely any difference between the warmed-over bowl of snot being offered by Premier Dalton McGuinty and the bucket of snot that Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives would like you to choose instead:

Mr. McGuinty himself put it this way: “He’s basically saying, ‘Whatever McGuinty’s doing on health care, I’ll do that. Whatever McGuinty’s doing on education, I’ll do that.’”

This is not entirely true, since there are certain differences in the way the governing Liberals and the opposition PCs would address each file — Mr. Hudak, to pick one example, vows to scrap the Local Health Integration Networks that were brought in under the McGuinty government. But on the whole, both men say they would govern Ontario, a province with a recently ballooned deficit and with a highly optimistic plan to return to balance, by spending the same amount on its most costly ministries.

This, however, does not make for a particularly compelling battle cry. “A Vote for Hudak Is A Vote For Incremental Change!” Or “Vote Liberal: We’re Pretty Much Like the Other Guy But Our Signs Are a More Pleasing Red.” And so, the leaders would much rather play up their differences.

This may be the first election since I became eligible to vote that I will not bother to go to the polls. I have the incumbent PC candidate, a Liberal, an NDP’er, and a Green. That is, centre-left, centre-left, left, and enviro-fascist. Such a choice!

Update: I’m clearly not alone in my distate for all the electoral options:

Hudak has forfeited a slam-dunk opportunity to ride that conservative tidal wave that made Rob Ford mayor and gave Stephen Harper a majority. He could’ve run on a simple “respect for taxpayers” platform, promising to axe the HST. That alone would’ve carried the day. Instead, he yammers on about chain gangs.

Come Oct. 6, I’m choosing option “D” on Ontario’s multiple-choice quiz: None of the Above.

I’m declining my ballot.

“A piece of half-baked speculation had simply been used without checking because, well, it seemed true enough”

Filed under: Americas, Environment, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:49

Tim Black on the recent Times Atlas gaffe over the Greenland ice sheet:

For those all too inclined to believe the worst in the warmest of all possible worlds, there was no need to question the Times Atlas’s revelation. It merely told them what they already knew — that our nasty industrialised ways are destroying Earth.

But among those who actually know a little about ice sheets, the atlas’s findings were a little too much of a revelation. First up were researchers from the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, who promptly wrote to the atlas’s editors: ‘There is to our knowledge no support for this [15 per cent] claim in the published scientific literature.’ Other scientists in the field were quick to back up the Cambridge researchers. ‘The claims here’, said Graham Cogley from Trent University, ‘are simply not backed up by science; this pig can’t fly’. Others agreed. Jeffrey Kargel of the University of Arizona, principal scientist on a project involving the mapping of ice and glaciers from space, was unequivocal: ‘These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland. I don’t know how exactly the Times Atlas produced their results, but they are not scientific results.’

So how exactly did the Times Atlas cartographers produce their results? More kindly commentators have suggested that the atlas bods foolishly relied on the National Snow and Ice Data Center-maintained online resource, the Atlas of the Cryosphere. This apparently shows the thickness of the central part of the ice sheet over Greenland, but it does not show the thickness of the ice sheet’s periphery. The cartographers presumably interpreted this to mean that the peripheral ice did not exist — that it had melted. Other critics have been less generous, with one suggesting they might have been just a little too reliant on that bastion of truth, Wikipedia.

While it’s fun to pile on when a respected publication gets caught out trying for sensation instead of presenting facts, Black also sounds a note of caution:

Yet such over-eager triumphalism on the part of climate-change sceptics is misplaced. This is not because advocates of climate change are not frequently making mistakes. And it is not because the climate-change narrative, demanding so many facts to fit its story of manmade doom, is not fundamentally flawed. No, the problem with celebrating every scientific, factual refutation of the climate-change thesis as the beginning of the end for what remains the dominant narrative of our times, despite growing public indifference, is that climate change is not primarily a scientific issue. It was not born in science labs or in meteorology centres. And likewise, it will not be defeated by scientists or meteorologists, either.

That is because climate change is principally a political issue, not a scientific one. Climate-change alarmism is about channelling a vision of the future in which man, producing too much and consuming far more, is conceived as a problem. And the only way to challenge this widespread political and moral outlook is by coming up with something a little less human-hating — a political vision in which humanity’s needs and desires, our productive capacities and our consuming wants, are championed rather than denigrated. To rely on the mistakes of climate-change advocates to undermine their own cause is no substitute for the long-awaited, never-seen political debate about climate change.

Telegraph: The great euro swindle

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Europe, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:34

This is an interesting summary of the path to the Euro, and how some predicted the current situation at the very start of the project:

The field is theirs. They were not merely right about the single currency, the greatest economic issue of our age — they were right for the right reasons. They foresaw with lucid, prophetic accuracy exactly how and why the euro would bring with it financial devastation and social collapse.

Meanwhile, the pro-Europeans find themselves in the same situation as appeasers in 1940, or communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They are utterly busted. [. . .]

The central historical error of the modern Financial Times concerns the euro. The FT flung itself headlong into the pro-euro camp, embracing the cause with an almost religious passion. Doubts were dismissed. Here is the paper’s Lex column on January 8, 2001, on the subject of Greek entry to the eurozone: “With Greece now trading in euros,” reflected Lex, “few will mourn the death of the drachma. Membership of the eurozone offers the prospect of long-term economic stability.” The FT offered a similarly warm welcome to Ireland.

The paper waged a vendetta against those who warned that the euro would not work. Its chief political columnist, Philip Stephens, consistently mocked the Eurosceptics. “Immaturity is the kind explanation,” sneered Stephens as Tory leader William Hague came out against the single currency.

[. . .]

Now let’s turn to the BBC. In our Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Guilty Men, we expose in detail how the BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate — all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality.

For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme.

H/T to Tim Harford for the link.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress