1)Paul Krugman had an article in the New York Times the other week. In it, he makes highly dubious statements about Paul Ryan's plan to try and balance the deficit. Krugman spends the article deconstructing Ryan's argument, and then comes up with declaration in the last 2 paragraphs:
"So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It’s not just inability to do the math, although that’s part of it. There’s also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense. And last but not least, there’s deference to power — the G.O.P. is a resurgent political force, so one mustn’t point out that its intellectual heroes have no clothes.
But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future."
So, Mr. Krugman, what exactly is the Democrat's plan to balance the budget? Wait, they also don't have one. Except Paul Ryan is a mere congressman, while Obama is the President and has no plan. Then again, Krugman doesn't really care about balanced deficits anyways, so I don't see what he's angry about.
2) Article in the National Post speculating that Democrats may block a plan that will transfer oil from the oil-sands to the US. This apparently may cost Canada an estimated 30 billion dollars a year in revenue, so we should maybe start to get worried about this.
3) A nice little excerpt from a speech, about how cool Jews are.
4) A fascinating article about Pakistan, that goes beyond the shallow analysis usually written about the country.
5) So listen to this. Some guy had a friend who tragically died in a drunk driving accident. Since then, he has waited outside bars offering to drive drunk people home for free. Eventually this raised the ire of taxi drivers, who were losing business. Said guy, then was arrested for not having a business license to drive people home...
6) Really teacher's union? Really?
7) Debunking the claim that Gaza is like Darfur. I can't believe people really would think it is.
8) Showing once again how barbaric the Taliban are.
9) Study apparently proving that who we are as 6 year olds will predict how we are as adults. The conclusions of the study didn't seem logical to me.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Maybe this should be kept secret.
So the National Post has an article today about a guy, who in case of a terrorist attack on the internet, has one of 7 internet keys that would put the web back online.
Now think about the article in this way.
Security officials are mildly scared that terrorists might put the internet offline, thus they put in a safeguard by giving these security keys to 7 people.
Now imagine that their is a terrorist group sophisticated enough to carry out the attack on said servers that control the internet.
This terrorist group would then also presumably be sophisticated enough to google maps where this guy lives, and the 6 other people they mention by name as having the security keys to the internet!
So ya, maybe this should have been kept under wraps a little more.
Now think about the article in this way.
Security officials are mildly scared that terrorists might put the internet offline, thus they put in a safeguard by giving these security keys to 7 people.
Now imagine that their is a terrorist group sophisticated enough to carry out the attack on said servers that control the internet.
This terrorist group would then also presumably be sophisticated enough to google maps where this guy lives, and the 6 other people they mention by name as having the security keys to the internet!
So ya, maybe this should have been kept under wraps a little more.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Dissecting a Paul Krugman article.
Who Cooked the Planet?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(Krugman in normal font, me in bold)
Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.
Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.
But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.
So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Because Democrats don’t want to pass it as much as most Republicans? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.
First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.
This is patently untrue. A lot of people don’t believe in the science of climate change. I think it’s pretty absurd to say that if the majority of people believed climate change would devastate the earth, they would just ignore it. Continue....
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.
If you read other newspapers besides the New York Times you would know that the commissions looking into Climategate were severely flawed. Many members of those panels had ties to the people they were investigating. Oh yes, the Shirley Sherrod case is definitely analogous to this situation. I wager that Krugamn tries this analogy many more times in the following months.
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.
Nobody said the market would collapse; it would just become a lot more inefficient. There’s a reason people believe in a free market. They think it works best. Once you inject other things into it that messes up its effectiveness.
So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.
Two adjectives destroyed it.
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon Evidence?, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
We should totally expect businesses to voluntarily destroy themselves for Krugman’s happiness.
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? Like Barack Obama?You already know the answer.
By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.
And what about Obama’s promise to pass this bill? I mean he is the president with 59 senators and controls the House...
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.
You were funny in Get Him to The Greek, Paul Krugman.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Highly unethical.
The New York Times has an article up about how the U.S Congress might pass a bill allowing online gambling, and the subsequent taxing of it, to become legal. They of course are doing this to help make up some of the huge debt they've accrued. The tax could apparently make 42 billion dollars in 10 years.
First ridiculous thing: the government actively helping citizens indulge in their vices. This seems highly unethical.
However, the most ridiculous thing has to come from Barney Frank, who said, "“Some adults will spend their money foolishly, but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it.”
In other words, people can do anything we please, we don't care, just give us your tax dollars. It's also crazy considering Barney Frank is perfectly content with taking the rich's money, and funneling them into social programs.
Not to say, I don't agree with the decision. Like Frank, says, government shouldn't interfere with how we want to spend our money. However, the government shouldn't be making money off of it. Also, Barney Frank is being a hypocrite for trying to act like a libertine on this issue, when he is anything but that on any other issue.
First ridiculous thing: the government actively helping citizens indulge in their vices. This seems highly unethical.
However, the most ridiculous thing has to come from Barney Frank, who said, "“Some adults will spend their money foolishly, but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it.”
In other words, people can do anything we please, we don't care, just give us your tax dollars. It's also crazy considering Barney Frank is perfectly content with taking the rich's money, and funneling them into social programs.
Not to say, I don't agree with the decision. Like Frank, says, government shouldn't interfere with how we want to spend our money. However, the government shouldn't be making money off of it. Also, Barney Frank is being a hypocrite for trying to act like a libertine on this issue, when he is anything but that on any other issue.
A perfect example of a dumbed down article
Giant Panda Accidently Gassed in China
A giant panda eats bamboo--REUTERS/Stringer
This just might be the saddest news you will hear today—a giant panda, living in China's Jinan Zoo, died after accidently being gassed with carbon monoxide and chlorine.
An autopsy released on Tuesday revealed that the 21-year-old panda, Quan Quan, inhaled the gases that were being used to disinfect a nearby former air raid shelter. The toxic gases caused her lungs to collapse and despite attempts to save her, Quan Quan died in the hospital.
(See TIME's photo essay on panda Tai Shan's journey to China)
Zoo officials say that the gases had come through ventilation pipes that the zoo shared with the raid shelter. Activists are already pointing to Quan Quan's death as another indication of how zoos should improve their treatment of animals in captivity.
(See the viral sneezing panda clip in TIME's 50 best YouTube videos)
"These pandas are being bred for a life in captivity," said Kati Loeffler, a veterinary advisor for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "Why are they being bred? Just so they can circulate through zoos and live next to old air raid shelters?"
As pandas are on the endangered species list, Quan Quan was reportedly considered a “heroic mother” in China, because she has given birth to seven cubs. (via the Los Angeles Times)
Obviously a really sad story, but did we really need a link to a sneezing panda (in red ink)! Time article: A panda died, now watch it sneeze! I find this ridiculous for whatever reason.
Two articles about marriage, sexuality, and society.
Lorne Gunter had a provocative (for the National Post) article in the National Post the other day entitled " Heterosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage."
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
Arcade Fire Album.
The new Arcade Fire album, 'The Suburbs' can simply be described as fantastic. If one has not listened to their previous albums, 'Funeral', and 'Neon Bible', one really is missing out on some great music. The critics seem to agree, as 'The Suburbs' has garnered a score of 93 on Metacritic (that's really good).
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Some interesting articles
Here are some really long and interesting articles.
1) A series of articles on Slate about Street Signs and the importance they play in cities. What makes this interesting is that you wouldn't ever really give a second thought to something as mundane as this topic.
2) An article examining what makes one a good teacher, and how we can train teachers to be better. A good teacher is the best way to predict future success.
3) Speculative article about the political future of Liz Cheney. It is kind of remarkable how Dick Cheney has managed to stay in the zeitgeist.
4) Article about the wackiness that is Scientology.
And some shorter ones.
1) Quick example of how the media focuses on the wrong stories.
2) Funny how people are getting really rich off carbon trading schemes.
3) Both sides of the political debate are hypocrites. I have also noticed this.
4) Couples who move in before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. Interesting.
5) Funny article about Rahm Emanuel.
1) A series of articles on Slate about Street Signs and the importance they play in cities. What makes this interesting is that you wouldn't ever really give a second thought to something as mundane as this topic.
2) An article examining what makes one a good teacher, and how we can train teachers to be better. A good teacher is the best way to predict future success.
3) Speculative article about the political future of Liz Cheney. It is kind of remarkable how Dick Cheney has managed to stay in the zeitgeist.
4) Article about the wackiness that is Scientology.
And some shorter ones.
1) Quick example of how the media focuses on the wrong stories.
2) Funny how people are getting really rich off carbon trading schemes.
3) Both sides of the political debate are hypocrites. I have also noticed this.
4) Couples who move in before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. Interesting.
5) Funny article about Rahm Emanuel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)