myspace isn't useless

http://www.katu.com/news/local/13670287.html

See, myspace isn't totally useless after all. It can get those common folk so worked up that they demand resignations from their public officials. I'm waiting for it to cause defenestrations, but I guess this is a start. On the other hand.. demanding that they resign because of some 'racy' pictures? There are plenty of famous people who have fake pictures online somewhere, undoubtedly in considerably less attire and probably with considerably less appeal.

divorce game

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080110/tod-odd-brothel-dc-a929486.html

Ah ha! That's funny. Not sure which of them should be more pissed off.

the story continues

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/truth-about-jena.html

It's odd what comes out about things that the media drops. Looks to me like there's a reason these things drop out of the news. Sounds or smells like whatever the media wanted to sell as the story doesn't hold water, which means they need to change the tune.

The case, if we remember, dominated the news with it's associated marches and protests. But the reality looks like it was a lot of huff and puff trying to clear a fatally flawed youth with the sense of entitlement so common to those our society is quick to admire (athletes are among these). There's a good deal of racism that does need to be engaged and dealt with, if possible, but it would be best if we could not load a case with it's fire and brimstone pulpit speeches when it's not worth the effort. Race baiting isn't going to solve anything either.

violence in media

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/business/media/07violence.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1199854800&en=5e6fce5806453176&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Damn NY Times links are long to type out.

Anyway, it's rather funny to see a major news outlet reporting that violence in media actually reduces real life violence. Twice in the last couple of weeks has NY Times run stories running against the grain. Weird. They fire an editor that I didn't hear about? I don't quite think it's necessarily the violent gory movies that are toning down the violent offenders. I recall seeing that during baseball's heyday, a city with a winning team in it could expect a big drop off in crime while the team was playing in town. I think it's more that people have something to do instead of go commit an assault or attempt theft or other mayhem.

Best two lines: "compared to what?" and "It's not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book". It would seem to me that there is and has been a significant portion of the population that either through general lack of self-control, or lack of said control brought on through imbibing alcohol or other drugs is inherently prone to violent activity. Compared to this, sitting in a movie theatre munching on popcorn while a young woman is mutilated on screen is probably a considerable improvement.

Another point: Critics already arguing that this type of study argues that letting kids watch violent movies is fine, (least bad?). I'm fairly certain this is not what the study says. I think what it says is that a population of people already prone to violent activities is less violent when they're taken to see a violent movie. It doesn't at all suggest that we should let violent media babysit children. In other words, pass the quiet creepy guy a book, but give the prankish jock a copy of Doom so he doesn't do anymore damage with his weekends. Playing Doom drunk isn't going to harm anything real. Vandalizing neighborhoods will.

abc/facebook

One of the fringe benefits of facebook appears to be it has a somewhat more politically active group than the teenyboppers so prevalent here. In any case, one of the more recent debates had attached to it a series of poll type questions. By this I mean poll questions with either limited utility or no scientific usefulness. But in either case these had a few interesting twists once one looked at the poll breakdowns by things like political views and so forth.

First off, the overwhelming majority of respondents to these polls were people of the ages 18-24. This is historically a dubious place to conduct polling data because it tends to be less politically motivated, as a whole, and often possesses a strange mixture of high education and misinformation. This was evident in the polling data, but it does suggest what a candidate could do to motivate this select group to action or at least voting.
I'll give this one a try. "Based on the Republican debate, should the federal government or the states be primarily responsible for making sure Americans have health insurance". The possible responses are Federal, state, not sure, and neither. (obviously if one has been following my commentary with any regularity, neither is the only real choice I can make.) I'll begin my commentary immediately. First, the question asks a foolish introduction. I'm fairly certain most Americans believe they already know the answer to this question, so most of them aren't going to change their minds suddenly because of a persuasive argument by a politician. This much was obvious looking the number of undecided (usually a fairly large percentage, but here less than 3%). It would take more than one such debate and quite possibly a good deal of education in either the fields of economics, public policy studies, or health care for someone to change their views. Looking at the responses based on "political views", it was clear that most people ignored this little lead-in to the question and voted the way they already leaned. Almost no 'liberal' said anything other than 'the federal government'. Only 5% said neither and only 8% said the states. I can't say that someone watching with a truly objective stance would have come away saying that 87% of the GOP candidates were arguing that the federal government should mandate health care or otherwise provide it. Further looking at the question, the question itself does not present 'neither' as a legitimate argument, even though 'neither' is precisely the view that most of the GOP candidates take on this issue. Some of them propose plans to help make it affordable, but do not 'make sure' Americans have health insurance. There was in the actual debate little to no discussion over whether the states have any interest or need to similarly 'make sure' of this, nor would we expect there to be in a Presidential campaign, despite the Massachusetts (Romney) plan that did and the explicit suggestion that such a plan engenders that response with legitimacy (instead of tyranny, inconvenience, and bureaucracy). The choice explicitly suggested by the question should have been whether Americans themselves have such a responsibility or their government, on any level whatsoever. Nevertheless, 'conservatives' and the category labeled as 'other', to which I'm undoubtedly piled into, raked in a considerable landslide for 'neither' as their reply. Moderates, as one would reasonably expect, were fairly split with a leaning toward the 'federal government'. In other words, the more popular choice among young people is to say that things should be resolved by 'the federal government'. This might help explain the boost someone like Obama has had among such people.

Next one "What do you think is the single most important issue in this election?", with the possible replies: other, health care, education, economy, national security, Iraq. I'm not sure how most of those can be considered as 'single issues'. Education irrecoverably impacts things like 'economy', and vice versa. Economy in fact impacts or is impacted by virtually all of those possible responses, including whatever 'other' means. For whatever reason, the data here was perhaps even more confusing. For example, teenagers, a group who have often low wage paying jobs with low job security and no voting rights to speak of, complained that the 'economy' was a big issue. I suppose this is not surprising, but one wonders what they mean by 'economy'.

In fact, one who has studied economics wonders what anyone else means by 'economy', because there seem to be few if any reasonable indications that 'economy' is a serious matter worthy of concern without discourse into things like corporate taxation or international trade/foreign relations, which are not exactly economic matters that the common voter concerns themselves with. There is of course the housing market bubble burst, with its resulting billions of dollars "lost". But in point of fact the only people who were truly harmed by this were speculative buyers and people with poor credit who were put into speculative loans. The average homeowner may simply put off selling their home, or alternatively, will understand that they may be able in a short time to find a new home at a discount from previous prices and will accept a small loss or decreased profit on their present home to exchange to a better value with more personal convenience. Other economic indications are similar once one studies them at all economically. The danger of recession is always there in a country with poor national spending controls and international debts (and hence higher inflationary periods on international goods), but this is again something that a common voter is likely to have studied or understand. I would speculate that the 'economy' they are referring to is most similar to a question like 'how do you feel about your financial state', a question which many people are uncertain of but often have generally positive responses to. The vast majority of an individual person's economic troubles are in fact, little different from those of the federal government (high spending, little to no savings, high debt ratios, inflation), but would not be understood because so much media attention is focused on three indicators: unemployment, illegal immigrant labor/outsourcing, and the stock market. It is true that jobs go overseas. There are reasons that jobs migrate elsewhere. And most of them have to do with either 1) organized labor and general expense of benefits and higher wages demanded by workers in this country or 2) corporate tax rates or regulations being more favorable in other countries. It is conceivable that some levels of productivity improve, but not likely. It is fair to demand decent wages for the work being done, but it is perhaps fair to also point out that the work being done in some fields has in recent years not competed in international markets exceptionally well. And in any case, if a company can get the same levels of work done as it needs done to satisfy its consumers, perhaps sacrificing efficiency, but generating more profit without restrictions of taxation or regulation, I expect it to generate more profit.

As far as illegal immigration, somehow that was a subject that was not listed, even though it is undoubtedly far higher than 'education' on a national level of interest. I expect that few people would understand it as a purely 'economy' issue, though there is that view that labor is a fungible manner of expressing human capital. I'm fairly sure however that based on this country's history with immigration that much of the fervor is based on some levels of xenophobia and the suspicion of strange people from a strange land, particularly those who are "taking American's jobs". Such claims have been leveled at Japanese and Chinese immigrants in the later part of the 19th century, Irish or German immigrants in the late 18th and middle 19th, Eastern Europeans in the early 20th, and so on. Most of these immigrant groups, as with Mexicans and other Latin Americans, possessed some national pride and heritage, but also a profound hope in this new land. Perhaps a vigorous and boisterous minority were rabble that we found credit to our distasteful fears, just like now. The principle gap with this historical analogy has been that immigration was not usually subjected to legal controls as it is now (save Japanese/Chinese restrictions on the West Coast and local businesses refusing to hire each group in their turn). So while there is considerable vim and vigor over this subject, it is hard to see how a good deal of common American people in support of the matter are seriously concerned over 'rule of law'. Immigrants in fact are themselves more apt to be complaining over the matter of 'rule of law' than any man on the street, coming as they often do from a country which had poorer standards in this arena. Common Americans are either worried about their new neighbours or that those neighbours will take away someone's job. When the reality is that public policy should be set to make it difficult to employ illegal laborers and the 'problem' will fix itself. (If someone is an entrepreneur and employs legal immigrants but is himself, illegal, I don't see the problem).

As another curious distinction in this particular poll, 'national security' was considered the top issue for 'conservatives' (excepting of course the nebulous universal topic of 'economy'). I'm not entirely sure what this means either. An issue such as immigration reform could and has been construed politically as related to 'national security', pulling out visions of national ID cards (summoning German accent, paperz please). It could mean terrorism, even though 'terrorism' is itself a nebulous subject which encompasses the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the general state of affairs in the Middle East, national intelligence gathering abilities, and so on. None of these are things which directly impact most Americans at home in a way which mitigates their personal security or our national security, in this nation itself (in fact it mostly mitigates finances). So really, I'm not quite sure what 'national security' means either, and neither should anyone else answering this poll. For a media that was quick to make Iraq the defining issue of the 06 election cycle (which I wrote at the time was a silly notion), it seems fairly clear that Iraq is not any longer a defining issue, taken by itself. And that leaves health care, which is certainly disconcerting for young people, but they're most likely actively choosing to risk going without coverage anyway, being as it is not often a bare necessity for younger people. And education, a consideration which has barely been tapped as a national issue despite the declining status of our schools and the manner of our educational system and its unions. So whatever 'other' means, I'll go with that. I assume it implies things like energy policy, bear controls, and robots.

Whatever 'economy' means, I'm guessing nobody is really sure. But talking about sure seems important to young people. So whoever talks about the economy in vague and both suspicious and hopeful terms, but also talks about the government health care programs, and believes drug companies (or other corporations) are 'bad guys' is likely to win the younger voters and drive them to the polls.

change, I haven't got any

I actually got a peek at some of Obama's policy ideas, deciding that it might be a good idea now that there's a reasonable possibility of his electibility nationally. I was not impressed on two fronts.

One, as I had previously guessed from his status as a Democrat, I did not agree fundamentally with his basic foundation, and thus found his ideas fundamentally flawed. In other words, Democrats in general tend to operate on the assumption that government is good and often offers the best solutions to problems. I do not. I'm not even convinced of the assumption that government is well-intentioned and thus good, to say nothing of its ability to offer solutions and to execute them effectively. But, let us leave that aside because it's essential that a Democratic nominee should have such a view as it is after all a principle point on their party ideology.

Primarily what I found lacking was a good deal of executed detail. It's unrealistic to expect a candidate to unleash anything more than a broad sweeping, undetailed proposal at this point in the campaigns. But there are some requirements that even these broad sweeping campaign promises have some executional measures built into it. Obama's hint at the need for such things, but have no real teeth to them. I'm not sure if this means his ideas are bad, phony, or merely incomplete. Given his overall rhetoric, it's possible, though unlikely, that they would be flexible ideas, open to change and debate as they approach a stage of legislation. But I very much doubt that they would in fact be open to radical debate and change from opposing views, as they are drawn from a fundamental view that only government 'can save America'. It's very difficult for me to find substantive proof for this conditional statement, as it likely is for many others, some of whom are in Congress. So it's still difficult to see several realities emerging from this. 1) That his candidacy is a way to 'unite the country'. 2) That his candidacy would have any impact on Washington politics and the manner of their conduct, namely that spurious interests would not dominate and determine the issues instead of reasoned debates on the floor of the House or Senate. 3) That he would be capable of working constructively and cooperatively with members of an opposing party and often diametrically opposed views. Despite his outward calm rational mien, even this last point seems unlikely.

None of this of course matters because it would appear the job description of "President, U.S." reads something like this in the media: Able to execute sharp turn of phrase to create buzz in media over some topic (media types love to sell simple watered down stories), presents views similar to those of news media editors, good public speaker, but perhaps not at real debate where one cannot appeal to a simple sound byte and incomplete or incorrect factual data - something Romney et al do frequently, has public support of prominent celebrities who will sway the dumb masses, appears independent and open-minded in rhetoric (maverick is the common term). At the moment there is really only Obama fulfilling this description, though it would seem the N.Y. media bias is rather annoyed that the fly-over public hasn't swallowed Mrs. Clinton's ability to market herself in a similar light, or rather inability. I find it mildly amusing that some of the same complaints leveled against her first surfaced in Al Gore's campaign in 2000. Robotic and un-emotional, even boring? I suppose that's because I've usually found Al to be rather boring with the same general tendency to over-state his claims. But I digress. It's difficult to know what will happen in the months ahead, but of one thing I'm convinced. Change may be a mantra this month, but it's not going to be a reality in our future.

paul does fair

Based on the returns I saw, Paul placed 5th in the Iowa caucuses. Ahead of the events of September 11th. I can expect no higher finishes. But I read a story here which makes one wonder:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article847.html
He probably could do worse than to align himself with a compromise for his plan to reduce the size and scope of government by starting with one of the principal ways government has grown: The means by which it gathers it's funding. It's also a nice free organized group that was able to mobilize early support for the little known Huckabee, prior to his 'social conservative' message that woke up the religious right. I'd prefer to separate his spending from the fair tax, because it's pretty clear from the current 'social conservative' we have in office that spending is not part of the 'conservative' element.

Some good news for the younger voters: Clinton finishes third and seems disheveled in her campaign right now. With Edwards being a proven idiot, that means Obama just needs to not be a total moron. He doesn't really have many good or great ideas. But the guy knows how to make a speech and get people to do things, or at least believe people can, which really seems like the job description anymore (frame ideas so other people carry them out). I really don't want to go into November with a chance of Hillary being elected. I can live with Obama being elected, but I won't like it. I won't like the idea of Huckabee being elected, but considering his competition, Paul's probably the only one I'd be happy with (McCain v2000, yes, v2008, no).

What I'm seeing in the political spin of all this that sounds good to me thus far is that there appears to be a separation between the political parties and their traditional power bases. The religious people are still firmly GOP, but I can't expect ultra-religious conservatives to change their minds fast. But the labor unions don't sound like such a big deal for the Democrats anymore. Hopefully that means that eventually we'll start seeing some more significant parties. Because it does seem that while religion determines some votes, it's not going to resonate everywhere as much as smaller government does. Paul will probably get a similar level of support just about everywhere for this reason, where as Huckabee will see some wide swings and is still not seeing the funding that Paul is hauling in (despite the unlikely nature of his nomination too). We're not as a country ready to revert back to ideas from our past that actually showed promise and worked. But I'm not ready to say we should adopt ideas that have shown themselves not to work anywhere either simply because someone can make a speech either.

gladwell's back

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/12/free-fernando-v.html

I guess he had another book to do. But in new developments, the discourse level of the blogosphere has renewed somewhat to reasonable.

This one wasn't the most rabid in it's debate of his more recent fare (that would be the race and IQ debate spurred by the scientist formerly known as Watson). But in some ways it was more vivid on a political level. The nature of governmental thinking seems to be that if something has a dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise harmful use, then all it's other potential benefits or otherwise harmless uses are negated. Thus the legal backlash against medical marijuana (or just personal use of marijuana in general). HGH is not strictly speaking a 'performance enhancing' substance, but is still listed as a banned substance by MLB among other athletic institutions. I am not certain as to why this would be. It sounds to me like it's primary medicinal use for athletes is to try to recover from injuries faster. There seems to be no performance enhancing qualities according to studies and the anecdotes of players who have used it.
Yet, much as with pot by the government, baseball has quested to have HGH purged from it's players. There is legitimate complaint that the players are acquiring HGH illegally without a prescription. But to what end?
As a followup, there's another blog entry which posits a number of questions as to the ability of the testing agencies to much of anything other than track illegal non-prescriptive uses or excessive "performance enhancing" usage, done without any masking agents and without some form of medical supervision.

Moving along, Kenyan marathon runners entry was also a nice twist. A million kids running 10-12 miles per diem! We'd have to look far and wide to find that many kids running that a week in this country. I manage to run that in a week if the weather cooperates (winter not so much), but wow. No wonder they dominate long distance running. There doesn't have to be any genetic advantages at all for athletic ability when there's a pool of runners that large.

For the race and IQ debate, go: http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/(38)%20Turkheimer%20et%20al%20(2003).pdf

I like the source data, but if you're unwilling to page through it.
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/12/race-and-iq.html
The basics are that socioeconomic factors have much larger importance at the margin, and that heredity has greater importance in the middle ground, or as one rises in social status.

I'm liking the fact that he has a large base of commentary, because there's yet another entry on FBI serial killer profiling, which I haven't finished yet.

finally

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The amazing thing is that this was in the Times.

random bits of code

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/crime-falls-and-it-actually-makes-the-newspaper/

This is a good point. I've long since stopped locking doors. The focus has generally been on murder rates, which are the one people key on as a crime indicator. I'd guess that's fine, but murder isn't a terribly common crime as made by career hoods. It's usually a random act of violence in a domestic (or recently domestic) dispute or otherwise friendly arrangement gone astray. Rarely are people killed by people they've never met, Hollywood and media frenzy to the contrary. I'd be much more interested in statistics on rape (again, commonly committed by known, or at least partially known individuals), theft (again), and vandalism. But if the general trend is down on all fronts, as it does seem to be, I'd wish that people would stop worrying about it so much. There's only so much you can do to prevent random acts of violence from disturbing your environs. We'd be much better off worrying about the people we already know based on the statistics. Which is a scarier way to look at it. I guess we're fortunate the media doesn't report it that way.

Another random element. Studies were done on how corporate health plans are beginning to offer bounties for healthy behavior. In some cases a bounty of as little as $7 dollars (7!) can get people motivated to quit smoking or begin an exercise regime or diet. Generally the bounties are higher, particularly for inducing people to quit smoking. I'm glad to see some market effects on this problem. It would seem to me that insurance in health care should work similarly to vehicles or life insurance where there are often considerable underwriting litmus tests to effect lower or higher costs on the consumer. People who make unhealthy choices should get both a negative motivation with a higher rate, and a positive one with a bounty or calculated lower rate. With life insurance it's fairly easy to show someone how much less it would cost if they quit smoking (depends on the company, but it's a huge gap). The same is true if they were to lose weight (though there it can be more of a guessing game, and not nearly as significant) Maybe we're getting into the same situation with health insurance in the near future. Employers are faced with rapidly escalating costs and lost productivity from an increasingly unhealthy workforce. Desperation makes for useful creative solutions sometimes.