Danny Taggart's Blogarama

Let's make some bacon

2005-09-23T21:41:00.000-05:00

The Porkbusters are trying to get congresspigs to give up some of their yummy pork projects in order to fund Katrina-related reconstruction. It's not going to work, but it's fun to see conservatives in action again, trying in vain to cut government spending (or rather, prevent it from growing by $200 billion in one year). Hilariously, the only person to have committed to cuts is - Nancy Pelosi! I'm really beginning to wish Republicans get slaughtered at the polls next year.

The War on Terror is dead

2005-09-14T07:29:00.000-05:00

Excellent, depressing article from RealClearPolitics. I'd like to see what theory conservatives settle on for why such a result came about. The leading candidates right now are "our military is stretched thin" and "the Democrats are hurting the effort." I'm not impressed by either of these arguments. After all, the military is not substantially different from right after the 9/11 attacks. If anything, we're spending a lot more money, especially in Iraq. So what changed?

Also, I can't see how the Democrats' opposition prevented Bush from carrying out his promise. First of all, most Democrats were on board even for the Iraq invasion. Bush had a window of opportunity to expand the war to the rest of the terrorist sponsoring states. Second, he did win the last election. It may indeed be too late now, but that doesn't mean he didn't have the political opportunity to begin with.

What are some other theories? Hmm. Maybe Bush realized that a regional war in the Mideast would skyrocket oil prices enough to crush the American economy. But we have enough in SPR to last us more than a year. Is that not enough time to destroy the regimes of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and secure the oilfields?

I have no idea. I'm speculating out of my ass. I just don't see the conservatives credibly addressing this issue. And I don't think they will, at least until the Supreme Court vacancies can be filled. After that, Bush is expendable, and the "cleansing" can begin. I suspect we'll see plenty of Bush-bashing from conservatives as he's about to leave office, just as there was an unbelievable amount of Clinton-bashing from liberals as he left office. Politics these days just depresses me. What happened to the slash-and-burn Republicans of '94?

Big government is back?

2005-09-06T03:55:00.000-05:00

Remember those idiots claiming after 9/11 that "big government is back" - I guess because people are enamored of collosal government failure? Nobody's saying that now, post-Katrina. Why? Because, after four years, billions of dollars, and a new department of "Homeland Security," the response to what is bascially a simulated terrorist attack has been piss poor. Not because some people died, who shouldn't have. But because the government didn't even know there was a problem until late in the game.

The "leaders" were slow, indecisive, and whiny. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence about the government's reaction to a real terrorist attack. Maybe there will be some lessons learned out of this, but I doubt it will happen in government. I think it's more likely to take the form of people stocking up on guns and ammo, to protect themselves from the hooligans and barbarians that inevitable arise in a post-apocalyptic world.

The Iraq situation

2005-08-17T18:51:00.000-05:00

My thinking on Iraq has changed a bit recently. Here are some excerpts from my posts on FreeRepublic today:

really

Even though I'm getting nervous, I don't buy the panic mentality coming from the left. Take a look at the latest Brookings Institution report on Iraq. It's a mixed bag, but the situation seems to be improving. A quick summary:

US/coalition troop casualties
Number of car bombs
Civilian contractors killed
Attacks on Iraqi oil and gas assets

Iraqi civilians killed as result of war

Insurgents detained or killed
Daily attacks by insurgents
Percentage of Iraqis who think country moving in the right direction

Your government at work

2005-08-04T01:24:00.000-05:00

From the Boston Globe [via Biz-Opportunities]:

The Internets

2005-07-23T00:48:00.000-05:00

Bush got made fun of endlessly for his coinage of a new word, the "Internets," during the second 2004 Presidential Debate (transcript [washingtonpost.com]):

I hear there's rumors on the Internets (sic) that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period.

Most people assumed that this was an innocent slip-up, one of many cute and funny Bushisms. However, I propose an alternative theory: this was an extremely subtle and prescient expression of policy regarding control of the Internet root servers.

You may have heard of recent talk [yahoo.com] about the UN Working Group on Internet Governance seeking to take control of the DNS root servers from the US. Actually, most countries already have their own DNS servers for their top level domains (e.g. .au for Australia). If any country or group of countries is concerned about US control, they could simply use these as the root servers (.com.au becomes .com, in Australia). At that point, we really would have multiple internets.

Was Bush subtly inculcating the idea of an American internet, along with internets of other countries should they so choose, as opposed to a global, unified internet? I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Africa: Sink or Swim?

2005-07-12T21:56:00.000-05:00

A kind of depressing post about Africa from Kim du Toit. Basic thesis: we can't do anything for Africa that hasn't already been tried, and failed, so we should just leave it alone. Depressing.

Democrats' political strategy

2005-07-07T22:18:00.000-05:00

Blame Bush, push Plame.

Building drool

2005-06-27T13:38:00.000-05:00

You know what sucks about Chicago? Building drool.

build·ing drool (bldng drl) n. - Unexplained drops of water falling as you're walking next to a building, when it's clearly not raining. Maybe it's some window washers. Maybe it's some asshole spitting out of a 9th story window. Who knows. The only thing I do know: it sucks!

Gaming markets (Part II)

2005-06-26T21:32:00.000-05:00

Last time, I gave a brief overview of gaming markets and the issues surrounding them. I will now focus on their growth and their future prospects.

The growth of gaming markets can best be understood in relation to the growth of online gaming. The site MMOG Chart, a collection of MMO statistics, shows that total active MMO subscribers have grown exponentially, from half a million in the summer of 2000 to almost five million today.

Subscriber growth translates into growth of the gaming markets. Starting little over a year ago, the Gaming Open Market has traded almost $2 million in Second Life currency. This phenomenon is not an aberration - it is a response to real demand from real people. Why is buying virtual items so attractive? A few reasons:

1. The entertainment value.
2. People who play MMOs typically spend a significant amount of time in-game, leading to an emotional attachment.
3. The nature of MMO games imbues an investment mentality in the player. If I get this item, I can do X. If I level up, I can go to Y.
4. Virtual items are cheap, but they are used very often. This low-cost, high-volume system encourages impulse buying.

The game studios are starting to recognize the potential here. Sony announced the Sony Station Exchange, a real-money trading site for EverQuest players, will open in late June '05. Microsoft is also joining the party with its XBox Live marketplace for in-game items. How will increasing studio involvement affect the integrity of their games and the growth of the secondary markets serving them? The discussion will continue in Part III.

Gaming markets

2005-06-15T00:05:00.000-05:00

The concept of gaming markets is relatively new. It grew out of the MMORPGs in the late 90s, such as Everquest and Asheron's Call. Players build up their characters by hunting monsters, earning experience points, and collecting artifacts. Although there are in-game markets for artifacts, denominated in artificial game currency, some players wish to further enhance (or accelerate the development of) their characters with real money. Naturally, secondary markets, denominated in real US dollars, arose to meet this demand.

The first of these markets were found on auction sites such as eBay. For sale: artifacts, in-game money, characters, even mentoring services. This is a vibrant multi-million dollar market. Some players make a (real) living from it. Another class of markets serving the online gaming community are forex-style in-game currency markets. The leaders in this field are IGE and Gaming Open Market.

Not everyone embraces real-money gaming markets. Some say the influx of real money corrupts the gaming environment by giving novices with a lot of money an unfair advantage. Market supporters respond that trade between willing participants, even with real money, does not significantly affect game dynamics. In fact, it often seems that bad design decisions made by game "central planners" have wreaked havoc on game economies.

Besides gamers, the game studios themselves are uneasy about gaming markets. These markets are technically against the Terms of Service of most MMO games. It must also irk the studios that they are missing out on revenue, which they cannot capture due to perceived conflict of interest. However, the studios have not made any concerted move against the markets. They know that they ultimately benefit from them via subscriber revenue, while maintaining plausible deniability.

Regardless of community opinion and studio skepticism, gaming markets are in demand and growing. Why is this happening? And why is this important? I will explore this in part II.

I'm back!

2005-06-14T22:22:00.000-05:00

Haven't posted in a while. My hard disk broke down, so I was out of commission for three weeks. Then I was away to Boston and New York for a week. Then I decided blogging was stupid and a waste of time. Now I'm back, sort of. I won't necessarily try to keep up with the news. I will try to comment on things I think are not being paid enough attention. Posting will be fairly sparse. Enjoy the new format!

Flowerblogging

2005-04-25T15:03:00.000-05:00

On State and Jackson, by the Library:

At the CBOE courtyard:

At the Northern Trust building on Wells:

Strike at Congress Plaza Hotel

2005-04-25T14:54:00.000-05:00

These guys have been striking since at least last August, when I moved here. If their jobs are so crappy, you'd think they'd start looking at other employment opportunities.

Islamic high technology

2005-04-25T02:58:00.000-05:00

Will this lead to a new space race?

BBC sends hecklers to disrupt conservative rally

2005-04-25T02:57:00.000-05:00

British politics makes sense to me now. British taxpayers, conservatives included, are forced to fund the BBC, which is a propaganda arm of the Labour Party, which disrupts conservative rallies. British conservatives are forced to fund the destruction of their own party. I guess we have NPR.

Nasdaq buys Instinet

2005-04-23T05:10:00.000-05:00

Read about it at the LA Times.

NYSE and Archipelago merge

2005-04-22T10:24:00.000-05:00

Read about it at TheStreet.com.

From MarketWatch: NYSE, Archipelago merger challenges Amex's ETF business

From SmartMoney: NYSE, Archipelago Merger Isn't Slam Dunk

From MarketWatch: Fidelity eyes NYSE, Archipelago deal (Fidelity wary of new big gorilla)

Romania's new currency

2005-04-22T10:10:00.000-05:00

BusinessWeek reports on Romania's new currency (they cut four zeroes off the currency).

New York Times and Castro's propaganda machine

2005-04-19T05:00:00.000-05:00

The leftist fringe newspaper The New York Times is sponsoring the 6th Havana Film Festival in New York, an officially sanctioned propaganda arm of Fidel Castro's oppressive communist regime. The New York Times editors are giving aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of the United States. The US Constitution has a word for such people: traitors. At least the New York Sun has the guts to call a spade a spade, unlike the more "balanced" PRNewswire.

Telebombers

2005-04-19T04:50:00.000-05:00

House acts to exempt bloggers from McCain-Feingold

2005-04-14T01:31:00.000-05:00

From RedState. Both the House and Senate have introduced bills to exempt "communications over the Internet" from McCain-Feingold speech restrictions related to campaign finance. Why the exemption? Because the FEC decided the internet is subject to the restrictions because it wasn't specifically exempted by Congress in the original legislation. You heard that right: if Congress doesn't specifically permit something, it is illegal.

Now, this explicit exemption becomes necessary. The net effect of it will be to legitimize the original legislation. It's a great divide-and-conquer strategy by the enemies of free speech. Once this exemption goes through, I'll bet bloggers won't be nearly as motivated to fight campaign finance restrictions on other media (those dinosaurs which we all hate anyway).

It would be better for the republic to fight this issue on free speech grounds. That people believe such a fight is unwinnable and therefore necessitates a compromise exemption is very scary.

Nice day

2005-04-11T01:13:00.000-05:00

It was such a nice day today, I decided to take a random walk around the city. Saw lots of cool stuff, including a Greek parade on Halsted. According to the parade announcer, Jesse White is "a friend of the Greek people." Ok. Here are some pics.

A band	A "Pan Arabian" float (??)

Some more floats

	A Cyprus float

Militants with ammo belts???

After the Greek parade, I walked mostly around the river and lakeshore.

Here is the Social Security Bat, in front of the Social Security Administration building. If you don't pay your social security taxes, Al Gore will come hit you over the head with it.

The riverbend.

The new Chicago Sun Times HQ on the riverbend.

The old Chicago Sun Times HQ site. Trump (and Bill Rancic) is building a new tower here.

Is there an oil bubble?

2005-04-07T00:34:00.000-05:00

Interesting discussion on Larry Kudlow's blog about whether oil prices are in a bubble. I am next-to-ignorant on this topic so I'll keep my observations brief.

Ok, so oil prices have climbed up a lot recently. But they're not outside of historical norms (real dollars). Goldman Sachs predicts oil will peak at $105 in 2007, but Kudlow thinks it's hokum straight out of the dot com era. So how can we tell where prices are going?

I'm assuming oil prices are being and will be driven primarily by geopolitics in the near future. And I'm also assuming that the people most knowledgeable about geopolitical issues, and most likely to have a feel for the future, are the policy makers in the US government. And currently,

1. They are not releasing oil from SPR. On the contrary, they're buying.
2. They finally seem willing to open ANWR to drilling.

If the geopolitical situation really is such that oil prices will decrease soon, they would be selling SPR oil (and buying back at lower prices). ANWR is a bit more interesting, because it would take at least some time for drilling to begin, and for the actual oil to make it to market. So, this situation kind of indicates to me that policy makers expect oil prices to keep rising for the foreseeable future. If they don't, then we've bought a lot of expensive oil for the SPR, and we've made an unnecessary and possibly dangerous (in terms of future emergency and national security needs) decision to start drilling in ANWR. We'll see what happens.

Unimpressed by Dean

2005-04-03T22:55:00.000-05:00

I flipped to C-SPAN today and saw Howard Dean speaking to and taking questions from a Democratic audience. The subject was the future of the Democratic party and how it can win back the government. A couple of observations:

1. Republicans who cast Dean as a fringe ideologue are incorrect. If anything, he seems to be attempting to use his credibility with the leftist fringe to coax it into more mainstream thinking.
2. "We can do X better" was a recurring phrase throughout his speech and answers. His attitude was not "we have different ideas to bring to the table," but, "Republicans want X, we can do X better" (examples: national security, "values"). Not what I'd call leadership.
3. Almost exclusive focus on tactics, in terms of winning future elections. The attitude was "We did X last time, obviously it wasn't enough, let's do more of X," not "We did X last time, let's try Y next time." The exception was, of course, mouthing that so-nebulous-as-to-be-meaningless word: "values."
4. Dean sounded very scripted. These things are always scripted to some extent, but sometimes he tends to speed up his speech temporarily, a perfunctory soundbite emission. It's as grating as Bush's incessant repetitiveness in the debates ("it's hard work," etc.).

I don't blame Dean too much, though. He's in a difficult situation - he has to define the electoral strategy for a party that is having a major identity crisis. But right now, it just looks like trying to play catch-up and co-opt the (perceived) Rovian electoral strategy. What about playing off frictions in the Republican coalition and trying to bring libertarians in? It's not even under discussion. The current Democratic party just isn't serious competition for the Republicans.

Is the Republican coalition in danger?

2005-04-03T01:10:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure why, but the Terri Schiavo mess seems to have exposed a libertarian/social-conservative rift unlike any other issue in the past, despite the fact that this 1. was primarily not a political issue, 2. sets no significant precedent and 3. has no effect on the vast majority of Americans. (I know people will disagree with each of those three points, depending on how they view the issue, but come on, who are we kidding?) Nevertheless, the sheer obsessiveness of a certain faction of the Republican coalition has caused some embarrassment to more level-headed libertarians. So, this has become an excuse for a libertarian bitch-fest for past abuses by the Republicans (the litanies are quite extensive).

Ryan Sager thinks that the traditional Republican coalition is in danger, to be replaced by Big Government Conservatism. He bases his assessment on the electoral strategy of attracting socially conservative voters who are not traditional Republicans (blacks, Hispanics), and shedding the libertarian minority. If true, this is very disheartening, since it's very unlikely the Democrats would put out a credible welcome mat for libertarians.

So, what do libertarians do? Well, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Ryan. The last election was not razor-thin, but it was not a landslide either. If libertarians stayed home (or worse, voted Democrat) in 2006 or 2008, the Democrats would probably pick up some wins, possibly the White House. Should libertarians root for Democrats? No. But it would seem the only way to get the attention of the current Republican leadership is to prove that the coalition being built is not stable. Suffering some losses may bring the Republicans back to their small-government roots. It would also result in divided government, which is historically a good restraint of government growth.

Idiot "experts"

2005-03-30T11:58:00.000-06:00

The Guardian has an article titled "Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up'" and begins:

The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure. Think about this. These are supposedly "scientists" and "world leaders." I guess they haven't heard of something called "technological progress", you know, how people change the way they use the environment around them. Un-freakin-believable.

Anti-war protest downtown

2005-03-19T15:51:00.000-06:00

There's quite a big hubbub surrounding the South Loop post office; lots of riot police on the ground, news choppers in the air. The protest itself is somewhat unimpressive. Same old (and I do mean old) bedraggled crowd listening to unintelligible megaphone blather. Since I couldn't get an accurate headcount just by looking at the crowd, I measured the length and width of the area by counting the cops surrounding it. The area is approximately 65 x 30 people standing next to each other, so the upper bound on the crowd is about 2000, assuming it is that compact. The real number is probably 1200 to 1800.

As a libertarian conservative, I was disappointed to see a Libertarian Party banner among the anti-war crowd. There was also a smaller pro-Bush contingent across the street, behind the line of cops. Here are some pics:

Various views of the protest

Just riot police (there were a lot)

Some pro-Bush people (notice a Lebanese flag in the second shot)

"Freedom Is Not Free"

The anti-war band

The anti-war cart ("Let's Bomb Texas")

Chicago police getting ready for rally

2005-03-19T11:49:00.000-06:00

I was walking around today and noticed lots and lots of police on every street corner. I thought it might be some terrorist training, but it looks like they're getting ready for some sort of rally in front of the post office. The area around the office is fenced off and there is a stage with sound equipment. I'm guessing they're commemorating the 2nd anniversary of the start of the Iraq war (March 20, 2003). I'll get more info when I go out for lunch. For now, here's a pic of the area:

All Schiavo, all the time

2005-03-19T09:40:00.000-06:00

That should be FreeRepublic's new motto. I'm estimating that more than half the threads there are about Terri Schiavo. The vast majority of posts are militantly for keeping her alive. I'm a contrarian on this one and have been posting my thoughts, which have been generally answered seriously and politely (no one has called me a troll). However, the atmosphere is a bit too obsessive and rabid on this issue, so I think I'll sit this one out for the remainder. Also, I've been threatened with expulsion by the Lead Moderator for posting this (I thought) humorous image:

The mod deleted the picture and threatened me: "Post that again on any of Shiavo thread [sic] and you're out of here."

Rename ANWR

2005-03-11T04:55:00.000-06:00

This tiny piece of barren wasteland stands between us and energy independence.

I suspect that most public opposition to drilling for oil in ANWR is due to its inaccurate name: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This conjures up images of evil tankers spilling oil all over cute and cuddly penguins. But a more appropriate name would be the Arctic National Wasteland Region. I recommend that the Republican congress table the drilling issue, but rename ANWR. Then, bring up the drilling issue again in a few years. But this time, the public will be asked to choose between cheaper gas and a "Wasteland Region." Can't lose!

Tax rate market, continued

2005-03-11T04:38:00.000-06:00

To clarify my tax rate market idea, here's how it would work:

Step 1: Investors Bid

Each investor places a bid for:
S percentage share of government revenue,
for the next T years,
at price P,
for policy change D

Example:
S = 1/100 billion
T = 3
P = $60
D = -10% capital gains

The investor in this example expects that if the government cuts capital gains taxes by 10%, revenues would average $2 trillion per year over the next 3 years, plus the rate of return to compensate the investor for risk. (2 trillion * 1/100 billion * 3 = 60)

Step 2: Government Chooses a Policy

The government looks at its policy options:
1. The status quo
2. A policy change in the tax rate market

The government will choose a policy change from the market if:
A majority of congress and the president believe that the total value of the bids for the policy change exceeds expected revenues.

Step 3: Payout

For the next 3 years, each of the investors receives his share of government revenues (the government covers its obligations with the capital from the tax rate market). If, as a result of the selected policy change, the economy improves and government revenues are better than expected, the investors profit. If government revenues are lower than expected, investors lose out.

Problems with the idea:

The biggest problem is that a risk-neutral government will engage in risky behavior. Even if the tax code is frozen so that only the specified policy is enacted, the government can still adversely affect the economy through:
1. Legislation
2. Regulation
3. Monetary policy

Since the government still operates under political constraints, it may be reasonable to assume that excessively adverse legislation or regulation is unlikely. Furthermore, a tax rate market would probably only exist for dramatic tax changes, which would overwhelm most effects of legislative/regulatory action (or other adverse economic factors).

In the comments of my last post, McGroarty said, "I'm apprehensive about anything that aligns government fiscal interests against the public's." The reason the government engages in economically risky behavior is that it balances the needs of the economy (and hence future revenues) vs. the needs of its constituencies (special interests). Politicians are risk averse because of the ballot box, so they are biased towards their constituents' interests.

The tax rate market, in effect, boosts the political constituency for the economy by exposing the real value of optimal tax policy. The stake that the investing public has in the economy translates into additional accountability at the ballot box. So, instead of the government guessing what its fiscal interests are (i.e., optimal tax policy), it can simply focus on responding to political pressure from the investing public.

That leaves monetary policy. Since the Fed is not tied to political constraints, it may be more aggressive with the knowledge that its actions will not affect government revenues (in the short term). This is a big issue, although the Fed would still be wary of long-term economic consequences.

Another lesser problem is the difficulty of raising so much capital. It may be more feasible to implement such a market at the state level first. This has the following benefits:
1. The policy change does not have to affect the entire national economy.
2. Monetary policy is not an issue.
3. It would be easier to raise capital.
4. It would be politically easier to implement (less risky to try it in one state, which may be ailing badly anyway).

NOTE: To insert line breaks, use the <br/> tag.

Ohio government works hard to protect ...um...

2005-03-07T19:35:00.000-06:00

From Interested Participant:

Okay, here's the deal. Starting May 2 in the state of Ohio, thanks to a law signed last month by Gov. Taft, sellers on eBay will be required to have an auctioneer's license. To obtain a license, an individual must complete a one-year apprenticeship under a licensed auctioneer, including 12 gigs as bid-caller, attend an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam, and pay a license fee of $200. In addition, a $50,000 bond must be posted. The penalty for failing to comply with the law by selling on eBay without a license is a $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail.

How about a tax rate market?

2005-03-05T15:38:00.000-06:00

I'm wondering what kind of research has been done on tax rate markets, i.e.: create a market in which people buy equity in government revenues in exchange for tax rate reductions. So for example, the value of the "-5% cap gains" market would represent the anticipated increase in government revenues were the capital gains tax reduced by 5%. This may be a solution to removing political barriers to tax cuts (perhaps due to ideology, but more likely due to extreme risk aversion).

Librarian big wig hates blogs, Google

2005-02-28T17:03:00.000-06:00

This is my WAFM (What-A-F***ing-Moron) post of the day, a screed from the prez of the ALA.

Romania adopts flat tax

2005-02-23T08:32:00.000-06:00

From IWPR.net:

Togolese protesters

2005-02-22T08:56:00.000-06:00

On Friday, there was a group of protesters identifying itself as the "Demonstration of Togolese Diaspora" in front of the South Loop Post Office. They were singing and carrying signs asking President Bush to help them. I guess they're dissatisfied with the present regime in Togo and are looking for some sort of support from Washington.

UPDATE: Well, I guess they got it. The State Department has cut off all military assistance to Togo and is endorsing sanctions in response to the illegal coup.

What's driving the space race?

2005-02-20T06:53:00.000-06:00

I'm wondering to what extent the private space race is actually being driven by demand from private citizens, as most media reports assume. Despite all the starry-eyed dreamers out there, private space tourism is an unlikely market and a very unsafe/risky venture. I am assuming that Paul Allen, Richard Branson, and their kind are doing what they're doing because they expect some kind of return on their investments. The X-Prize was a nice way to recoup some of the development costs for SpaceShipOne, but it is not an end in itself. I suspect the real reasons behind developing manned suborbital/orbital vehicles have more to do with supplying the government with private space services:

1. The Space Shuttle is expensive and unsafe. When it is retired, it will leave a huge void in the US space program (currently being filled by the Russian Soyuz).
2. In 10-15 years, NASA will attempt to make good on the new space vision outlined by Bush. A return to the Moon, especially with construction of a self-sustaining base, will be unlike the Apollo program: no giant rocket blasting the whole project to the moon. The process will be more iterative, requiring many low earth orbit flights.

The space entrepreneurs are sensing the coming privatization of manned spaceflight. Why should the government take on all the political risk and development cost of such a complex program? It's much more efficient to outsource it.

Not so worried about the blog mobs

2005-02-16T01:42:00.000-06:00

I've been reading/listening to various reactions to the blog storms over Jordan/Gannon/Rather and I realized something: the blogosphere is not in danger of becoming a lynch mob, simply because it is too self-aware. The blogosphere is insanely introspective - it digests, analyzes, and reacts to any changes in its environment, including itself. I may be anthropomorphizing beyond what is necessary here, but it really is amazing how this mass of blogs acts like a real organism. This network is essentially a self-correction mechanism. This does not mean it won't continue its rampage through MSM-land. But it is aware of it is doing and is somewhat humbled by the realization of its own power. It also realizes that it is not an invincible juggernaut, but will someday be co-opted by the very media it criticises today.

"Great, kid. Don't get cocky!"

2005-02-13T12:59:00.000-06:00

The blogosphere got itself another trophy head this week with the resignation of Eason Jordan, head of CNN. Here's the CNN version and the Instapundit version. Now, as jubilant as I am that another liberal media guy just got wiped out, I can't help wondering to where the blogosphere's newfound confidence is leading. I have a bad feeling about some of the triumphalism in blogs (more often, blog comments) after the resignation. I don't think the blogosphere will get burned, in the sense of falling into a trap, since it is too competitive to allow untruths to grow (unlike, say, CBS). I'm worried more about the us vs. them attitude that's developing here, which may lead to hunting down scandals where there aren't any or picking on insignificant, no-name professors. Yes, there are stories of those types that are worth investigating, or even reporting, but it's a matter of focus. As any creature that reponds to pleasure-pain stimulus, the blogosphere will tend to focus on things that give it a pleasant buzz of self-validation. I just hope the blogosphere doesn't become a politics tabloid.

"This deal is getting worse all the time"

2005-02-06T09:50:00.000-06:00

Bush is not exactly Lando Calrissian, and Social Security "privatization" will not be exactly private. People will not be able to do what they wish with the money in their "private accounts." They will be limited to a very few "safe" index funds and only be able to rebalance once or twice a year. They will also not be able to withdraw any of it until they retire and then only as annuity payments. So, what's "private" about this?

Not much. But it's still better than the current system. The net change here will be a couple of things:

1. The money is out of the politicians' hands. That people will have a legal right to their social security savings is a huge step. This will force spending restraint in the long term.
2. People can pass on their social security savings to their heirs. Social Security was originally founded as an insurance system, not a savings system. However, as contributions have been forced higher, the government has kept the remainder of Social Security payouts once people die. The new system finally admits what it is: a forced savings program.

It also looks as if taxes may be raised to fund the transition, in the form of higher caps on payroll taxes. There's still a lot of wheeling and dealing going on in Washington over this, so the final form is not set yet. But the fundamental change that Bush wants, that has to happen to save the system from collapsing, is to get the Social Security money out of the politicians' hands. This is the sticking point. It will be interesting to see what kinds of compromises are made to make this happen.

Of course, even though the present reform may not be perfect, nothing prevents better reforms from happening in the future. In fact, the passage of Bush's reforms may finally move Social Security out of "third rail" territory and open it up to further discussion in the future. There are politically strategic considerations here that the critics at Mises, for example, don't seem to appreciate.

A blog about Google

2005-02-04T05:06:00.000-06:00

I've started a blog with news and commentary about Google, appropriately called A Blog About Google. Check it out.

Your government at work

2005-02-04T03:29:00.000-06:00

From WorldNetDaily (via Business Opportunities):

Department of Labor and Industries

FamiliesThatWork.org.

Another problem with Google's model

2005-02-03T09:44:00.000-06:00

Tom Foremski at Silicon Valley Watcher finds a potential problem with Google's AdWords model.

Google reports quarterly profits

2005-02-03T00:15:00.000-06:00

GOOG gapped up early in the day but sold off considerably as the day wore on. An intraday chart shows two high-volume time periods which pushed the stock down, one early in the day and one later:

I was reading through Google's 10-Q and made some observations:

Google's rate of revenue growth is declining as it matures: "However, although our revenue growth rate increased in the third quarter of 2004 compared to the second quarter of 2004, our revenue growth rate has generally declined, and we expect it will continue to do so as a result of increasing competition and the inevitable decline in growth rates as our revenues increase to higher levels."
AdSense accounts for a greater portion of ad revenue in nine months ended 09/30/04 (50%) than in nine months ended 09/30/03 (40%).
Google expects AdSense revenue growth to be outpaced by AdWords revenue growth: "Although we entered into a significant new AdSense for search agreement in October 2004, the growth in advertising revenues from our Google Network members' web sites is expected to be less than the growth in revenues from our web sites for the foreseeable future."

The key question to how click-fraud will impact Google is where AdSense revenue is heading compared to total revenue. As it stands now, AdSense accounts for an increasing share of total revenue that is levelling off. We'll have to wait and see if this trend continues.

Good click fraud article

2005-02-02T23:21:00.000-06:00

Mike Grehan writes (via Battelle):

Your overconfidence is your weakness

2005-02-02T23:04:00.000-06:00

People usually refer to entrepreneurs as "risk-takers", likening them to gamblers. However, a doctoral student at Wharton says his research shows that entrepreneurs' real motivation is their ego. While they may be as risk-averse (or more so) as the norm, their overconfidence in their abilities leads them to take unconscious risks. I guess Ayn Rand was right, sort of. (From BusinessWeek, via Business Opportunities Weblog),

Lindsey Graham inadvertently stumps Al Gonzales

2005-02-01T08:48:00.000-06:00

From the confirmation hearings transcript:

Germany to women: Screw or be screwed

2005-01-31T22:00:00.000-06:00

From the Telegraph (via Volokh):

The reason the German government didn't make an exception for prostitution:

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars.

Is TradeSports trading on its own exchange?

2005-01-30T06:25:00.000-06:00

I'm looking at the Iraq elections futures on TradeSports and notice that there have been a number of trades at 99.9. This is very strange to me because the trading fees are $0.04 per block per trade/expiry. So that means that any buy order at 99.2 or above would necessarily incur a loss because of trading fees. It wouldn't make sense for a trader to engage in this kind of behavior. The only explanations I can think of are:
1. TradeSports waives the fees for certain high-volume traders.
2. TradeSports itself engages in trading on its own exchange, something which they specifically deny in their FAQ.

Google unveils AdWords API

2005-01-27T23:38:00.000-06:00

Here is the AdWords API page and here is the actual API reference. (via Battelle). I guess they don't have an AdSense API, contrary to previous speculation. This makes more sense. The AdWords API sounds like an ad monitoring / ad generation tool; basically makes the process more efficient. An AdSense API would really screw with their business model fundamentally. I'll be keeping my eye out for more details.

The euro-hypocrites

2005-01-25T14:25:00.000-06:00

The Europeans are hoppin' mad. First, we go into Iraq without their permission. Instead, we built our own "coalition of the willing" to do the job. Now, we build another coalition to distribute aid to Tsunami victims, ignoring the Euroweenies once again. Let me get this straight, the Europeans are building a supranational government, with its own currency, to try to take over the world. ....And they're complaining that the US is building its own coalitions??

Google ad API

2005-01-24T01:03:00.000-06:00

Google is coming out with an API for AdWords and AdSense (via Searchblog). Details are sketchy, but here is a summary from Silicon Valley Watcher:

One key question: Will advertisers be able to exclude specific sites from their ad delivery? The implications are enormous.

If the answer is yes, advertisers will now have direct control over their traffic. This ability will help them detect and act against fraudulent clicks in real-time, without appealing to Google's bureaucracy. It will also give them more leverage with Google, in terms of shaping security and content-delivery policy.

Let's consider a hypothetical here. Advertisers may decide they don't trust certain behavioral segments of web traffic. So they say, for example, "exclude domain blogspot.com". Google's publisher base will tend to erode under these conditions. The survivors will be large, trusted publishers with a name and audience. But where is Google's competitive advantage in such a market? The point is, giving advertisers control over ad delivery undermines Google's unique strength - leveraging large data sets and broad traffic patterns. If Google gives this up, it will face tough competition from people who are already exploring alternative ad models like blogads.com, kanoodle.com, snap.com.

But it's not clear that this functionality will be present in the API. We'll just have to wait and see.

Google click fraud update

2005-01-20T13:38:00.000-06:00

There's an interesting Slashdot discussion about a Newsweek article on click fraud. Well, this is finally getting some more attention. But, investors still don't seem to get the message. Google's stock is back up to 194 from its short hiatus in the 170s. This, even though the AdSense program is essentially a giant scam which will collapse in the next couple of years. This would be catastrophic for Google. Their 2004 Q3 financial release states:

Revenue generated on Google’s partner sites, through AdSense programs, contributed $384.3 million, or 48 percent of total revenue, a 120 percent increase over the Network revenue generated in the same quarter last year.

Filtering the blogosphere some more

2005-01-18T16:20:00.000-06:00

Thinking about the Jim Miller article some more, I wondered why Bloglines or other RSS aggregators don't implement some kind of efficient filter that recommends specific posts, instead of blogs. I am getting increasingly frustrated at having to manage a blogroll that only gets me maybe one interesting post out of five. Bloglines should have some functionality that allows me to grade specific posts and then intelligently ranks future posts based on my past preferences.

Of course, you could make such a system much more sophisticated. For example, you could cluster people's preferences and generate recommendations based on what people like you find interesting. This approach saves you from having to develop an intelligent ranking system based solely on individual data, which would probably end up frustrating a lot of people anyway. (Imagine you happen to downrank two posts which talk about Iraq and Bloglines assumes you don't want any news about Iraq.) I suspect a number of people out there are working on such things, but I haven't seen it yet.

Filtering the blogosphere

2005-01-18T10:55:00.000-06:00

James D. Miller argues that the blogosphere depolarizes American politics by exposing people to novel ideological intersections they otherwise would not have encountered. He points to Andrew Sullivan as an example of the cross-ideological bloggers drawing supposedly incompatible audiences. He also addresses the view that blogs polarize politics by allowing people to seek out only information which reinforces their beliefs. Miller argues that polarization will actually be reduced by efficient filtering technology which serves up only those articles which may interest you:

An online dating service has value only if it matches you up with people you would have otherwise never have met. Similarly, a good news filter should locate material you wouldn't have ordinarily found. For example, I wouldn't be helped by a filter that tells me to check out the Becker-Posner Blog because, given my tastes and web reading habits, this blog is something I would read and find independent of the aid of any filter. In contrast, I would benefit from having a filter that informs me of an interesting article on a blog I had never heard of before. This argument is not so convincing. Yes, filters can point you to new information that interests you, but this simply means that your values are being reinforced with new information. One could argue that inefficient filters would expose you to information you otherwise would not have considered, opening up your mind to new possibilities.

Now, I agree with Miller, but I would argue it a little differently. I would say that it is unrealistic to expect people to open their minds to new ideas if they are being force-fed information they do not find interesting or useful. This is the old mentality that it is the media's job to "educate" the masses.

Is it possible for someone to stagnate by seeking out information that validates only a very narrow vision? Yes, but this person would fare no better in a top-down information model. He would find the news boring or frustrating. I suppose this is why newspaper circulation is tanking.

But it is not necessarily true that reinforcing one's beliefs with new information leads to closed-mindedness and stagnation. This assumes that the world of ideas is indeed polar and that if people of belief #1 are not at least sometimes exposed to belief #2, they will never break out of the confines of belief #1. But the world is not polar - it is a network. New information necessarily exposes people to new angles on old ideas, new reasons for existing beliefs. Information can flow between disparate belief systems, but slowly, organically. The effects of the blogosphere network are to tie people together and act against isolation.

Ayn Rand Institute losing its edge

2005-01-15T08:25:00.000-06:00

One thing I liked about Ayn Rand is that she didn't do bullshit. If she had a position, no matter how unpopular, she defended it without compromise. The same can't be said of her successors at the Ayn Rand Institute in the wake of their tsunami PR disaster. Can anyone make heads or tails of this hairsplitting quote?

they have done so by and large not out of some sense of altruistic duty but in the name of the potential value that another human being represents. This benevolence, which we share, is not the same thing as altruism.

Ayn Rand Institute whitewashes history

2005-01-14T16:28:00.000-06:00

The Ayn Rand Institute published an op-ed by David Holcberg during the tsunami disaster arguing that the US government should not give aid to the tsunami victims. After the PR disaster that followed, ARI "clarified" its position in another article (which I will discuss later). I noticed, however, that ARI removed the original op-ed from its web site. The link that originally pointed to it has been redirected to an article about Iraq. Fortunately, Google has a cached copy of it. Clarifying your position is one thing; obliterating history so that you control the discussion is completely unethical and unwise of an organization who wants its ideas taken seriously.

60 Minutes at it again

2005-01-12T13:52:00.000-06:00

60 Minutes ran a story on January 2nd about Google, its business and culture. At one point, Lesley Stahl does a Google search for "60 Minutes", which yields results she complains are "controversial" (the Drudge Report featured prominently in the results). This is a "problem" apparently. Here's the quote:

That includes the term "60 Minutes," for which Google's computers return 19 million search results in one-fifth of a second. But at first glance, the top results are all related to "60 Minutes" stories that have created some kind of controversy. And that’s a big problem with Google: Its ranking system tends to put negative events or statements at the top of the list. Well, gee, the stories that create controversy are the stories that people are talking about. This is exactly what Google is meant to show - the web's concensus of what is most important about any given topic. What is the problem with this?

Basically, Lesley wants Google to act as a PR service of CBS, only presenting results in a non-controversial and respectful manner. I mean, CBS is the paragon of virtue and integrity, right? It would be unseemly to give any attention to those nasty right-wingers who might criticize the demigods of CBS.

Newsflash Lesley: Google doesn't work for CBS. And thank God for that.

Basescu's "axis"

2005-01-12T05:04:00.000-06:00

Shortly after winning the presidential election in Romania in December, Traian Basescu expressed his committment to close relations with the US and Britain:

The Washington-London-Bucharest axis will be a foreign policy priority for Romania's president. Now, it's clear that Mr. Basescu's intentions are positive. But, I question the use of the word "axis" here. Its use is a bit odd in the foreign policy context of fighting the "Axis of Evil." It also has a historically negative connotation, especially since Romania was initially part of the Axis in World War II. Perhaps a better term would have been "alliance" or "coalition."

MMORPG growth

2005-01-11T13:32:00.000-06:00

Bruce Sterling Woodcock has an interesting site with all kinds of pretty charts showing MMORPG growth and market share. I used to play Asheron's Call when it peaked in 2001 with ~120,000 subscribers, but now I see the number has fallen below 50,000. Here's a chart of total MMORPG subscriber growth over the past 6 years:

How to market a software design book

2005-01-10T08:20:00.000-06:00

Put a hot chick on the cover. No, really. Head First has figured this out. As I was browsing the dry, boring Computers section at Borders, their book really stood out. What better way to appeal to the male-dominated software industry?

Iraq elections futures (update)

2005-01-09T21:33:00.000-06:00

Looks like my initial hunch was correct. The assassination of Baghdad governor Ali al-Haidari on January 4th shocked the Iraq elections futures on Tradesports. I did a little bottom fishing at 81. The price has since rebounded to about 89. There are still about 20 days to go until the election, so maybe some more opportunities will come up.

Sky not falling, American tech not doomed

2005-01-07T06:00:00.000-06:00

The publisher of CIO Magazine, Gary Beach, writes an ominously titled article, "The Education Crisis", in the December 15, 2004 issue (via Online Universities Weblog). I suppose it's the fad nowadays to bemoan America's fall from its position as world technology leader. This collective sense of doom oftentimes produces incoherent arguments from otherwise smart people. This is one of those times.

Beach is particularly concerned about the decline in US engineering graduates. To support his concern, he engages in some fuzzy math. He claims that:

So in the 16 years from 1985 to 2001, there was a 40 percent drop in the number of engineering degrees awarded. However, he extrapolates this figure from the ratio of engineering degrees to total degrees earned over a number of years, without looking at the change in total degrees earned. If you look at the National Science Foundation statistics, the number of Bachelor's degrees in engineering was 77,572 in 1985 and 59,536 in 2000, a 23% decline. If you count Master's and Doctoral degrees, the totals are 101,710 in 1985 and 90,592 in 2000, an 11% decline. This is a far cry from the 40% Beach claims.

Next, Beach says that this decline is bad news for the "tech business." But surely, the "tech business" consists of more than just engineering. In fact, the number of US science and engineering degrees earned was 422,515 in 1985 and 521,848 in 2000, a 23% increase. How does this square with Beach's claims? The answer is that the decline in engineering graduates is offset by increases in other S&E fields. For example, natural sciences degrees are up 23% from 1985 to 2000.

Furthermore, the decline has not been straight down since 1985. The number has fluctuated, dipping in the early 90s, rising in the late 90s, and dipping again. This is hardly a "crisis", even for engineering.

Nowhere does Beach attempt to explain why engineering degrees are the litmus test for the American educational system or American technology leadership. As the technology industry changes over time, so does the educational landscape. The computer industry has been a primary driver of American growth over the past 10 years and the number of computer science graduates increased to meet the demand. We can expect the same dynamism in the future.

Beach points out that Asian countries are increasing their number of engineering graduates, at higher percentages of total graduates than the US. He also notes that more engineering and natural sciences doctoral degrees are now conferred in Asian countries than in the US. He offers the unsubstantiated claim that "PhDs generate the innovation that creates new industries." Of course, we know about Bill Gates and Michael Dell, neither of whom completed college. I would offer my own unsubstantiated claim that it is the non-PhDs who are busy innovating and creating new industries, not the academics pursuing tenure.

But let's think about the Asian situation a bit more carefully:

1. These countries are heavily investing in fields which will become oversaturated in the long-run, by virtue of the fact that all of them are doing it. Their educated workers will find themselves in the most competitive fields, with commodified wages under constant downward pressure.

2. The technology industry will change ever more rapidly. The skills in demand today may not be in demand tomorrow. That means investing in specialized technical knowledge will not produce the kinds of returns it has in the past. Being able to understand markets and business processes and to be flexible in transitioning one's knowledge and skills is essential. In this case, America has the long-term advantage.

It is true that the American education system faces important challenges. It may even be in a crisis. But the evidence offered in Gary Beach's article does not support this contention. Addressing these challenges requires careful consideration, not knee-jerk alarmism.

Don't use Yahoo Small Business services

2005-01-06T05:25:00.000-06:00

I have finally transferred all my domains from Yahoo! Small Business services to a different company. The reason for the switch was bad information security at Yahoo. Here's what happened:

I signed up for a number of services, including domain name registration, web hosting, and email. In my Yahoo profile, I put down all my contact info except my cell phone number, which I try to keep as private as possible. However, in my credit card billing info, I had to type in the phone number associated with my credit card. So, since I assumed that the credit card information is private, I put my cell phone number there.

Fast forward a couple of weeks. I get a call on my cell phone. It's aplus.net asking me if I would like some web hosting for my newly-registered domain name. I asked them how the hell they got my cell phone number. It turns out that they scour the WHOIS for newly-registered domain names. Even though I specifically left out my cell phone number from my Yahoo profile (which is used to populate the WHOIS entry), Yahoo decided unilaterally to include my private credit card-associated number in my public WHOIS entry. What morons!

After God-knows how many calls to Yahoo tech support over two months (that's another story), I managed to get the whole mess straightened out and all my domains transferred from Yahoo's service. Who knows what other security holes they have in their system?

I have other lesser beefs with Yahoo! Small Business, regarding deceptive advertising. Its Yahoo! Domains page states that each domain registration includes free "domain forwarding so you can point to an existing site." Great, but what they don't tell you is that they only provide unmasked forwarding, meaning that your domain name does not show up in the browser address bar. They don't provide masked forwarding, which actually does display your domain name (they will provide it if you pay for web hosting or email service). Other domain registration companies, like NameZero include masked forwarding as the default. Of course, this is a minor complaint compared to their security problems.

Google's weird math

2005-01-06T01:45:00.000-06:00

I did a Google search for the word "blog", limited within the past 3, 6, and 12 months. The number of hits for each time period are as follows:

In the past...	Hits
3 months	20,400,000
6 months	19,400,000
12 months	21,900,000

What's wrong with this picture? Well, the hit number for 6 months doesn't make any sense. How could more pages have been updated in the past 3 months than have been in the past 6 months? Is there something going on that I'm not getting?

Venezuela gov't steals British-owned land

2005-01-06T01:11:00.000-06:00

Read about it here (via The American Thinker, via InstaPundit). It's interesting that the British Embassy has not sent a diplomatic note of protest to the government. I guess this is a trial balloon, with a broader land-nationalization campaign ahead. The only question I have is whether they plan to target only foreign-owned land, or potentially all farmland. According to the CIA World Factbook, agriculture accounted for $5.9 billion (or 5%) of GDP in 2004. That's a good chunk of change.

Oink oink! Our "leaders" in action

2005-01-01T05:14:00.000-06:00

This is the stuff that should be repeated in the media, over and over and over again, instead of stupid whining about how Bush didn't express contrition over the Tsunami fast enough. Some excerpts:

Real estate developer Jonathan Rubini arranged for Stevens to get into a deal in which he turned $50,000 into as much as $1.5 million ‹ and Stevens was the only investor not liable for any debts, the Times said. In the meantime, he muscled through a $450 million contract for Rubini from the military, despite the view of Air Force officials that Rubini "lacked capacity and adequate funding."

Consider Karen Weldon, the 29-year-old daughter of Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that despite her lack of foreign-policy experience, Karen was given a lobbyist contract of a quarter-million dollars from Serbian interests allied with accused war criminal Slobodan Milosevic, as well as a $20,000-a-month contract with a Russian aerospace manufacturer. Rep. Weldon later pushed to get visas for the Serbians and deals for the Russian company. Remember, our government-run prisons - oops, I mean schools - teach us these people are our "public servants."

The death of one-way media

2004-12-30T20:36:00.000-06:00

The much-hyped ascendancy of the blogosphere has been interpreted in various ways. Usually, the story is of a fight between the MSM and bloggers or Old Media and New Media. I look at it as a shift from one-way media towards two-way media.

The old paradigm is one of mass media beaming information from the omniscient elites down into the heads of the peons. The media environment was closed, monopolistic, and elitist. One leading newspaper in each city and a priesthood of three television networks.

The new paradigm is one in which the knowledge of any and all social elements is represented in the media. The media environment is open, competitive, and representative. Information flows not from top to bottom, but both ways (and indefinitely more). This is the real change that is taking place. If you want to figure out which media will thrive and which will die, don't look at "who's on the net" or "who has a blog". These are technical forms which may be easily appropriated by the old media. The important thing to look at is how information flows.

Asteroid update: move along, nothing to see here

2004-12-29T17:07:00.000-06:00

I guess the big bad asteroid is not going to hit us (the risk has been downgraded to 1-in-27,000). The doomsday crowd was wrong, yet again. Did they admit how silly the hype was in the first place? Of course not! Just a quiet correction.

Needless asteroid paranoia

2004-12-25T02:47:00.000-06:00

A bunch of people (Slashdot, Instapundit, Jane Galt) have been worrying about an asteroid with a relatively high probability of Earth impact. But what does NASA have to say about its own probability calculations?

The probability computation is complex and depends on a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify. For these reasons the stated probability can easily be inaccurate by a factor of a few, and occasionally by a factor of ten or more. In other words, don't take these calculations too seriously. NASA also makes the point that larger errors are present in the probability calcuations of newly discovered objects. This asteroid has only been observed for 187 days, but its impact is projected in 25 years.

The uncertainty in the orbital elements also depends on the number of observations and the time span over which they are made. The more observations we have, and the longer the time span, the less the uncertainties will be, and the more precise the orbit will become. Thus, for a newly discovered object, the uncertainties tend to be large initially. As more observations are obtained on the object's position, the uncertainties are reduced, and any potential impacts are then eventually eliminated for the vast majority of the cases.

US expels terrorist TV network

2004-12-21T03:29:00.000-06:00

Shawn Macomber talks about the State Department's designation of the al-Manar TV network as a terrorist organization. He describes some of the typical fare on al-Manar, worthy of Borat no doubt:

The popular game show, "The Mission," allows the home viewing audience to cheer on contestants as they "recapture" land stolen by the Jews. For every correct answer a contestant answers about the American-Zionist conspiracy, he or she (Oh, who are we kidding here? He!) moves that much closer on a giant map to Jerusalem. In between singing the praises of suicide bombers and denunciations of Jews, the show's host manages to get in some of the standard game show chit-chat. The first contestant to reach 60 points stands atop the holy city and receives a check for $3,000 while the Hezbollah anthem plays in the background -- "Jerusalem is ours and we are coming to it." Now, I find it difficult to believe that Hizballah actually generates revenue by airing this hogwash in the US. It's value is primarily to provide an indoctrination channel for potentially disloyal American Muslims. However, these people are few, and the chance that they would be incited to anything by al-Manar's programming is small. Therefore, I believe that the negatives of al-Manar are clearly outweighed by the sardonic entertainment most Americans would get by watching it.

In all seriousness though, it seems like an unnecessary move. Why should we be afraid to let the terrorists have a channel to spout their crazy ideas? This kind of reaction only serves to reinforce the idea that the terrorists are fighting us in the realm of ideas. Let's dispel that notion by letting Americans see exactly what lunatics these people really are. Masking the face of evil allows the government to present an ideologically sanitized version of The Enemy, but it does not serve our purpose in the War on Terror. It is essential, as the saying goes, to know thy enemy.

Although I'm not sure the First Amendment applies in this case (al-Manar is a foreign organization), I find the reasoning behind the State Department's decision somewhat disconcerting.

The Department of State condemned al-Manar broadcasts on December 9 when deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said it airs "disgusting programming that preaches violence and hatred" and ideas antithetical to American values. Hmm, I thought the reason, according to the Patriot Act, was that al-Manar "incite[s] to commit...a terrorist activity." What's all this business about "ideas antithetical to American values"? Of course incitement to terrorist activities is antithetical to American values, but so are many other noncriminal forms of speech, depending on how you define American values (wow, can't believe I just said "noncriminal forms of speech"). Who knows what media the government will consider tomorrow as preachers of hatred? It's exactly these kinds of official statements that make me nervous: the ones in which the government's current action is completely justified, yet use language potentially leading to completely unjustified actions.

Crazy Castro getting paranoid

2004-12-21T01:29:00.000-06:00

Cuba is holding military exercises, supposedly to prepare for an American invasion. It's hilarious how this is being reported as a civilian exercise, as if a militia of the citizenry at large is being called up. Wait a second, I thought Cuba has a ban on gun ownership - what gives? Of course, this is just a somewhat shoddy internal propaganda campaign. I'm surprised it's getting so much press in the US.

Scientists manufacture cells

2004-12-20T20:35:00.000-06:00

This is really interesting. Some researchers at Rockefeller University have manufactured cells out of components from different organisms. The cells apparently function and produce flourescent proteins.

Santa bike parade

2004-12-18T23:59:00.000-06:00

I was up on North Michigan today when a horde of Santas, elves and Dreidl Boy came bicycling down the street.

An elf rides atop one of the Santas:

Here is Dreidl Boy amongst the Santas:

Contracts on Osama capture up

2004-12-17T19:07:00.000-06:00

The TradeSports "Osama captured" contracts jumped up wildly today. The price changes are as follows:

Contract	Change
OSAMA.CAPTURE.DEC04	+7.9
OSAMA.CAPTURE.JAN05	+15.7
OSAMA.CAPTURE.MAR05	+11.6
OSAMA.CAPTURE.JUN05	+2.0

I don't know what news might have prompted this buying, except the new tape that was released yesterday.

Time to face reality on Social Insecurity

2004-12-17T02:50:00.000-06:00

I was looking at this post from Mark Cuban on Social Security privitization and was suprised by its belligerent tone and ignorant argumentation. He makes a couple of points:

1. The nasty brokers will screw people over with bad investment products and high commissions.
2. People expect the government to bail them out, so they will take on high risks and lose their money.

The big problem with Mark's arguments here is that he compares Social Security with private accounts as if they are the same thing. Social Security is not your personal account. You have no rights to the money you have paid in - the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The taxes you pay in go to the general fund, where Congress can spend them however they wish. It is absurd to compare rates of return or such nonsense between government-run and private Social Security accounts. The system is a sham, an illusion - it simply doesn't exist.

So what is reality? The reality is that after almost a century of living this dream in which everyone can have their wants without paying for them, the United States of America will finally wake up. The system will go bankrupt. It will be a cash drain on general funds, instead of a cash cow. Everybody knows this. Due to government failure, each person has to save for his own retirement now, along with paying taxes for a "benefit" that doesn't exist. Nobody who is young today expects the government to bail them out when they're old, as Mark claims. The only thing Bush's plan will do is help this process by giving people their money back so they can save it, instead of letting the pigs in Congress grab-and-spend it as they have for ... well, forever.

A lot of mumbo jumbo is being thrown around in the Social Security debate, so let's clear up the choices facing us here:

1. Don't pay out the benefits. This includes raising the retirement age or whatever scheme ultimately doesn't give people what they paid into the system.
2. Pay out the benefits, at the expense of the productive elements of society, and therefore, the economy itself.

Either choice by itself would cause an immense, possibly catastrophic, shock to our economy and society. The only reasonable choice is some mix of the two. This entails a lot of unpleasant pain that we don't want to feel; the hangover from our socialist experiment. It is imperative that we start early, so we spread this pain out over a long timeframe and reduce the probability of a lethal shock to the system. This is the essence of the plan to start privatizing Social Security.

The plan is not perfect. People should have complete control over their accounts, not be subject to certain government-approved investments. In this case, I agree with Mark that there is a potential for institutions to scam people, but only as a result of government restrictions on investment choices - and hence competition. Whatever argument the opponents of reform bring up, ultimately it boils down to the fact that the private accounts can't be worse than the status quo. We have to endure the pain that results from past generations' folly. It is amazing that smart people like Mark Cuban still don't realize this.

Hillary's new look

2004-12-15T11:44:00.000-06:00

A number of people, including Tony Blankley, have recently commented on Hillary Clinton's divide-and-conquer strategy on immigration reform. To set herself up for a presidential run in 2008, she is talking tough on border security and illegal immigration in an effort to peel off disgruntled conservatives. While I'm all for her efforts, regardless of motivation, I question whether she would actually be willing or able to follow through on them. I also question whether she could win. Ayn Rand would probably question whether she should win.

I suppose the question of whether she can win boils down to whether or not she wins more votes from conservatives than she loses from liberals/Hispanics alienated by her policy. Pat Buchanan would probably vote for her, but he only polled at <1% last time he ran. Hillary has obviously done her math, but the answer is not superficially obvious. Is this just an election ploy to capitalize on conservative anger at Bush or does she expect to cause a real shift in constituencies, possibly fragmenting the Republican coalition?

Bum evicted from makeshift house

2004-12-14T09:39:00.000-06:00

A bum was evicted from his makeshift house under a bridge on Lake Shore Drive. Apparently he had a TV, microwave, and PlayStation in there, hooked up to the bridge electrical system. This is a start; now the police should evict all the bums (excuse me, the politically correct term is "StreetWise distribution centers") from Chicago.

Murder rate is down

2004-12-13T13:41:00.000-06:00

The FBI reports that the nationwide murder rates are decreasing again after increasing for a few years. I've superimposed the year-over-year percent change in murder rates on a graph of the DOW (from Yahoo):

It seems that the murder rate was increasing when the market was tanking, and vice versa. Cause or coincidence?

Pro-censorship activists threaten FCC with audit

2004-12-13T10:02:00.000-06:00

Unsatisfied with increasing TV censorship from the FCC, the Parents Television Council is threatening the FCC with a Congressional audit in retaliation for a supposedly inaccurate complaint count. In case you didn't know, 99.9% of the indecency complaints to the FCC came from the PTC. The PTC points out that these complaints come from individuals via PTC, not the PTC itself. In a statement reminiscient of an election recount, the PTC says:

“The FCC needs to count each and every complaint, regardless if the majority complaining are PTC members. ..." Even though the PTC is technically right, so is the FCC. Go to the PTC web site and you'll see a "File an FCC Complaint" button on the right. It's an easy, no-cost channel for professional complainers. How many of these complaints are frivolous? How many are fake or duplicates (only an email address is used for authentication)? The PTC is clearly using their activist base to spam the FCC via their web site. Their complaint statistics are completely worthless.

Do insurgent attacks risk delaying Iraq elections?

2004-12-11T05:26:00.000-06:00

As the time for the Iraqi elections approaches, the insurgency is stepping up its attacks on security forces and civilians. Many observers expect the level of violence to continue increasing up to the elections.

The Tradesports contract for Iraqi elections by 1/31/05 is currently at 84. I'm wondering to what extent discrete, spectacular attacks (as opposed to sustained, low-level violence) may cause temporary shocks in the contract market.

My gut reaction is that the contract is undervalued because everyone is already expecting escalating violence. However, this expectation will cause US and Iraqi forces to be especially vigilant in the coming month, thus decreasing the chance of successful attacks (at least relative to common perception).

A similar expectation of insurgent violence existed before the Afghan elections, but there were no significant disruptions on election day. If the same logic holds for the Iraq elections, it may be a good idea to buy the elections contract.

CBS: Blogs don't have free speech rights

2004-12-10T13:32:00.000-06:00

From our good friends at CBS News:

Internet blogs are providing a new and unregulated medium for politically motivated attacks. With the same First Amendment protections as newspapers, blogs are increasingly gaining influence. Huh? Notice how blogs and newspapers are differentiated, implying that blogs don't or shouldn't have the same First Amendments protections. For clarification, the First Amendment goes something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; Notice that by using the unnecessary modifier "unregulated", the author implicitly advocates government regulation of blogs. Why should blogs be regulated, you ask? Instead of reasoned argumentation, the author uses rhetoric and allusion to demonize blogs. According to him, blogs are responsible for "attacks" (read: violence) and are "gaining influence" (read: corruption). Elsewhere in the article, blogs are a "telling harbinger" of "dirty tricks".

Kind of ironic, given his apparent aversion to "politically motivated attacks", don't you think?

In Soviet Russia, the criminals sue the victims

2004-12-10T10:13:00.000-06:00

Not Soviet Russia, but ironically, Britain.

A great day for civil rights

2004-12-10T09:26:00.000-06:00

A progressive city overturns a ban on mixing the races.

Kofi should not resign

2004-12-10T09:12:00.000-06:00

A number of conservative and libertarian commentators have suggested that Kofi Annan should resign his post at the UN in light of a number of scandals, including his son's apparent involvement in the Iraq oil-for-food bribery scheme. However, I agree with Pat Buchanan's take on this one: Kofi should not resign from the UN - the US should resign from the UN.

Let Kofi stay and continue to show Americans what a cesspool of corruption and hypocrisy the UN is. Let the UN continue to be delegitimized in the eyes of the world. At least next time we won't hear as loudly from our media about the necessity of the "international community" to give us permission to defend ourselves.

Sailor refuses to serve in Iraq war

2004-12-09T09:34:00.000-06:00

Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes refused to board his ship when it sailed to Iraq on Monday morning, because of "philosophical" opposition to the Iraq war.

Paredes had planned to publicly throw his military I.D. into the ocean to underscore his stand against the war. But yesterday, he changed his mind after learning that he could be charged with destruction of government property. I wonder if he minds being charged with desertion.

Darwin would have something to say

2004-12-09T01:01:00.000-06:00

BBC News warns men that frequent laptop use could damage fertility. I don't know about most people, but I never actually balance my laptop on my lap.

Fraudsters issued fake diplomas online

2004-12-08T08:55:00.000-06:00

phillyBurbs reports on a couple of brothers who are being charged with fraudulently issuing diplomas online, among other alleged fraud. Most likely, this will get billed in the national press as another instace of online diploma mills issuing "fake" diplomas. The phillyBurbs headline reads "Online university that gave cat diploma sued for fraud", even though no online university was involved. This was outright fraud.

This kind of reporting, which does not unambiguously differentiate between fraudsters and real, accredited online universities issuing real diplomas hurts the latter tremendously. The efficacy of online instruction is debatable, but should be evaluated on its own merits, rather than instinctively associated with fraud.

Argentina tax collectors threaten property owners

2004-12-07T22:34:00.000-06:00

Say bye bye to private property and banking secrecy. This will do wonders for Argentina's economy, I'm sure.

US education: bad news

2004-12-07T22:18:00.000-06:00

Corporate America is functionally illiterate in day-to-day business communications.
In other news, the math skills of US students relative to those in other industrialized countries are near the bottom of the heap. Ironically, the US is #2 in education spending.
Ain't u so happy we have public educashun system with lots of $$?

Study claiming Florida voting anomalies debunked

2004-12-07T06:51:00.000-06:00

Wired reports today that a number of poli sci profs have criticized the methods used in a Berkeley study claiming that Bush received an anomalous number of votes in Flordia counties using e-voting machines.

The LaSalle Bank building is on fire

2004-12-06T22:59:00.000-06:00

Here are close up pictures of the LaSalle Bank building, from the Post Office on Dearborn, taken at about 9PM central:
In the early evening, I looked out my window and saw a helicopter hovering in the area of LaSalle and Adams.

I went outside and started walking towards the Target on Roosevelt. As I walked, I realized that more helicopters were starting to show up, but not near the LaSalle Building. There were at least 5 helicopters clearly and systematically searching buildings and terrain south of Adams, both east and west. (The image quality isn't good, just look for a bright spot in the sky where there shouldn't be one.)

I can't figure out why all these helicopters showed up and searched buildings that were in no danger whatsoever from the LaSalle Bank fire. Is this standard procedure? Or did the authorities have some information here that wasn't made publicly available? My first thought was "they might have a tip about a terrorist threat". Anyway, I made a map with the observed helicopter locations (blue dots) relative to the LaSalle Bank building (red star).

Why are objectivists hyping "The Incredibles"?

2004-12-06T07:17:00.000-06:00

I'm somewhat befuddled as to why objectivists seem so enthralled with The Incredibles. I suppose some of it has to do with some press coverage labelling the movie "Randian". It is understandable for objectivists to bask in the national spotlight that so rarely shines on them.

Objectivists seem to be confused by The Incredibles. What underlies their confusion with this movie is their reflexive attempt to fit cultural events into the narrative of Atlas Shrugged. The proper dichotomy should be, they argue, between the strong and the weak, the able and the incompetent. So it is not surprising that they should scratch their heads at a competing narrative: one of special people born with unearned gifts and of regular people who must make do with what they have. One of the regular people dares to rise above his station through hard work and innovation. As did Prometheus (an Ayn Rand favorite), this rogue attempts to bring the “fire of the gods” to man by means of a technology that gives everyone the Incredibles’ powers. For his impertinence, he is labelled a villain.

Now, I'm not arguing that Syndrome is not the villain - he is. That is how the writers have presented him, but that's not the point. The moral message of the movie lies beneath the superficialities of presentation, in the fundamental traits of its characters. Given their complaints about the false choice presented in this movie, one would expect objectivists to remain neutral in judging it on moral grounds. But, disturbingly, they are not. It's disturbing because, in a choice between a self-made innovator and a hero with innate powers, they side with the "hero". Instead of praising the American spirit of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, they engage in royalty- and god-worship. Anyone familiar with objectivism would find this sickeningly ironic.

Who's reading TownHall.com?

2004-12-05T03:48:00.000-06:00

That's what I want to know. Their featured advertisement today reads "Secrets Of Millionaire Conservatives Revealed", so I decided to take a peek out of curiosity. It turns out to be Mike Litman promoting some new book that claims to change lazy procrastinators into overnight (or 30-day) successes by giving them the "secrets" of the rich. Notable quotables:

"just reading of the table of contents would be enough to shake the laziest person alive from their deepest slumber."

"Look, no one knows more than me that some people hate to read. I hear you. So what I’ve done is give you my personal study guide to “The Power of Concentration.”"

"You’ll get 3 powerful Mp3’s from me ... to change your life."

"I don’t care if your teachers told your parents you were as dumb as an ox, you’ll know what to do."

"I’m also going to include a free mystery CD that will excite and inspire you..."

Review: Paycheck

2004-12-04T06:21:00.000-06:00

Movie: Paycheck (2003)
My Rating: Thumbs Down

I was expecting something in the vein of The Bourne Identity / The Butterfly Effect / Memento, but it ranks, at best, as a cheap imitation, fit for Saturday afternoon TV. The movie was just bad quality - the dialogue, the plot, the science, you name it - and it really did feel like I was watching an extended episode of The Outer Limits (but much worse). My gripes, among many others:

1. Why does Ben Affleck have to be a genius engineer AND a buff staff-wielding fighter? It's so nonsensical and gratuitous. He doesn't even use his fighting skills, except once at the end.

2. Shorty (Paul Giamatti) is a non-character. Ugly Uma likewise has but a thin veneer of personality. Come to think of it, all the characters, including Ben Affleck's, are completely undeveloped.

3. The inconsistencies due to seeing the future are especially bad. For example, why didn't Michael simply destroy the machine from the inside when he had access to it, instead of setting up an elaborate movie-like plot which could easily be disrupted (remember, the future CAN be changed)?

Don't waste your time on this junk.

Friday night stroll-blogging

2004-12-03T21:10:00.000-06:00

Despite the 35 degree weather, I decided to take a stroll through downtown. I stopped by the Christkindlmarket which is a German-themed open-air market with crafts and food. The shops were nice and pretty; each one was supposed to represent some town in Germany. There were a few stragglers though: one selling African crafts and another purveying Himalayan chai.

I then headed over to Borders on Randolph and glanced through the pop investment section. I compared The One Minute Millionaire: The Enlightened Way to Wealth with The Automatic Millionaire : A Powerful One-Step Plan to Live and Finish Rich. On one hand, the "automatic" system is clearly faster than the "one minute" system. On the other hand, a minute is not very long, and I'd rather be "enlightened" than "powerful". The decision burdened me so much, I decided to forsake my millions and head home.

On the way back, some guy was playing great music on his sax. I asked him what it was, but couldn't make heads or tails of the jumble he spat out. Further down, I ran into a bum who accosted me because his third shoe was too big for his feet. I agreed with him - the shoe was at least two sizes too big for him. Finally, I got back to the relative quiet of Printer's Row, which is nicely decorated for Christmas.

Google business model in trouble

2004-12-03T14:05:00.000-06:00

People have noticed before that Google faces a challenge with fraudulent clicks in its pay-per-click ad model. CNN/Money reports that the problem is much bigger than anyone thought and is potentially life-threatening for Google. We've known that AdSense is being exploited via publishers clicking on their own ads to generate revenue. AdSense is only part of Google's business though. The real menace, which is growing as we speak, is people expoiting the Google search ads, as an offensive weapon against competitors (i.e., I click on your ads to force you to pay money for no leads).

This situation puts Google's entire business model at risk. One problem is that Google actually benefits from this fraud. They know that a system which rigorously measures actual interest in the advertiser's product would generate but a small fraction of their current revenue. It's only because of recent media attention that they're even addressing this issue. This conflict of interest is paralyzing them from enacting real solutions.

Even if Google acts decisively, the financial incentive to commit fraud is great and its cost is very low due to easy automation. There are already third party services out there claiming to detect click fraud, but there are a couple of problems with them:
1. They are worthless unless Google agrees that fraud was actually committed.
2. Clickers will find workarounds because the incentive is enormous. The clickers/anti-clickers will get into a tit-for-tat dialectic, just like the spammers/anti-spammers do now.

My feeling is that as click fraud gets more attention, Google and major advertisers will make half-hearted attempts to solve it. When these half-measures fail to stem the tide of click fraud, advertisers will lose confidence in the system and bail out en masse. I haven't studied how this could impact their stock price, but I have a feeling investors don't fully appreciate the disasterous potential here.

The future of manufacturing

2004-12-03T01:14:00.000-06:00

I was reading a nanotech article on TechCentralStation and started thinking about the future of manufacturing. I can see three potential futures. The real one may be some sort of synthesis, or the application of each in different domains, or the overall dominance of one over the others.

1. Assembly - this is the current manufacturing method, which has been used for centuries. It is a reductionist method: break up the system you want to build into component parts. Build those first, then put them together.

2. Digital printing - like the 3D printers today, except many times larger, faster, higher resolution, and using a wide variety of materials.

3. Self-organizing nanobots - simple little machines that do one task repetitively. Put a bunch of these suckers together (say, millions) and you've got yourself a ginormous workforce. The problem with this method is providing these drones with the intelligence to work in a context larger than their local environment. For example, a bot may know to join two molecules together, but it has no idea it's building a car.

Back-to-back two-term prez are rare

2004-12-02T07:27:00.000-06:00

On November 2, G.W. Bush assured himself eight years in office, on the heels of his predecessor's eight-year presidency. How common are back-to-back two-term presidencies? Not very. Besides the present day, it has happened in only two other time periods in American history. Each time, there were in fact three consecutive multi-term presidencies (FDR had 12 years). The first period was 1801-1825; the second was 1933-1961.

Number	Name	From	To	Party	Years
3	Thomas Jefferson	1801	1809	Democratic-Republican	8
4	James Madison	1809	1817	Democratic-Republican	8
5	James Monroe	1817	1825	Democratic-Republican	8
32	Franklin Delano Roosevelt	1933	1945	Democrat	12
33	Harry S. Truman	1945	1953	Democrat	8
34	Dwight David Eisenhower	1953	1961	Republican	8

It would be interesting to figure out what is common between these three time periods in our history. What factors fueled the need for political continuity (or conversely, what kinds of events were brought about by extended political continuity)? War is an obvious one - the war of 1812, WWII, and the current war on terror. There may be more fundamental things going on as well.

UPDATE: Even though Truman served for eight years, he was not elected twice (taking over from FDR in 1945). If we only include re-elected presidents, we're left with the 1801-1825 period. If we include continuity of administration due to death/resignation, we also have:

Lincoln/A.Johnson 1861 1869
U. S. Grant 1869 1877
JFK LBJ 1961 1969
R. Nixon/G. Ford 1969 1977