Month: October 2006

Remembering Cory Lidle

I had another entry written about the plane crash into an apartment building in New York today, but I’m not going to post it now. Critiquing a few government terrorism quotes can wait.

Cory Lidle, the plane’s pilot, played for the Phillies until July 30th. As a phan I watched him pitch during the last couple of years, and grew to appreciate his game. He was never flashy or overwhelming on the mound, but every time he pitched, everyone knew the outcome before the game. He’d inevitably make a quality start, which is six innings or more with three or fewer earned runs. Generally that meant exactly six innings and three runs. He’d win some and lose some that way, as it’s not dominant, but he almost always kept his team in the game. He was a solid pitcher.

I last saw him pitch against the Blue Jays in Toronto on July 1st. I joked ahead of time that he’d give up three runs in six innings. Through five, he’d pitched a shutout, and I was “worried” that I wouldn’t be prophetic. Lidle didn’t disappoint. With one out, he gave up two quick home runs to plate three runs. He took care of the final two batters with ease. Six innings, three runs. He was automatic. It might seem like I’m putting him down, but I intend that as a compliment. Baseball is a game of uncertainty. That little extra certainty lets his teammates know what they need to accomplish.

He didn’t leave Philadelphia on the best terms, but I never cared about the politics of his team dynamic with the Phillies. That was for those directly involved to worry about. As a phan, I could only value what happened on the field. I liked him enough given his performance that I’d hoped the Phillies could keep him. (He would’ve been a free agent after the World Series.) Brian Cashman, General Manager of the Yankees, demanded Lidle to complete the trade for Bobby Abreu with the Phillies. Needing to trade Abreu for salary reasons, the Phillies agreed. That, I think, speaks most about his abilities.

More thoughts at Beer Leaguer and Balls, Sticks, & Stuff

Who knew that leveraging personal assets can be bad?

From Robert Samuelson’s column in today’s Washington Post:

We are at the endgame for housing. Until recently our national motto has been “In real estate we trust.” Just last week the Census Bureau reported that median home prices after inflation rose 32 percent from 2000 to 2005. In some places, the gains were huge: 127 percent in San Diego, 110 percent in Los Angeles and 79 percent in New York. But real estate — which has acted as a national piggy bank, with homeowners borrowing and spending against rising house prices — no longer looks so trustworthy. On this, more than on falling oil prices or a record Dow, hangs the economy’s immediate fate.

Americans used real estate as a national credit card, not a national piggy bank. I don’t like it because it hurts the value of my home through the cumulative effect, but anyone stupid enough to borrow and spend against rising house prices will see no sympathy from me now that the market is finished with this boom. Some expenditures are necessary and probably unforeseen, but many are not. Until sold, though, no home provides any guaranteed value. Homeowners have one house, not $500,000.

As an example, I want an Xbox 360. Standing in my way, my current employment contract expires at the end of the year. I fully expect to have a new contract in place in time to avoid a revenue disruption, but until then, I’ll settle for a frustrating case of adolescent pining. Even when Call of Duty 3 arrives in stores next month, I’ll have to settle for standard definition instead of high definition. That’s if I purchase the game before securing a new contract.

The rest of Mr. Samuelson’s column is reasonable.

Defending the intrusive with the obvious

From the Department of Duh comes this study:

A Scottish study looking at the changes in bar workers’ health before and after a smoking ban finds that the reduction in second-hand smoke improved the workers’ lung function, reduced the amount of nicotine in their systems, and reduced their inflammation levels. According to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, both asthmatic and non-asthmatic workers benefited from the smoke-free working environment, and improvements in health measured occurred in as little as one month’s time.

Who is surprised by this? Less exposure to smoke reduces nicotine and improves lung function. Shocking. And useless. All this does is suggest that, if people value healthier lung function over activities where second-hand smoke exists, they won’t expose themselves to second-hand smoke environments. But we knew that. And by “we,” I mean people who have a fair understanding of property rights and free will. The public policy implication should be zippy.

Will the Decider be a Vetoer?

Hey, guess what? Republicans are economic geniuses. The deficit is down! Of course, it still exists, so there isn’t really much to be happy about. But I’ll let the president bask in his fantasy world:

During his news conference, Bush predicted that the Republicans would maintain control of both the House and the Senate in part because of Democrats’ stand on taxes.

“There’s a difference of opinion in the campaign about taxes,” Bush said. “I would like to … make the tax cuts permanent. And the Democrats will raise taxes.”

President Bush is lying, or at least delusional, if he thinks his actions as president will lead to permanent tax cuts. Trillions in unfunded liabilities means there will be a tax increase coming. Just because it doesn’t happen while he occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not mean he did not raise taxes. That doesn’t mean I think Democrats are correct to want to raise taxes (“only” on the “rich”). They’re not, even though they’ll try, because slashing spending is much more immediate, with more predictable results. But with two sides of the budget problem, spending and revenue, focusing on one, however misguided, is better than focusing on neither.

My recommendation? The president should say I told you so when tax increases land on his desk in 2007 as he stamps a veto on the legislation. Rinse and repeat every time the Congress sends the same tax hike his way. Mmmmm, gridlock.

Predisposed to agreement does not dismiss reason

I haven’t read John Grisham’s new book, The Innocent Man, so I make no claims about its accuracy or value. As an opponent of capital punishment, though, I’m definitely biased to support Mr. Grisham’s goal. That sparked my interest for this review of the book. It’s not positive, mostly discussing how the book is a polemic. The review seems fair, so I’m willing to assume it’s accurate. Still, the conclusion reaches too far in its assumption:

The one-sidedness of “The Innocent Man” is a shame, for two reasons. First, because it feeds the popular perception–nurtured by Hollywood and the news media–that death rows are teeming with wrongfully convicted men who just await DNA testing to set them free. Second, by skewing his tale, Mr. Grisham missed an opportunity to tell a well-rounded and perhaps more interesting story than the one he delivers. The author is not a journalist, and it shows: He doesn’t maintain even a pretense of detached reporting. He didn’t attempt to get Mr. Peterson’s side of the story, though hearing from the supposedly irresponsible prosecutor might have been illuminating. Indeed, Mr. Grisham seems to have given a wide berth not only to prosecutors but also to the police and even to the judge in Mr. Williamson’s trial.

Opponents of capital punishment will point to “The Innocent Man” as vindication of their views, but it’s not clear that their cause, in the end, is well served by Mr. Grisham’s heavy-handed proselytizing. The freeing of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz was the result of the legal system’s checks and balances; it is characterized by Mr. Grisham as a lucky fluke in the never-ending battle between plucky defense attorneys and bloodthirsty prosecutors. While that outlook might make for fiction that readers just can’t put down, it misses the fact that in the real world of complicated heroes and villains, life does not imitate art.

I have faith in the justice system, as it’s designed. If I didn’t, the battle against capital punishment wouldn’t be worth fighting. It’s important to secure the foundation before decorating the penthouse. Nor do I believe that the death row is teeming with wrongfully convicted men. I do believe, however, that the possibility of one innocent man is enough to justify sparing everyone from the harshest punishment.

The reviewer is correct to scold anyone who reads too many generalizations into the story as told by Mr. Grisham. However, someone should make that generalization before being scolded. To imagine that capital punishment opponents will leap to that conclusion is to make the same generalization.

Today is showing a clear theme

I’m fascinated by Liberty Dollars. From today’s Washington Post:

Liberty Dollars were coined by von NotHaus and an Evansville, Ind.-based group called Norfed, which stands for (sort of) the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code. In the late 1990s, the group began hawking its money as a hedge against inflation, and as a way to compete with the Fed. Von NotHaus makes the pitch online, using a raft of statistics and graphs that he says show the greenback is well nigh worthless.

I’ve read about them before, and understand the basic idea that the greenback is worthless. It’s a crock for reasons beyond what I’m interested in talking about here, so I’m content to accept that those who use Liberty Dollars are kooky. If merchants want to accept them as payment, that’s between the merchant and the customer. If a merchant refuses to accept them, that’s also between the merchant and the customer. Either way, the basis of commerce is something of value for something of value. Trade is good, and I’m not judge of what someone else considers good.

Our government’s position is that Liberty Dollars are Bad&#153. I think it’s over-reacting, considering no legitimate crime has been committed. I’m just surprised that the U.S. Mint didn’t invoke the children who might try to buy bubble gum with Liberty Dollars:

The U.S. Mint acted after federal prosecutors around the country began forwarding inquiries about the coins. “We don’t take these consumer alerts lightly,” said spokeswoman Becky Bailey. “Merchants and banks are confronted by confused customers demanding they accept Liberty Dollars. These are not legal coin.”

As I said, merchants and banks are free and capable to say no when confronted with Liberty Dollars. If they, or individuals, choose to accept them, that says more about our need for economics education than any indication of criminal activity. Prosecuting those who create and/or use Liberty Dollars is nothing more than a meddlesome trade restraint.

Post Script: Government shouldn’t provide that education, since education isn’t a legitimate function. But since it is our education provider, couldn’t we make a case that government is responsible for this? It won’t teach economics to everyone it educates, but it expects everyone to behave correctly. That’s a system with failure as the logical outcome.

More thoughts at defcon:blog

If you can’t decipher a calendar, please don’t vote.

The opening to a story about declining gas prices seems reasonable enough:

Pump prices — now at a national average of $2.28 a gallon for regular unleaded — already have fallen because of a slowdown in U.S. demand, a buildup in crude oil and gasoline inventories, the end of the summer driving season, a collapse in profit margins at oil refineries and a $17-a-barrel drop in crude oil prices since August.

Forget the journalist’s rambling list of causes, since the first two, decreased demand and increased supply, are sufficient. The remaining reasons mostly flow from the basic supply and demand argument. That’s not stunning, of course, as economic laws cannot be defeated by wishful thinking, often demonstrated as political grandstanding. That’s what makes this so frustrating:

Three out of 10 Americans think the recent fall in gasoline prices is a result of domestic political factors, including White House and Republican Party efforts to influence the November elections. That’s nearly as many as the 35 percent who attribute the recent price decline to market forces or supply and demand, according to the poll of 1,204 adults conducted from Thursday to Sunday.

The survey also showed that suspicions about the steep drop in gasoline prices over the past two months aren’t limited to the nation’s liberal strongholds. Sixteen percent of people who identified themselves as conservative Republicans, 26 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 29 percent of Southern residents think the plunge in prices is linked to the coming election or other political reasons.

That’s predictable. I was always inclined to agree with arguments for universal economics education as a graduation requirement, but really, the need for that is nowhere more obvious than in the incessant debate on gas prices. This ignorance gets perpetuated in the nonsense our elected leaders spew. The only control the government has in the market is the ability to cause harm or discontinue causing harm. People who wish to deny this are free to do so.

For a moment let’s pretend that the government has this power. If it did, it would work both ways. The government could decrease prices at will to influence elections. It could increase prices to benefit big donors. It could undertake all the nefarious actions people suspect. If it possessed such nonexistent powers, haven’t politicians shown a sufficient lack of scruples that we’d like them to get out of the game altogether? Would it be any surprise that they’re rigging it against us? Of course not.

Back in the real world, though, please remember that government has no such powers, so stop asking. It only drives the rest of us crazy.

Teaching tolerance one ignorant argument at a time

I’d planned to ignore James Taranto and his Best of the Web Today going forward, as his enthusiastic support for torture leaves him unfit to influence my thinking on anything. However, today’s edition is too instructive to withhold commentary. In reporting that Rep. Jim Kolbe knew of Mark Foley’s behavior, Mr. Taranto wrote:

Kolbe is gay, the only GOP House member to have publicly acknowledged homosexuality. And the revelation got us to thinking: We hear a lot about “homophobia,” or fear of homosexuality, but if Foley’s fellow Republicans failed to be alarmed by his “overly friendly” emails, maybe it was because of something more like homo-obliviousness. Most people just don’t think that much about homosexuality.

I know Republicans have a serious case of “homo-obliviousness,” as evidenced by their cries of foul every time the Democrats propose a Constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage. Oh, wait…

When we first read those emails, we found them odd and a bit creepy. But it occurs to us that if a 50-year-old man sent a 16-year-old girl an email asking her to send a picture of herself, that would have set off loud alarm bells and brightly flashing lights. We know how the mind of a heterosexual man works, being in possession of one, and when a guy asks a gal he barely knows for a picture, it means that he has a sexual or romantic interest in her.

It’s quite important to distinguish between the minds straight and gay men, as we all know they’re different. Good grief. I think we all know how the next paragraph will play out.

When a guy asks another guy for a picture, what does it mean? When we stop to think about it, probably the same thing, but it wasn’t obvious to us because it simply isn’t part of our experience. We suspect the same was true of Hastert and other House leaders. Kolbe, on the other hand, because he is gay, probably understood better what Foley was up to and that it wasn’t good.

This is perhaps the dumbest possible defense of Republican leaders in the House. Believing that Rep. Kolbe would be better positioned to understand Mark Foley’s gay mind because he is also gay is offensive. There is no way for Mr. Taranto to wiggle out. Of course, I doubt he cares, as evidenced by this later comment on a story in which Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill refused to dismiss fundraising help from former President Clinton, which she presumably should’ve done because he was also involved in a lying sex scandal. Parroting Ms. McCaskill’s response with his attempt at humor, Mr. Taranto concludes:

… say what you will about Mark Foley, at least you can trust him with your daughter!

I guess this is supposed to be funny, but I’m not laughing. This scandal is about abuses of power rather than some warped notion that one predator being gay means all gays are predators. That the Republican Party and its apologists don’t understand that speaks volumes.

I’m sure his self-defense is sincere

Rep. Chris Cannon made a few comments about the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley. Consider:

“These kids are actually precocious kids,” Cannon, R-Utah, told KSL Radio’s Nightside. “It looks like uh, maybe this one email is a prank where you had a bunch of kids sitting [around] egging this guy on.”
…

“Frankly, this is the responsibility of the parents,” Cannon said. “If you get online you may find people who are creepy. There are creepy people out there who will do and say creepy things. Avoid them. That’s what you have to do. And maybe we can say that a little more to the pages.”

Personally, I don’t find those comments particularly infused with a “blame the victim” mentality. I think he did try to deflect the scandal a bit by highlighting the alleged prank by one of the pages involved, as well as a common sense statement that does little to address the heart of the scandal, i.e., the alleged cover-up. Whatever. Rep. Cannon is a politician, so this sort of non-response is unsurprising. His response to outrage over his original statements wouldn’t be surprising if he backed up his response with his votes on various matters. Consider:

“The point of what I said is that institutions can’t protect kids in a day when you have instant messaging and cell phones that do texting but also take pictures.,” Cannon said in an interview Friday. “Parents need to take some responsibility and teach their kids what to do.”

Perhaps Rep. Chris Cannon could demonstrate his opinion the next time some inane bill comes before the House to protect kids from the dangers of this or that cultural obscenity, a “danger” I suggest is considerably less harmful than the advances of a sexual predator.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan