You already knew he had the best anti-earmark position.
It says here he outscores H. Clinton or Obama on free trade issues.
Virginia Postrel is still skeptical about him as a person.
If we've learned anything from the current administration, it's that "stubbornness, and loyalty" can produce some bad results, and might be antithetical to democracy. Honor and honesty, however, are nonpareil (if you prefer, "second to none").
You might say McCain lacks a coherent ideological platform (oh, weird conspiracy theory of the week: that McCain will purposefully nominate Supreme Court justices who would pretend that McCain-Feingold isn't unconstitutional; see Kausfiles, et al, where the evidence -- ironically -- is that he goes out of his way not to promise ideological purity among his nominees). I think he has just enough of one. It's more "national greatness" and less libertarianism than I'd prefer, but it works for me.
If he wants to have a bully pulpit, he has it. But unlike some of the nanny state people out there, he doesn't strike me as a president who'd take office with an ambitious legislative agenda. He can't sign bills that Congress didn't already pass, and is relatively unlikely to abuse executive orders.
How do you think we got from subsistence agriculture to super-cheap food? By mandates?
--Tyler Cowen, in a post whose main function is to cite, approvingly, a health care economist who advises Obama.
Briton jailed four years in Dubai for a speck of cannabis on the tread of his shoe.
The ensuing Fark thread somehow manages to claim that Amerika [sic] is worse. (Search for the username King Something.)
Even apart from some people's astonishing inability to sort things along a continuum, it occurs to me that, unlike the guy in the Dubai jail, anyone currently in the U.S. is free to leave. Anyone not currently in this country is free never to come here, if that's how you happen to feel.
Vote with your feet. We'll all be better off.
This is a very well-thought-out post about issues that transcend party affiliation.
So on a first order, one of the most important issues to me is effective pursuit of the war on terrorists, and keeping our freedom here and around the world. That I was about to write "aggressive pursuit," if anything, brings this next point into great relief:
I think it's reasonable to assume that John McCain would make the best commander-in-chief of the presidential candidates who were still viable as of Super Tuesday. The conservatives who disagree with this notion tend to be people who see some of McCain's opinions about the correct way to go about this (for example, his outspoken opposition to torture), and who go on to confuse bugs with features.
(The sharp expansion of executive power, the whole Guantanamo situation, and so on, are at best necessary evils, where the word "necessary" might be even more debatable than the word "evil.")
With the very notable exception of campaign finance reform*, of all the issues where McCain sharply disagrees with conservative orthodoxy, I have trouble thinking of one where he's the wrongheaded one. (Maybe immigration -- I think his heart's in the right place, but I think no bill at all is better than any reform bill I've seen to date.)
*- There's a good chance Brian disagrees, inasmuch as he's been a big fan in the past of Russ Feingold.
Whale of a good YouTube clip here.
(See, this is what Bill Simmons is good for.)
Happy mediums do exist; you of all people should realize this, given some of the well-thought-out pieces you've written about issues other than whatever your hot button was at the time.
Politicians obviously don't need to "pander to" Hispanics to win their support, but there's a big difference between giving up the store and the "y'all wetbacks go back where you came from NOW" undercurrent of so much enforcement-first rhetoric.
Kaus-specific digression: This is a hilarious irony.
Modest proposal, not obviously related to Kaus: I would love to offer every "undocumented" immigrant this opportunity. Take the equivalent of a high school graduation test (this one for example). In English, of course. If you pass... instant citizenship. If you fail... detain and deport.
Feel free to explain why that would fail miserably.
"Boy, these airlines will do anything to get your money, like charge you for labor and services."
--The Onion, man on the street, about United's $25 surcharge for a second checked bag.
I'm already breathless in anticipation of "World Leaders Gather To Roast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" (will get to it later)
"We pay you to play!"
(Tag line is slightly misleading, as full truth would be "We usually pay you to play.")
A negative-sum (to the customer), but fun, game based on the structure I set out in the extended entry below.
$5 lottery ticket, with a greater than 70%(!) chance at cash back. Six digits, color-coded to emphasize that order is relevant, so a million values that are equally likely to come up.
Six air machines in sequence, each with 10 balls labeled 0-9.
1. Draw a grand jackpot number (one ball per machine)
2. Without replacing, now draw a "little jackpot number": one ball from each of the first four machines
3. Without replacing, now draw a last-chance combo: one ball from each of the first two machines
DOLLAR RIDE: If the first digit of your ticket does not match the first digit of any of those three prize numbers, then your ticket is redeemable for both $1 and a new ticket (randomly generated number) in the next drawing. (This will be true of 700K of the million possible ticket #s.)
TEN-DOLLAR RIDE: If your first two digits match the last-chance combo then your ticket is redeemable for both $10 and a new ticket (randomly generated number) in the next drawing. (This will be true of 10K of the million possible ticket #s.)
$500 PRIZE: If your first four digits match the "little jackpot number," your ticket is redeemable for $500. (This will be true of 100 of the million possible ticket #s.)
$25K PRIZE: If your first five digits (but not the last digit) match the first five digits of the grand jackpot number, then your ticket is redeemable for $25,000. (9 in 1M)
$250K GRAND PRIZE: If all six of your digits match the grand jackpot number then you win $250K (1 in 1M).
According to Excel, this would be a 12.5-cent expected profit per purchased ticket sold if the first two prizes were $6 and $15 rather than {$1 + ticket} and {$10 + ticket}. Since most of the winnings are awarded as tickets rather than cash, the actual expected profit per purchased ticket is an exercise for the reader.
Note that you have a 16.8% chance of getting the "Dollar Ride" five times in a row (bringing your net outlay back to zero, for a literal freeroll).
Suppose you were required to play a zero-sum game, but could choose whatever probabilities and payouts you wanted, so long as the expected cash value came out to zero. (If necessary, assume "the banker" has infinite resources.)
It's a loaded question because people play games for the game content as much as (more than?) the payout (especially if the EV is 0!). For example, you could choose up to eight rounds of reverse Martingaling -- start by betting $1 even money; if you lose, you finish down $1; if you win, you double your bet. 255/256 chance of -1, 1/256 chance of +255. The fun there is in the sequence more than the exact odds. Despite all that, it might be simpler to focus on odds/payout until you find a fantastic game that simulates those.
Mind, a lot of people are so cash risk-averse that their answer would be "play some fun game with play money and guarantee a cash outcome of exactly zero." That's fine too.
An interesting related question: How would your answer change if the expect cash value had to be a loss of one dollar? Would it just be the same answer as before, with a $1 surcharge tacked on all outcomes, or would it be different?
If the payout has to be zero and the game structure is ceteris parabus, then I think I'd require three things from the ideal version of all this:
1. A tiny chance of a huge payoff
2. A cap on my losses
3. A greater likelihood of winning than losing
Given all that, a quick and dirty approximation that works out correctly: Consider one million possible outcomes (for example, six lottery popcorn machines, each with the ten digit balls).
BIG MONEY: One in a million apiece for $256K, $128K, $64K, $32K, $16K, $8K, $4K, $2K. That's eight outcomes down, $510K. Add 40 more ways to win $1K, so we're at 48 outcomes $550K. Add two break-evens to make the math rounder.
ALMOST BIG MONEY: Add 500 payouts of $100 each. Now we're at 550 outcomes, $600K.
SMALL MONEY: Add 10,000 payouts of $10 each. Now we're at 10,550 outcomes, $700K.
MORE ROUNDING: Add 89,450 break-evens so we're at 100K outcomes, $700K. We need 900K outcomes totaling -$700K, which is an even multiple of nine outcomes totaling -7.
THE MEAT OF THE GAME: 600K outcomes of +$1, 200K outcomes of -$4, 100K outcomes of -$5.
Revisiting my requirements above:
1. More than a 1 in 100K chance of winning at least a thousand, in fact a shot at 256K!
2. Maximum possible loss per game of $5.
3. 60% chance of winning exactly one dollar.
This article about Imposter Syndrome is interesting at first -- there have been specific contexts in my work career where I've identified -- but the sample questions they give don't seem to measure what I think of as Imposter Syndrome.
At times, I feel my success has been due to some kind of luck
Hasn't everyone's? It would represent an entirely different set of neuroses not to realize this, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge it.
I can give the impression that I’m more competent than I really am
That's just being a good presenter.
If I’m to receive a promotion of some kind, I hesitate to tell others until it’s an accomplished fact
That's just being a good Jew, and not counting your chickens...
You're f'n kidding me. I don't know where to begin.
UPDATE: To be more precise, Hillary by 24 in the state where I grew up and by 16 in the state where I live now?
Huckabee to a lesser extent, but this is more about the Dem race.
If you insist on using buzzwords, at least pick ones with some bearing on reality.
"Unfortunately, this is what Sen. McCain's inside Washington ways look like: He cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Gov. Romney's campaign of conservative change."
"Spend"? Not so much.
"Conservative change." Whether that makes sense is an exercise for the reader.
"He was a man who demanded discipline while often exhibiting none himself."
--Tim Keown on Bobby Knight
"Not everyone can take a step back and say, 'Wow, I’m an a**hole and it is hurting my ability to get the most from my employees. I need to change.' — and then actually change, and succeed."
--Aaron Schatz on Tom Coughlin (obscenity obfuscation in original)
Middle school issues ban on intentional flatulence.
This Volokh Conspiracy post links to another post suggesting that a McCain presidency would be worse than a {H. Clinton, Obama} presidency, partly because voters might subsequently blame bad policies on Democrats rather than Republicans.
You know what I hate most about that line of argument? Four years is a really really really really really long time. The specific issues this country faces, and the facts on the ground, will change so much in that time.
The underlying principles may stay the same, but for that very reason do you really want to see four years of so-much-worse policies just so that you're, say, 20% more likely to see the president after that be someone closer to your ideal? The discount rate that implies can't be too far above zero. (Maybe even negative?)
Rachel Lucas made a similar point a few days ago, quite a bit more colorfully than I would have. (I don't think I'd go quite as far as she goes, either, but you get the general idea. I'm squishy that way.)
Incidentally, every time a group of peace activists gives massive love to Obama, I get a bit more uneasy. (That might be why on Facebook today I decided to become a "fan" of McCain.)
And the best one of all, I didn't even know existed until today (when did it air?).
5. The Dalmatian trains the Clydesdale. I make no apologies about enjoying this sap.
4. Charles Barkley wears out his welcome. A great twist on a running ad theme.
3. Giant carrier pigeons.
2. Will Farrell as an old-time basketball player pitchman
1. Underdog vs. Stewie
(I was also partial to the ad with Bill Frist and James Carville, shameless whores though they may be. Maybe this is knee-jerk brand loyalty but weren't both of those ads light years ahead of either the "Night at the Roxbury" tribute or the "let's keep hitting Justin Timberlake in the crotch"?)
The title of this post wouldn't necessarily be the most creative taunt, but it popped into my head while reading the last paragraph or two of this column.
(The "things a New York fan would say to taunt a Boston fan" convergence should be obvious enough.)
As you know, every January when each NFL team's opponent list becomes known, I try to find an easy way to devise a plausible full schedule (Weeks 1-17) for the next season, where plausibility includes which games are on national TV.
(Among other things this involves avoiding any TV-rule impossibilities or stadium impossibilities with the Giants/Jets or Raiders/49ers. Also, I say no team should play three straight road games or three straight home games, even though the NFL itself has been very lax about that of late.)
The one that I posted just over a week ago assumed that New England would win the Super Bowl. In principle the fix is easy: in Week 1 move PIT@NE from Thursday (season opener) to Sunday night, IND@CLE from Sunday night to Monday night, SEA@NYG from Monday night to Thursday. Then again maybe that creates some cascade effect of things being not quite as good as they could be.
Anyway, I'd assumed all this time that New England would need a Week 1 home game against a TV-worthy opponent. If that's not the case, then the schedule can easily be improved. (And even factor in that we already know that San Diego vs. New Orleans will be in England, whichever week it was announced to be.) New and improved weeks 1 and 2 after the jump, as worked out in my head in the car on the way to work.
(Don't expect anything further. The next steps would be some very easy Sudoku-style work, but then annoying futzing with bye weeks (since I still haven't found an elegant way to work that out), and even more annoying futzing with which of a given week's games belong on national TV.)
(CBS/Fox games in roughly descending order of what % of the U.S. see them)
Week 1 (Fox doubleheader)
NBC Thursday
Dallas at NY Giants
CBS early games
Cleveland at Buffalo
Houston at Pittsburgh
Jacksonville at Cincinnati
Tennessee at Kansas City
Oakland at Baltimore
Miami at St. Louis
Fox early games
Detroit at Green Bay
Arizona at NY Jets
Atlanta at Minnesota
(no CBS late games because of U.S. Open tennis, as every NFL Week 1)
Fox late games
Philadelphia at Washington
Chicago at Carolina
New Orleans at Denver
NBC Sunday
New England at Indianapolis
ESPN Monday
San Diego at Tampa Bay
Seattle at San Francisco
Week 2 (CBS doubleheader)
Fox early games
NY Giants at Philadelphia
Washington at Dallas
Tampa Bay at Detroit
Minnesota at Chicago
San Francisco at Miami
CBS early games
Indianapolis at Tennessee
Baltimore at Cleveland
Denver at Atlanta
Cincinnati at Houston
Fox late games
Carolina at San Diego
St. Louis at Arizona
CBS late games
Buffalo at New England
NY Jets at Seattle
Kansas City at Oakland
NBC Sunday
Pittsburgh at Jacksonville
ESPN Monday
Green Bay at New Orleans
P.S. For informational purposes only (to be published only in the event of a win). Tough luck if you pre-ordered it.
Bud Light "ability to breathe fire" + allergic to cats: Not bad. Pretty much what Bud Light's first ad should be, but no better. B
Audi's takeoff on The Godfather: Terrible waste of money. Gratuitous screaming = turnoff. I wonder how many people won't even get the reference. F
SalesGenie: I liked it. Go animated Ramesh! B+
Pepsi Max: They had nothing better to do than dig up that song from A Night at the Roxbury? F.
Bud Light wine & cheese. Pretty clever. B+
Shoe commercial: I'm not the target audience. Nothing about it offended me, nor interested me. C.
Bridgestone: WHAT THE HELL IS UP THE SCREAMING in this year's ads??? F.
Doritos: Guitar playing woman. That was the best the user-submitters came up with? D-.
Movie trailer: It is what trailers should be. Movie loks like mindless pleasure. B-
Derek Jeter: It is what celebrity endorsements should be. B+
GoDaddy: Meh. (I didn't bother with the web version.) B
No idea what that fourth ad was. (Incomplete.)
FedEx: gigantic carrier pigeons! A
Cars.com: wtf? C-
Tide: nice premise. Does gibberish count as screaming? Wrong year for this ad I guess. B
Bud: Dalmatian trains Clydesdale. Predictable and sappy but it was what I wanted to see. A-
Movie trailer: Iron Man looks dumber than the previously trailed movie. C-
Toyota badgers: A bit too over the top. B
Leatherheads. Not bad. Funny. B+
Garmin Napoleon. Clever, but the exposition took too long. At least we're in a run of non-terrible ads. B.
Follow your heart: no thank you. C
Dancing lizards: took way too long to identify the product. C+.
Anti-drug PSA. no thank you. But not bad as anti-drug PSAs go. C+.
SUV: meh. C
Bud Light foreigners: F with a vengeance.
Prince Caspian: was what it was. B-
Planters: vomit-inducing. C-
Charles Barkley's phone company: really grew on us! A
Pepsi: now we're down to crotch shots? D-
Doritos' big mouse: not bad. B+
It says here:
California currently has a "modified" closed primary system. SB 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000), relating to primary elections, was chaptered on September 29, 2000 and took effect on January 1, 2001. SB 28 implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permits unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State.
Alas, there's a crucial difference between "declined to state" and "stated a third party." So, barring election fraud (i.e. helpful polling place worker insists on handing me one major-party ballot or the other, as allegedly happened a lot in Florida last week), guess which candidates are available to me Tuesday? Some of them have links to their official sites here.
(Since life is short I'll cut to the point: My big choice would be between George Allyn Root and Alden Link, and would partly depend on whether Link has any plausible shot at the nomination.)
George Phillies gave me a Facebook ad recommending himself specifically as a way to "Vote Against the War." Say no more. (except: how do you get the surname Phillies?! couldn't his ancestors have had the foresight to become Eagles? or even Mets?)
Michael Jingozian wants to "Prosecute the Bush Administration for War Crimes." Next...
Bob Jackson: At first blush I could go for a Business owner, registered professional engineer, Eagle Scout, family man. Nothing here is a deal-breaker, though I admit that "unacceptable economic and social disparity in America caused by creeping socialism" gave me a "Wait, what?" feeling. And here: "Libertarians are for the promotion of maximum freedom for each person. [...] However, I am a Christian and I personally believe that abortion is wrong." A threshold requirement for any presidential candidate should be the ability to present issues cogently without non sequiturs, even if they're brutally disarmingly honest non sequiturs.
According to Daniel Imperato: "My strategy for Iraq is to implement an immediate cease fire, strengthen our troop base, and join with the Arab states for a long-term peace solution." (emphasis added) Is that how it works with insurgents? I didn't get the memo. I don't think anyone would oppose the concept of a ceasefire. Good luck getting nameless, faceless, gutless guerrillas to respect it.
Christine Smith has a blog. Last entry is titled "The Hopelessly Enslaved - Awake!" and begins I received quite a few responses to my recent (Jan. 23) opinion piece "Abolish the Federal Income Tax and replace With Nothing,". Like the incrementalist that I am, here's where I back away slowly.
Robert Milnes (link goes to a text interview, not a candidate site) is a progressive activist from New Jersey who seeks to lead a "Progressive Alliance" campaign, uniting the Libertarian and Green parties. Several passages in that interview led me to realize this isn't quite my guy.
According to the article posted at his web site, Alden Link has a fairly simple idea: Nuclear power for all. I could actually go for that. He also wants to convert the UN Building to a casino. I bet George Allyn Root didn't even think of that! Further research will be needed to see if Link stands any chance of winning the nomination.
Steve Kubby (according to Wikipedia) announced his presidential campaign at Seattle HempFest. Not surprising, since medical marijuana is his signature issue. "Immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq" -- at least he's not actively calling for a ware crimes prosecution.
Dave Hollist needs to look into line spacing. An exercise for the reader is why his idea of "Contract Insurance" is just wrong.
Barry Hess is running for president, yet the top Google hit for his name is his Hess for Governor site? OH, SNAP: He might not be notable enough for Wikipedia.
John Finan: I didn't even need to get any further than the Google Search results page: I would like to offer our nations [sic] assistance to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his aspirations to have a successful nuclear program.
And finally Wayne Allyn Root. Here's his position page, very helpfully targeted to a broader audience who might not already be grounded in libertarianism 101. And Wikipedia reminds me that he already has TV fame as a football picks guy. So for all I know he has a groundswell of support among people angry they can no longer play on-line poker for money.