Steroid humor

Since I blogged about sports scandals NOT involving steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, I thought I should mention this clever take on the steroid issue. CHARLIE BROWN HAS NEVER KNOWINGLY TAKEN STEROIDS. An excerpt:

D.A.: Wah wah-wah wah wah. [You have to read this in the "invisible teacher" voice from the old Peanuts cartoons.]

BROWN: Greenies? Sure, there were amphetamines, but we didn't know they were illegal. Linus said they'd help us play with more pep. We only took them once, and then after the game we went back to my house and everybody started dancing crazy while our catcher played the piano.

It's the incentives, stupid!

One of the lessons I try (and try and try and ...) to get across to my students is that incentives matter. In fact, I think that's THE fundamental concept of economics and I think it explains why economists regularly conduct very good research in areas as diverse as how to field a winning baseball team to how to pick a spouse to why crime rates change over time. Many of these fall outside the conventional view of economics, but they're all simply cases of analyzing incentives. Of course the reverse of "pay attention to incentives" is the "law of unintended consequences". From the folks over at marginal revolution, I've got a couple of recent examples.

First, Fairfax County (VA) officials wanted to reduce motor pool spending. They figured (probably correctly) that there were a lot of folks driving a county car that really didn't need one. So they came up with a plan to determine just who needed a county vehicle.

To eliminate unneeded cars, the county established a minimum annual mileage -- 4,500 -- and told its 11,500 employees and supervisors that any cars with odometers that did not meet that figure would be taken away.

Anyone want to guess what happened? It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist, or even an economist, to predict how workers would respond.

Of all the perks of public service, few are more treasured than the government car. So when the county established 4,500 miles as the annual minimum to determine whether a vehicle could be weeded from its fleet to save money, many employees and managers got creative. Their efforts -- heightened even as gasoline prices soared this year -- are documented in hundreds of e-mails and memos obtained by The Washington Post under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

I'm not surprised at how hard individual employees worked to run up miles, but I was a bit taken aback by some supervisors' actions.

"I understand the difficulty in getting miles when you live so close," reads the Aug. 1 e-mail that vehicle coordinator Ben Coffman sent to Robbins. "There are only so many places you can drive to on a given day! We need to get around 500 miles a month to keep above the minimum . . . a few missed days of driving (going to a class, leave, etc.) could drop your mileage below the minimum."

This is from the vehicle coordinator, a guy I'd assume would be in charge of tracking/enforcing this policy. Geesh!

Then there's an email from the director of another department:

We need to think about scheduling with Tricia to use her vehicle for everything we can think of, so she won't lose it.

Other supervisors constructed elaborate schemes to "trade off" vehicles between employees to make sure the required mileage accumulated on each. That wastes time, but it's not as bad as the schemes to invent reasons to drive vehicles more just to get to the magic number. Remember, all this was occurring during a time of unusually high gas prices!

My favorite part of the article, though, is the bit about the lack of "success" of the new policy. "Last week, board members were surprised to learn that just 11 vehicles were turned in this year." They were surprised? Are they complete dolts? I think they might be because here's their "solution" -- INCREASE THE MINIMUM MILEAGE TO 5000! Any guesses about what will happen if they do?

My second example of ignoring incentives isn't so blatantly stupid, but it did inconvenience me the other day. You've probably heard about new laws restricting the purchase of sinus medicines containing pseudoephedrine (e.g., Sudafed, Tylenol Sinus, etc.). Evidently pseudoephedrine can be used to manufacture crystal meth so the powers that be decided restricting access to pseudoephedrine would help battle the the crystal meth crisis. I don't doubt this to be true, but the powers that be failed to consider the unintended consequences of new laws. Basically if you want to buy a medicine with pseudoephedrine, you now have to get a card from the sinus medicine section of the store and then go get your actual medicine from someone in the pharmacy. Not only do you have to wait for service, but they take your ID and enter your purchase into a statewide (nationwide soon?) tracking system to make sure you haven't exceeded the allowed amount. Given all this hassle, what do you think people have done?

Of course they've started buying sinus meds containing phenylephrine rather than pseudoephedrine. Hmm, customers don't want to go through the hassle of getting pseudoephedrine drugs, so what are drug companies doing? Of course they're switching active ingredients, replacing pseudoephedrine with phenylephrine. That wouldn't be so bad except for this story reporting that phenylephrine doesn't seem to work very well as a decongestant!

Evidently the switch to phenylephrine was justified by a 1976 FDA report that labeled phenylephrine "safe and effective at a 10mg dosage." It turns out, though, that only 4 of the 11 trials (that's 36%) in the study showed phenylephrine to be effective. So, is the FDA looking into phenylephrine's effectiveness? No, because, "The FDA is not aware of any data that refute the 1976 report." That's it. The drug is claimed effective because 36% of trials from 30 years ago said it was good and no one has proven otherwise. Again, geesh! Further, there's some rumbling about phenylephrine's effect on blood pressure -- it was originally developed as a treatment for low blood pressure. I can't wait for that round of lawsuits.

So how did this affect me personally? Well, I'd tried, a couple of times, to get some of the good stuff at Kroger in recent months, but I couldn't get anyone to wait on me at the pharmacy counter. Imagine that, the pharmacists were all busy filling actual prescriptions! Anyway, I'd put off my purchase again and again, but I was desperate the other day. So I waited and waited at the Wal-Mart pharmacy. In the end I stood in line for 5 minutes or so and had to watch some guy enter all my info into the state database just to purchase a $3.20 box of (generic) Sudafed! Starting to see why I'm (almost) a Libertarian?

Scandals

I've kind of gotten used to scandals involving baseball, football, etc. I've even become numb to revelations of unethical behavior in soccer and cycling. It turns out, though, that even the "highest of high" sports are not immune to scandal.

From the world of chess, it seems that Veselin Topalov is suspicious of Vladimir Kramnik's rather frequent need to use the bathroom during their chess match. In a letter/press release, Topalov's people charge:

After each move Mr. Kramnik immediately heads to the rest room and from it directly to the bathroom. During every game he visited the relaxation room 25 times at the average and the bathroom more than 50 times -- the bathroom is the only place without video surveillance.

Evidently there has been some suspicion that chess players may be getting signals from others or somehow accessing computer chess programs during matches to help them adapt their strategies mid-game. Topalov has threatened to withdraw from the match if his concerns are not addressed. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see how this one turns out.

I never would have suspected this from a sport that includes a "tea break", but there's rumbling in the cricket world as well:

Today the International Cricket Council has given the Pakistan captain a four match suspension for "bringing the game into disrepute". During a match in London last month against England the umpires awarded a five run penalty (not such a big deal as this would be in baseball, since at the time Pakistan had already scored over 500 runs in the game) for ball tampering. Essentially, the Pakistani bowlers were being accused of interfering with the ball to make it "reverse swing"- a kind of movement in the air which is highly unusual and difficult to achieve.

Now I'm not a cricket expert, but is it "ball tampering" if you simply use a new bowling technique that produces the right spin (or whatever) to make the ball move in a new, unexpected way? I'm thinking of how mystified batters were by Fernando's screwball when he first broke in with the Dodgers. In my mind "ball tampering" implies use of an illegal substance or cutting the ball or something like that. It seems there was no physical evidence of ball tampering, so it was more of ajudgmentt call. Further, the umpire who made the call has been accused of a racial bias in his calls. I don't know about that, but there does seem to be evidence that this "reverse spin" is not always viewed as evidence of cheating:

A lot of this has to do with the concept of reverse swing. It was "discovered" in Pakistan in the 1970s, and when it first started to happen in international games some England players and others accused the Pakistanis of cheating. However, last year when England defeated Australia for the first time in nearly 20 years their bowlers used reverse swing and were acclaimed for their skill rather than cheating.

I've got no expertise on either of these situations, but it is almost a relief to discuss a sports scandal that doesn't involve steroids. Hmm, maybe Barry Bonds could take up cricket after he passes Hank Aaron.

Wedding bells

No, not mine! A Caffeine Cousin is getting married this weekend. Normally I don't care much one way or the other, but I like this particular cousin so I'm sort of looking forward to the event. Plus, I sat with her at the last Caffeine wedding and I got lots of insights into what her wedding is going to be like. If she follows through on all her claims, it should be more interesting than the typical "Wind Beneath My Wings" wedding. We'll see.

I do, though, have a request for my readers. I know it's kind of late in the game, but I don't yet have a present. I asked my cousin and she said as far as easily accesible stuff (i.e., online), they are registered at Wal-Mart and Target. I even went so far as to ask her if there's a specific item she'd like to have. She wrote back and said it was silly, but she really wanted an over-sized spatula (she's not good at flipping pancakes or eggs, so she figures the bigger turner would help). I've got no problem with that, but since I do like this cousin, I'd like to get them something else. It's too late for online ordering (I think) and I'd like to get them something more than a towel or whatever. Any ideas?

Movie pricing

Since I've been going to more movies than usual of late, I've been thinking about that messed up model of economic behavior known as movie pricing. Recently the guys over at EconLog weighed in with a post on peak load pricing at theaters:

What I can't figure out, however, is why some businesses have peak load pricing, but don't get the peaks right. Movie theaters are the clearest example. Yes, they've got expensive evening shows and cheap matinees, and the crowds are bigger in the evenings. So far, so good.

However, as a constant movie-goer, it's obvious to me that weekend matinees are a lot more crowded than weekday evenings. If you want to stick with two simple prices, it seems more sensible to have peak pricing all day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and discount pricing all day on Monday through Thursday. The only drawback is that this might shift weekend matinee viewers to weekend evening shows, so perhaps theaters really need three prices - weekend evening, weekend matinee, and weekday.

For those of you who aren't econ nerds, what movie theaters are doing is engaging in third-degree price discrimination -- charging different prices to different groups of people based on their price sensitivities. The basic thinking goes something like, "Folks who have the free time to go to movies in the middle of the afternoon likely have lots of other ways to spend a day, so we'll give them a discount to draw them into an activity they likely would skip if it were more expensive. Folks that go at night (especially weekend nights), though, likely aren't as flexible -- they work during the day, weekend nights are their only free nights, etc. -- so we'll charge them more.

I've always agreed with Bryan's basic point that while theaters do price discriminate, they don't get it right. From a profit maximizing point of view, I've always thought there should be a substantial premium on weekend night tickets. [Some of Bryan's commenters claim that since theaters make more $$$ off popcorn and drinks than tickets the true motivation is to get as many folks as possible into the theater. That is demonstrably false as a price of $1 or so would be much more effective at filling seats. Think about it, what's the last movie you saw where the theater was COMPLETELY filled?] Anyhow, ... Even though I think theaters mess up their attempts at price discriminating, it's still a better (in a Pareto sense) outcome than the "one price all the time" model. The more puzzling thing to me, though, is why theaters insist on a single-price model for all movies?

Yes, I know many places have "discount" theaters that show second-run movies for a couple of bucks (that's 3rd-degree discrimination based on whether you're willing to wait to see the movie, same idea behind the lag before the softcover version of a book comes out), but why not apply the same principle to less popular movies even at the first-run theater. Remember when I saw two movies on the same day? Think about it; that day I saw Clerks II (sort of a hit) and Wordplay (certainly a niche film) and I paid full price to see both. The theater was pretty full for Clerks so I could see how they might not have wanted to discount that ticket even if doing so would have drawn a few more viewers (probably not enough to make up for the price cut on existing sales), but a deep discount for Wordplay quite likely would have been a good move for the theater. Drawing in just a few price sensitive viewers would have more than made up for the revenue they'd have "lost" on all the tickets they would have sold at full price -- that'd be one; I was the ONLY person there. I don't see why some theaters don't try it.

Yes, it would require more policing by theaters. They'd have to station a ticket taker outside each theater instead of just one at the entry point. I have seen something similar once before though. I was visiting a friend in D.C. when Schindler's List was in the theaters. It was popular enough that individual shows were selling out and the theater had to guard against people buying a ticket for a "lesser" film and then going to see Schindler once they got inside. To combat this, they tore Schindler tickets at the door to that particular theater. [Full disclosure, we were there to see one of the lesser films.] Yes, this would add to operating costs, but I can't imagine that cost would outweigh the revenue they could gain from higher prices for the next blockbuster. Plus, under my scenario they'd also be gaining extra revenue from the less popular films as well. I just don't get it.

A logical extension of my argument would be that films should command a premium on opening weekend and then be steadily discounted over coming weeks. I can at least see a coherent reason theaters might want to save that tactic only for major blockbusters. It seems there is a lot of prestige (and signaling) associated with big opening weekends, so a studio would need to take care that its big movie wasn't labeled a "loser" because of a small opening weekend. Still, my plan focuses mainly on movies they know will not be hits. It just seems differential pricing would bring in a lot of additional revenue and add very little to costs. It doesn't take an economist to realize that would increase profits.

P.S. I just realized that music sales follow the same pattern as movies (time discounts, but generally a single price model), but hardcover book pricing sort of follows my suggested pattern. Hmm, I'll have to think more on this.

I don't get it

This past week or so, the weather has been absolutely fabulous! Seriously, high 70s - low 80s high temps and mile high skies, with just a gentle wisp of clouds. I'm talking beautiful weather. They've been perfect Jeep days. I know the water in the TN River doesn't really look any different, but it seems bluer now that I'm not suffering from 95 degree heat while driving over the river. Plus, I've started craning my neck to get a better view down the river as I cross the bridge. I love the way the river just opens up down that way. Regardless, these have been prime "enjoy the outdoors" days.

The past few days, though, I've been looking around at my fellow commuters on my way home. Mild temps, gracious skies, and the lapping of wonderful water -- wouldn't you have the windows down and the music cranked up? I sure would, but my fellow Decaturites seem to be in love with the sealed interiors of their vehicles. I've done a couple of quick counts while sitting at red lights or in traffic across the bridge. While this is not scientific, it appears that approximately 80% of the cars do not have their windows down. I just don't get it. There just aren't that many of these days in a typical north AL year -- a few in the spring and then again in the fall -- so why aren't my townsfolks taking advantage?

I guess I'll just write it off as a universal mystery -- sort of like why people think Joe Morgan is a good baseball analyst, how anyone could think The Corrections is a good book, or the grand mystery that is American Idol. All things I've just accepted that I will not understand.

To hell with 'em. I'm headed home. It's just too pretty to sit inside this afternoon.

Doesn't sound good

Looks like the Thai military has staged its first coup since 1991. I don't know a lot about the Thai government and it does sound as if the coup was pretty bloodless. Still, this doesn't sound good:

In Thailand, announcements on state-run television signed by the coup
leader, army commander Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, said that martial law had
been declared and the 1997 constitution had been revoked.
[...]
Thailand's army banned political gatherings of more than five people, the
Reuters news agency reported. The cable TV operator shut down broadcasting of
international channels. Local TV stations showed images of tanks.

YIKES! Hmm, revoking the constitution, cutting off international TV, and showing martial images on state TV -- sounds ominous to me.

I'm sorry to admit it, but I wouldn't be following this story as closely as I am if not for the fact that Thailand Jeff just headed back that way last week. Even so, I doubt I'd have been overly concerned, as he tells me that little of the "Thai trouble" reaches up his way, but evidently he's still in Bangkok taking care of some business before heading home. Er, Bangkok is where all this is happening, right? Again, YIKES!

This morning, however, I got an email from TJ. He says the TV stations are back (except for international news) and there was a lengthy report on the coup in the morning paper. Of course the military likely controlled what went into the paper, but evidently Thais still have internet access so I can't imagine the military could have pulled a North Korea type propoganda effort. Oh the other hand, might they have blocked internet access to international news as well? I think that's a good bit harder to do than blocking TV signals, but I just don't know. Jeff said all the foreigners are lined up at internet cafes trying to get word out, so I don't know if anyone is worrying about checking international news.

All-in-all it doesn't sound too bad, but I just get nervous about military coups. It's kind of a rule I have: I don't talk to other guys while standing at a urinal in a bathroom and get nervous when the military seizes power.

Should I be worried?

You know those campy horror flicks? You know, the ones where there's something out there. None of the characters know just what IT is, but IT's getting closer. They hear noises at night and they find evidence (e.g., animal corpses) the next morning. Most troubling, the "evidence" keeps getting closer and closer to the camp! Okay, I can't think of a specific movie, but you know the type, right? Well, I've got a similar, but much less sinister (I hope), situation.

Though I now live in Decatur, I still subscribe to the Huntsville Times. It is a better paper than the Decatur Daily, but the primary reason I still "take the Times" is the NY Times crossword puzzles. Regardless, I've long noticed something odd about the delivery of my paper as opposed to my neighbors who subscribe to the DD. My Huntsville paper is delivered much closer to the house. Let me explain.

When I go out to get the paper in the morning I've noticed that the neighbors' papers usually lie about the middle of the sidewalk. My Huntsville Times, however, usually is right up against the porch. The same pattern even holds on Sunday when I get both papers -- DD out around the sidewalk, the Times much closer to the house. I just assumed the Times delivery guy had a much better throwing arm. Several weeks ago, though, I noticed a small change. Not only was my Times closer to the house, it began to be placed with almost surgical precision. This is going to be hard to explain without a picture, but I'll try.

I have a rather large front porch and there's a sort of carport attached to the side. The porch steps lead down from the back of the porch and when my car is parked under the carport, the back third or so of the car ends up almost blocking the porch steps. Basically that means there's a very small "alley" of sorts between the car and the end of the porch. A couple of months ago, that's where my copy of the Times started showing up. True, a VERY accurate newspaper tosser could deliver a paper there from the street. In fact, the usual newspaper spot wasn't all the way up in the little "alley", more like just behind my car. Still, it would be a hard spot to consistently toss the newspaper from the street and it was eerie how close the paper was to the same spot each morning. I had toyed with the idea that someone, an early morning walker perhaps, was tossing my paper from its landing spot to the more convenient spot right next to the porch steps. Recently, though, I've begun to question just how my paper is delivered.

A week or so ago, we had a good, long, all-night rain. Those rains usually wreak havoc on my newspaper because, invariably, the paper ends up lying in a puddle a couple of hours or there's a rip in the plastic sleeve or something else happens. The usual Times spot is pretty sheltered, but it was wet the morning after the all-night rain. When I went out that morning, though, my paper wasn't in the normal spot; it was actually resting on the porch steps. I know most of y'all aren't familiar with the layout of my house and porch, but that's even farther from the street and almost completely blocked from the street by my car. There is (virtually) NO WAY the paper could have been tossed right there from the street. If that's not enough, a couple of mornings later, I found the paper lying right on the welcome mat in front of my door!

I don't really care if someone is coming up on my porch uninvited, but it did kind of give me the heebie jeebies. The unknown person was not only lurking around my porch, he was getting closer. Outside of physically coming in the house, he couldn't get much closer. Again, I wasn't really "scared" that someone might have been coming onto my porch, but it did seem odd. Still and all, I'd pretty much written it off as the effort of a friendly neighbor. I did wonder why this unknown person felt compelled to move my paper, but not the neighbors'. [I did consider whether Porch Cat had decided to start earning his food by fetching the paper, but that seemed a little far fetched, even for me.] Still, I didn't think too much about it, until this morning.

For some insane reason, Gumbo (the demon cat) decided that waking Daddy at 5:30 or 6:00 was not sufficient. No, this morning Gumbo threw her wakeup party at 4:08 a.m. After attempting to ignore her (yes, laugh at the prospect of ignoring a cat), I gave in and stumbled to the kitchen and tossed some food into her dish. As I started back to bed, though, inspiration struck. I knew the Times often was delivered very early in the morning, so I thought I'd check whether it had arrived yet. Surely, I thought, the hypothetical friendly neighbor will not have gotten to it yet, not at 4:08 a.m. It was still very dark outside, but when I opened the door, there was my paper, right smack dab in the middle of the welcome mat. Honestly, I couldn't even open the door without scooting the paper away. AND this was at 4:08 a.m.!

That kind of has me freaked. I'm certain the Times guy cannot make such an accurate throw from the street and I can't imagine the friendly neighbor is out walking or whatever at 4 in the morning -- and if he is, why is he creeping around on my porch at that hour? So how the heck does my paper get delivered with such precision? The only thing I can come up with is that the Times delivery guy is vying for WORLD'S BEST ALL-TIME DELIVERY guy, so he's actually getting out of his car and bringing the paper up to the porch. Why, though, would a newspaper route guy do that?

The whole thing has me flummoxed. Any ideas? Would this creep anybody else out or am I just being a tad too paranoid?

Best line I've read today

"If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest in a new ballpark.

That's U of Chicago economist as quoted in a pretty good Sacramento Bee opinion piece. [Annoying free registration required.]

I know it's a soapbox issue and I know I care WAY more about this than most folks, but let me say it again -- sports stadiums almost never drive economic growth the way proponents claim. I love sports more than the average person, but I cannot get behind these proposals. If they really "paid off" as claimed, there'd be no shortage of private financing for these monstrosities. I know, I know; all that is old hat.

It turns out, though, the proposed Sacramento deal is even more insane than normal. Some of the particulars, ... Well I started to list the particulars, but that got tedious. Basically, Sacramento will use sales tax revenue (the most regressive of taxes) to fund almost 90% of the stadium, the city/county will be responsible for the hidden costs and overruns, the city/county will be liable for any "toxic" contamination from the proposed arena site (it's an old rail yard, I'm sure there aren't any heavy metals or anything there), the team owners will be exempt from approx. $6 million of annual property taxes they'd pay if they owned the arena, and it appears all revenue -- from ticket sales, to naming rights, to concessions and parking -- will go to team ownership.

The opinion piece doesn't cite specific numbers and sources (so I'm just having to accept the claims), but I'm sure there's some annual "rent" the team will pay the city/county. Still, if this piece is even close to accurate I'm not at all surprised by the claim that, "Economists who study publicly funded sports facilities say that this is one of the worst deals ever."

Ooh, the piece also closes with an excellent illustration of opportunity cost:

Sacramento County has higher priorities than subsidizing billionaires: flood control, police, firefighters, schools and health care, to name a few.

The most surprising thing about the piece, though? It was penned by a local politician who is voting NO on the arena proposal! I didn't think such elected officials existed. I thought pols had no defenses against the "pie in the sky" claims of such projects. I wonder if Mr. Jones would like to move to Alabama?

Doing my part

As an economist -- especially one with a field in macro -- I understand the importance of economic growth. Hence, I feel it's my patriotic duty to spend some money and make sure the 2nd quarter slowdown doesn't continue. Actually that's all just a great big rationalization. I'm itching to buy some new hiking/camping equipment. What's on my wishlist?

The most crucial item is a new tent. This isn't the best one, but it's be most affordable one I've been able to find in the "under 5 pound" class. Plus, it's a Kelty and I trust them. I should have already made this purchase, but I've been putting it off all summer. Now's the time.

Slightly less vital, I want a new sleeping pad. I really hate to pay that much, but the Cabelas pad is a good bit cheaper than the fancy ThermaRest pad (and only a few ounces heavier). I currently use an old fashioned foam mat, but I'm getting too old for that. Sigh, it's true.

Those are two "must haves", in my opinion, but I've also got a good stock of "wants" as well: a new fleece pullover, a new pair of boots, etc. Nah, I'm probably not going to buy any of the "wants", but it's fun to pretend. I do, though, have the itch to get in the woods. If this sort of cool weather continues, I'm afraid I won't be able to resist the call of the Sipsey much longer. In reality, that's probably a month away, at least, but the possibility sure makes each day a little more pleasant. I need to call Cousin Kari!

Little thing

It's a little thing, but on a rainy Wednesday morning I'll take any positive sign.

I know I've mentioned Pandora, the wonderful internet "radio" site, before, but this morning my station got off to a great start. The first 4 songs:

"Our Town," by Iris Dement.
"Like A Rose," by Lucinda Williams.
"Looks Like I'm Up Shit Creek Again," by Nora O'Conner.
"The Phoenix," by Sarah Harmer.

After those 4 Pandora played a John Eddie song, but it was one I don't particularly like. I thought I'd had my run of good songs, but then she (of course Pandora is a she) came back with Hem's cover of "South Central Rain" and a solid Gillian Welch song.

Alas, all good things must end. Deryl Dodd stopped the streak. The best thing about Pandora, though; you can skip songs you don't like.

Yet again, if you have a good internet connection, go set up a station at http://www.pandora.com/. It's pretty simple. You give Pandora a song or artist to start from and she plays "similar" stuff. If you want to fine tune things, you have the option to vote "thumbs up" op "thumbs down" on other songs. Of course you can continue suggesting other songs/artists, but I've found the voting thing is the easiest way to go.

Best headline of the day

Gunpoint prayer session in Athens?
Police arrest 3 for forcing man to listen to prayers

Yes, according to today's Decatur Daily a local man's sister, and some of her friends, held him at gunpoint and forced him to listen as they prayed for him.

A sister, with the help of friends, allegedly tried to force her brother's
repentance as she prayed for him at gunpoint, police said.

[...]

During the visit, Harris said, a disagreement erupted over religion. The
women, Harris said, were praying for Randy Doss, and he laughed.

"They both got upset and pointed pistols at him," Harris said. "They
wouldn't let him leave. Bianca fired one round in the ceiling in the hallway a
few feet from the victim's head."

Of course the women have a slightly different take on the whole thing. According to another version of the story:

“The door was never locked and he could have walked out that door any time he wanted to,” the victim’s sister said. “We never held him against his will.”

Okay, what about the gunshot?

Bianca admitted firing a shot in the ceiling of her home, but said she did it to show Doss it was loaded, not to harm him.

Oh, I'm sure he'd have felt much better if he'd known just why she was firing rounds into the ceiling. Wait; no he wouldn't! Why would she need to demonstrate to him that her gun was loaded if there was not some threat involved? Geesh!

I've really got nothing else to say about this story. I'd like to make fun, but how can I top their own words and actions? Plus, I'm kind of afraid they might feel the need to come "pray" for me.

Sartorial tips

Okay, how many of you EVER thought you'd read a post from me with that title? No one? Oh well, I sure never thought I'd write a post with such a title -- until now.

Tuesday's edition of the Decatur Daily had a "wonderful" article to help out us clueless folks who just don't know what to wear on a first date. A couple of caveats. First, it's obvious the article was written for the teen audience -- leaves me out. Second, the article was written by a woman. Actually that's not my complaint. My beef is that the article was written by a woman who knows absoultely nothing about men. We're really simple creatures. Ms. Klepper [the writer], eloquently described the feelings and opinions of her female subjects, but when it came to the males, she was dumbfounded:

This fashion investigation taught me a few things about the male opinion of female apparel, some of which I could barely bring myself to think about, much less write.

Shockingly, guys really don't care about the current styles and trends in women's wear. [My emphasis.]

Maybe she was being sarcastic, but I don't think so. I'm actually wondering if Ms. Klepper is a high school intern at the DD. Seriously, that's what the whole story reminded me of -- one of those cutesy pieces we used to run in "The Wildcat's Roar" -- the finest HS paper in TN, at least when she was editor.

Anyway, I did pick up a few useful 1st date tips from Ms. Klepper.

• Tuck in my shirt. Okay, I can handle that. One of the first things I do after class is untuck my shirt, but I can put up with that during a date -- especially the first date.
• Iron my shirt. Hmm, I'm in trouble here. Nah, even given my deep philosophical opposition to the practice, I'd be willing to do that -- again, on the first date.
• No jewelry, other than a watch. All I got to say to that is, "Amen, sister."
• No baggy pants and untied shoes. Again, not an issue.
• Be very cautious about wearing jeans. Huh? Sure I get that if we're going to a "nice" place, but what if the first date is a movie or coffee or a drink at the bar? Does the "no jeans" rule still apply? By the way, even though guys (essentially) are told not to wear jeans, I noticed that the girl featured in the "appropriate dress" sample picture is wearing denim! What gives?

Despite my grumblings, I thought Ms. Klepper had done an okay job on pointing out some "dos" and "do nots" of the first date -- UNTIL I got to the male "appropriate dress" sample picture.

Dang it. I tried and tried, but I couldn't get the picture to post. That ruins the whole entry. Grr! Oh well, click through and scroll down to see the picture.

All I can say is, ... I'M NOT WEARING THE HAT!

Anyway, I used the article in stats class this morning as an example of sample selection and how you need to make sure your sample is representative if you want your data to have external validity. [Translation: If you want to make society-wide generalizations about what one should wear on a 1st date, you should talk to more than just a few high school kids.] So after we discussed the article, I stressed to the students that no matter what the article said, I WAS NOT WEARING THE HAT! A young lady in the front row chimed in with, "Yeah, but wouldn't you actually have to HAVE a date before the hat became an issue?" Yeah, she's been in my classes before. I like her.

There ought to be a law!

Wait; no there shouldn't!

I saw this a few days ago, but I've been trying to put together a cogent rant that won't be misconstrued. Well it might still be misconstrued, but I'm going to rant anyway.

A few days ago I saw this story (actually a slightly different version) in the local paper.

A new state law took effect Friday that requires all convicted adult sex offenders to have a special mark placed on their state driver's licenses or non-driver identification cards identifying them as such.

The mark will be visible to anyone who checks a person's identification -- from police officers to grocery store cashiers to clerks at video stores.

Now I'm not going to stand up in support of sex offenders, but isn't this going a bit too far? I'm all for protecting society from criminals, but do we really want to go down this road? What's law enforcement's take on the law?

"It definitely would give us the ability to track them [sex offenders] better," Thornton said. "It's not uncommon for our officers to stop people and field-interview them. If they seem suspicious or are in close proximity to a victim, it would certainly give us reason to further investigate them in connection to the situation."

I'm not even going to wade into the debate over such "profiling". Instead, I'll just grant this as an actual benefit to law enforcement. If we accept that, why not have a mark that is only identifiable to law enforcement? Why make it a mark viewable by anyone from police to the guy checking your ID at the beer store? How much responsibility do you think law enforcement will take when someone with this mark is denied assistance or service at a business or, worst case, physically assaulted or killed? Further, if it's a "crime reducing" measure, don't you think the store clerk would like to know whether a customer has a history of armed robbery or a conviction for writing bad checks? Let's put those marks on IDs! Shoot, that'd stop crimes before the police even had to be involved, right?

Of course one could counter that sex offenders have a higher recidivism rate and they pose an imminent danger to the community beyond that of a bad check writer. I've always heard that about recidivism, but I don't know the actual stats. Regardless, this law does not make any distinction between sex offenders. It may not be a popular thing to say, but not all sex offenders are equal. On occasion a 19-year-old is charged with statutory rape for having sex with his/her 17-year-old girlfriend/boyfriend. If convicted, wouldn't he/she have the mark? A couple of weeks ago, local law enforcement tried to crack down on some homosexual "cruising" at a local wildlife refuge. One guy got a citation for indecent exposure when he walked over to the woods to urinate. [There are no bathrooms out there and that's his story. Plus, the circumstances of the story seem to indicate the officers did not view him as a serious offender, so I tend to believe his version.] Now he will have the mark on his license.

Yes, we could reduce crime and make society safer by greatly curtailing civil liberties, but I hate when we do it without due consideration. I'm usually pretty libertarian, but not absolutely. I think sometimes the tradeoff might be worthwhile. I just think we need to slow down and think about these things a little more carefully rather than implementing draconian measures across the board. Anyone remember Minority Report?

I'm an old timer

I trust everyone had a wonderful Labor Day weekend. I considered doing some labor (mowing the yard), but I decided it could wait. So what did I do? I went to Old Timers' Day in Collinwood, TN!

For those of you who don't know, the Caffeine Folks moved back to Collinwood (their original home town) a few years ago. Now Collinwood is not the most happening place, but once a year damn near the whole town (all 1024 according to the last census) converges on the city park for Old Timers' Day. [Not sure about the placement of the apostrophe. I think the designer of the official t-shirt and I disagree on this one, but it's my blog so ...]

In all honesty, I had forgotten all about Old Timers' Day, but when I called Caffeine Dad, at 6:45 Sat. morning, he'd already helped my uncle load one mule, do something else to another mule, and just generally put in most of a day's work. Remember the Army commercial about how "we do more before nine a.m. than most people do all day"? Well the Army has nothing on Caffeine Dad. Anyway, I know Dad is an early morning sort of guy, but he sounded a little more keyed up than even his normal 6:45 a.m. self. When he told me what day it was, though, it all made sense. I couldn't believe he hadn't already left to go to the park -- breakfast in the park is one of the highlights of Old Timers' Day.

Seeing as how I'd never attended an actual Old Timers' Day, I figured it might be worth a trip. Of course I couldn't make it for breakfast, but I did make lunch (or dinner as the mid-day meal is known in Collinwood) -- yummy BBQ, homemade potato chips, and homemade ice cream. In addition to good food, I saw approximately 100 of my relatives. Actually Dad and I got our wires crossed. He thought I was meeting him there and I thought he was waiting on my at the house. I finally figured out he must be at the park and I was a little worried about finding him in such a large (by local standars) crowd, but I knew I'd be able to find some relatives and they'd point me in the right direction until I found him. Turned out he was the third link in my chain: Aunt Catherine to Cousin Sandee to Dad.

So Dad and I ate barbecue and I visited with relatives. After that I hung out with Cousin Becca and watched her make pottery -- she was selling some of her stuff, but she'd also set up her potter's wheel, I guess to try to drum up more interest in her stuff. I didn't buy anything from her Saturday, but I do have my eye on some of her work. As I hung out and watched the folks at the festival, I noticed a couple of things (other than the fact that I was kin to half the folks in the park) that made Old Timers' Day an unusual festival.

First, Cousin Sandee's older daughter (approximately 8 years old, I guess) wanted some sort of little toy that clearly was the status symbol of the preteen set at OTD. This particular toy was being sold at a stand clear across the park. Sandee finally gave in, as I knew she would. What was unusual, though, was that she just gave her daughter a $20 bill and sent her to go buy the toy. Did you catch that? A crowded park, full of all kinds of perverts and potential child abductors, and my cousin sends a child with money to go buy a toy. That doesn't happen anymore. I don't think Cousin Sandee was being a negligent mom, it's just a different world. Sure enough, little cousin made it back safe and sound AND she brought Sandee her change.

Second, the entertainment at Old Timers' Day was not, shall we say, restricted to professional performers. At first there was an actual band up on the makshift stage (a flatbed semi trailer), but once they finished their set, they sort of opened things up to the amateurs. Some little girl (approx. 5 years old) won the crowd over with the cute factor despite her complete inability to sing a coherent song lyric. Next the Collinwood Middle School (I think) band played a rousing rendition (or 2 or 3 or ...) of Rocky Top -- yes, it drew much applause. Finally a late teen or early 20s girl got up there and sang a few songs with pre-recorded music (essentially karaoke). That, in and of itself, wasn't so unusual, but do you want to guess what song she closed with? Go ahead, guess. She closed with "You Light Up My Life." I never saw that one coming. Through it all, though, she drew polite applause -- nothing like Rocky Top got, but c'mon it's Rocky Top.

Finally it was time to go. Though parts of Old Timers' Day were hokey (e.g., the parade of tractors, 4-wheelers, and horses/mules) I had a good time. I got to visit with some relatives without all the work that goes into our annual reunion, I got to watch Becca make pottery, and I got to eat yummy homemade ice cream. All-in-all, a good day. I think I'll go back. Next year, though, I'm going to make it for breakfast!

P.S. One final sign that "city life" has not corrupted Collinwood, ... On the way to Mom and Dad's house I saw a truck parked right square in the middle of a little one-lane bridge over a creek about 30 yards down a side road. Though it certainly wasn't a high traffic road, I did wonder just why this fella found it necessary to park right on the bridge. As I was driving by, I kind of twisted around to see just what was going on. Turns out he'd simply decided he needed to "relieve" himself and he figured the bridge was a good place to do that. Made sense to me.

Mammas don't let your babies ...

Did you finish that song lyric? Are you now singing the rest of the song in your head? Is it refusing to go away? No, I'm not trying to torture you by sticking a song in your head, I'm trying to make a point. Country music songs "stick" more than rock/pop songs. Okay I have no statistical evidence of this, but I don't have to have proof to argue a point, do I?

What brought this on? The "old country" radio station out of Hartselle. I have very little tolerance for most of the music on country radio today, but boy do I dig the old country -- 60s, 70s, even 80s. The other day I was cruising home in Lucinda when "Mammas don't let ..." came on the radio. As I was wailing along with the song, I realized I knew not only the course, but I could sing along with each verse. Okay, I thought, that was a really popular song so it sort of makes sense that I know the words. Next up, though, was "Dixieland Delight," by Alabama -- a popular enough song in it's day, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as "Mammas". Still, I could sing along with each verse. My proof, though, was the next song -- "Operator, Operator," by Eddy Raven. Sure Eddy was fairly popular for a while, but I'd be willing to bet it'd been YEARS since I'd heard this particular song. Still, I could (mostly) sing each verse.

That got me to thinking. I can sing along with classic pop/rock songs, but usually only the chorus. Think about, can you sing all the words to Bob Dylan songs? Even the Beatles, perhaps the most popular pop group of all time? Yet a minor hit from a minor figure such as Eddy Raven -- I nailed it. I came up with a hypothesis: country songs "stick" because they're simple. More than that, though, they're often of a logical narrative form. I could "see" how Eddy's story developed as he tried to track down his beloved. Yes, I realize Dylan songs, for instance, are rarely so simple, but I can't even reliably sing along to less intellectual pop songs. I posit that "simple" pop songs are built on repetitive "hooks" while country songs often are built on stories.

My conclusion? There's an untapped market out there in classic country music. The songs are comfortable and familiar in ways that old pop is not. Yes I know my conclusion seemingly is refuted by the scads of classic rock stations and the dearth of classic country offerings, but that's why I maintain it's an untapped market.

Of course my whole theory was almost shot by the next song that day -- "I Love," by Tom T. Hall. I could sort of sing along, but not so well as the previous songs. I kept putting the "little baby ducks" in the wrong verse, for example. Then I realized this song actually reinforced my theory. "I Love" is not a narrative. It's basically a list of things that made old Tom T. happy -- one of them was grass, but I'm not sure just which type of grass he was pining for. On the other hand, I'm not sure I could sing along to most of Tom T.'s songs. Though most of his songs are narrative (hence his nickname, "The Storyteller"), they aren't simple narratives. Hmm, maybe I'll have to think on this some more.

Maybe as a result of all this, what's in my CD player today? Plain Dirt Fashion, by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. Know what? It's still pretty good.

Wow, Fridays are dangerous. Since I have no classes, I can just ponder weird stuff. I actually intended to write about "The Democratic Strategist" -- what seems to me, at first glance, to be a centrist Democratic effort that might keep me from throwing my vote away on the Libertarian candidate in 2008. Oh well, maybe next time.