Whew!

Man, this was one busy week. I swear!

Of course it's the end of the semester so things always get a tad hectic around now. On top of that, though, I've been trying my best to steer my stats students through their projects. [Yes, it does make me wonder why I require a project.] Now I just found out our lab assistant won't be here tomorrow (Saturday) and many of my students were planning to come in then to finish up their work. Hence, I'll be pulling lab duty tomorrow. On top of that I had to participate in interviews for a job search committee I'm on every afternoon this week. In other words, I've been busy. Don't they know I'm in this line of work for the cushy lifestyle? Whoops, I forgot; it's because of my burning desire to foster a better understanding of economics. Man, I've got to remember that!

Okay, I'm through complaining now. I just needed a righteous vent to get it all out of my system. So what else has been going on? Honestly not much. Oh, this weekend is the Double Decker Festival in Oxford. Thailand Jeff and I went last year and it was a bit of a disappointment. This year, though, there are two musical acts (Lucero and Tift Merritt) that I'd really like to see. If you don't know them, I strongly suggest you check out some Lucero. I haven't heard their last album, but Tennessee rocks. So if you happen to find yourself in North Mississippi tomorrow, swing by Oxford.

Sorry to be so brief after such an extended absence from blogging, but I still have final exams to make out. Hopefully next week will be a little more relaxed.

P.S. I never heard from the mystery woman. Oh well, I did my part.

Bummer

Well the Rosanne Cash show was a HUGE disappointment! First, while the Princess is an old restored theatre, it's really not that grand. It just looked like an old theatre. The bigger problem, though, was the concert itself. Rosanne's mic was much too quiet and her husband's guitar was MUCH too loud. They finally figured out the "quiet mic" problem about half way through the show, but they never did turn down his guitar. Honestly, any time he touched his guitar strings, well you just couldn't hear anything else. On top of that, they felt a need to feature him in a guitar solo in every song. Rosanne Cash's songs are not "guitar rock" by any means, yet he was hopping around like Dickey Betts at an Allman Brothers concert. It just didn't fit.

On the positive side, the whole evening was almost rescued by Rosanne's nearly a capella rendition of "Ode to Billy Joe." It was a goosebumps moment! Oh, she also did a cover of one of my very favorite "old country" songs -- Don Gibson's "Sea of Heartbreak." Those almost salvaged the whole experience, but I just get too mad every time I think of that deafening guitar. Grrr!

Oh well, ... Busy, busy, busy today.

Set up

Those are the two most dreaded words in the English language, if you happen to be single. Y'all may remember the last time a friend tried to set me up. If not, well let me just say it didn't turn out well. Now a coffee shop pal has a woman he wants me to meet. She works with his wife, she's really pretty, ... He mentioned her a while ago, but nothing had been said recently. This morning, though, coffee shop guy's wife showed up and she gave me the woman's email address. Now what?

It's not that I'm against meeting the mystery woman. Though I don't do it often, I do have the ability to interact, socially, with people I don't know and sometimes I even enjoy it. Still, though, how do I make contact, out of the blue, with someone I've never met or even spoken to? My initial impulse was to go very sarcastic, but sometimes that doesn't come across well in email. I tried to supress that as much as possible, but here's what I ended up with:

[Mystery Woman],

As I sit at my computer, I realize I have absolutely no idea how to begin this message. Let me try, "Hi, I'm [St. Caffeine]." I know that doesn't tell you much, but I trust [Coffee Shop Guy] has at least forewarned you that you might be hearing from me. Okay, what next?

Well given that I know next to nothing about you, I assume you know the same about me. Though I hate to sound like a personal ad, I can tell you that I teach economics and statistics, the fun classes, at [my wonderful school]. I like music, books, baseball, and hiking/camping. Furthermore, I'm NOT a stalker, a homicidal maniac, or a drug addict.

I realize that doesn't really tell you much about me, but at least it's an introduction. If your curiosity has been piqued and you choose to write back, I look forward to hearing from you. If, though, you opt to run for the hills instead, well I understand. These things are kind of awkward after all.

Your turn,
[St. Caffeine]

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Speaking of music

Okay, I haven't actually blogged anything music related in a while, but I couldn't think of a clever title. Anyway, I'm going to see Rosanne Cash tomorrow night at the Princess Theatre here in Decatur. I used to be a big Rosanne fan, though I can't say that I've heard any of her albums since, ... Well I don't know exactly when, but she used to put out some good work.

She's touring on her most recent album, Black Cadillac. I haven't heard it, but I read that it's pretty darned good. Regardless, I like to support the local arts scene when they manage to lure someone I've heard of into town.

Last year I tried to support their bringing Arlo Guthrie to Decatur. I was reluctant to go, though, because I kind of gather that Arlo fans travel around in packs a la Deadheads and I'm just really not that into Arlo. Unforeseen circumstances, however, prevented me from attending the Arlo show. I hated not to go, but I didn't hate it all that much. Plus, I later read that Arlo refuses to do "Alice's Restaurant" in concert anymore. Given that that's the only Arlo song I can name off the top of my head, I think I'd have been disappointed if I'd gone.

So I'm hoping the Rosann show is good. If not, I'll still have done my civic duty for the month.

A film rant

Last night I finally got around to watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated. In case you don't know the story, TFINYR is a "gotcha" documentary that attempts to shine light on the secretive process by which the MPAA rates films. The movie especially focuses on instances of the dreaded NC-17 rating, a rating that essentially kills the commercial prospects for a film. I'd heard a lot of good things about this film, but I only saw it last night.

My judgement? I was greatly disappointed in the whole thing. I don't dispute that the whole rating game is a sleazy enterprise that smacks of hypocrisy and self interest. Further, I thought Kirby Dick's hook was very clever. He hired an LA private investigator to identify and track down the 10 members of the super secret ratings department. By far, the outing of the raters was the most entertaining part of the film.

What disappointed me was the rest of the movie. Various film makers (justifiably, in many cases) vented their ire at the MPAA, but no one offered an alternative. Kevin Smith, one of my favorites, complained that statistics such as, "78% of parents say the ratings system is useful," are meaningless because the survey question assumes the current system or nothing. Great point Kevin, but NO ONE offered an alternative system. Yes it's creepy and icky that these mysterious folks have so much power to kill an edgy film, but how should it be handled? TFINYR gave no suggestions.

I don't think I'd have even noticed this if it hadn't been for the segment with the director of Gunner Palace -- a war documentary about a company of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The director was complaining about originally being given an R-rating. He went through why the MPAA said they'd given him an R (essentially repeated use of VERY crude language, violence, and drug references). "But," he kept saying, "this is how those guys really talk." He just kept going back to that point. Fair enough, I thought. It's an accurate film, but how is that an argument against an R-rating? Just because a film is an accurate representation of someone or something doesn't mean it's a "fit movie" for a 13-year-old, does it? I've not seen the film so I don't even have an opinion about whether it's too "mature" for a 13-year-old, but I just didn't think the director's argument, even if true, was a reason to give it a PG-13. Yet that was the whole tone of the movie.

As I watched TFINYR, I kept trying to think of alternatives. I couldn't come up with one. Of course philosophically I'm in favor of junking the ratings system altogether and just letting viewers go to the movies they want to see. That doesn't work, though, if we want some sort of "gatekeeper" function that limits what children can watch. [2 points: 1) Maybe we don't need a gatekeeper. 2) Saying "parents should decided" won't work unless the parents physically go to the movie with their teens.] Maybe a solution would be to keep the rating system, but remove the marketing restrictions that are placed on NC-17 movies. I didn't realize this, but those movies cannot advertise the way other movies can. Even if you'd enjoy such a film, the odds are good you'll never even hear about it -- much less get the opportunity to see it outside of a big city.

Of course I was also peeved by other things in the film. Perhaps the most annoying was the whole "gotcha" nature of the project. For instance, at one point he throws up a screen shot of a nice LA house and he points out that the head of the MPAA board lives in a MILLION DOLLAR HOME!!! How, I had to ask, does that lead to the conclusion that the ratings system needs to be overhauled? Again, Kirby didn't address that.

All-in-all I thought the movie was interesting and it revealed a lot about how movies are rated. I also agree that there's an awful injustice in some of the things that will get you an R (or NC-17) and what will not. I was disappointed, though, that the movie didn't even attempt to offer an improvement on the current system.

A moment of silence

I've been super busy the past couple of days, so I just now saw that
Kurt Vonnegut died. That makes me sad.

Oh, I learned about Mr. Vonnegut's death from an old pal -- the same pal who, many years ago, told me that Louis L'Amour had died. Hmm, maybe I should sever all ties with her, then none of my favorite authors would die.

It's official

I now have tenure! WooHoo!

Bias anyone?

I've been reading a lot about confirmation bias of late. In case you aren't familiar with this malady:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.

In other words, you concentrate on evidence that supports your viewpoint and you disregard or minimize contradictory evidence. In even simpler terms, you hear what you want to and ignore the rest. There's a lot of buzz these days about confirmation bias, especially in relation to the internet and blogs. If you limit yourself to "like-minded" sites, it seems that ALL the evidence supports your opinion. Outside of the blogosphere, this is also a problem in the "real world" as well. Does anyone, besides me, remember the big stink over the "erroneous" CDC report showing obesity NOT to be a big a risk factor as previously thought?

Anyway, confirmation bias has been on my mind the past few days because of the Don Imus incident. In case you've had your head under a rock, Imus made some despicable comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Not unexpectedly, lots of folks are upset with old Don and MSNBC (which broadcasts part of his radio show on TV). Imus issued a "heartfelt" apology and he has been suspended for 2 weeks, but many say a suspension is not enough. Instead, he should be fired.

Personally I can't imagine how he'll keep his job after showing himself to be such an offensive dumbass. But, ...

While it's not exactly a case of confirmation bias, I think it's interesting to compare the "public reaction" to the Imus incident with that of the Dixie Chick disgruntlement (I had to stick with alliteration) from a couple of years ago. In case you've forgotten, Natalie Maines said (on stage) something to the effect that she was embarrassed by the fact the Pres. Bush was from her home state. Then, as now, the comments pissed off A LOT of folks. Then, as now, there were many calls for boycotts of the Chicks and some have not forgiven them yet. What strikes me as different, though, is that many people claimed that it was unfair to punish the Chicks commercially because they happened to express an opinion, yet almost no one is sounding that defense for Imus.

Sure some folks are making the obligatory "free speech" noises, but I haven't seen the same folks who began to buy Dixie Chicks merchandise just to support free speech standing up for Don. In fact, some are just twisting themselves in knots trying to have it both ways. Emil Steiner (in the WaPo) just confuses the hell out of me:

Were Imus's comments hurtful, despicable and racist to a great many people? Yes, but rather than call for his termination, why not boycott his show? If the ratings decline as a result of people tuning out, then certainly CBS and MSNBC would be more than justified in firing him. It seems misguided though and frankly unbalanced to ask them to dump a comedian whose job it is to push the envelope simply because he pushes it too far.

So he shouldn't be fired because people were offended, but if people were offended they should boycott his show and then he could be fired? They shouldn't fire him for "pushing the envelope" too far, but people should boycott him for "pushing the envelope" and then he could be fired? What gives, Emil?

Let me make a few things clear:
First, I am NOT taking up for Don Imus. I think a boycott of his show is justified. If I had listened to him before, I'd not listen to him anymore. He's "selling" a product and if he offends people, they shouldn't "buy" his product. I've taken that approach to a columnist in the Huntsville newspaper.
Second, I did not join in the Dixie Chick boycott. I liked their music before and I liked it after, though I'm not crazy about entertainers using their stages to politic. In general I'm not paying to hear a musician's or actor's political views.
Third, even though I didn't join the boycott, I thought Dixie Chick boycotters were justified. See the Imus argument above. If DC fans were sufficiently offended, they stopped buying the product. To me it's the same thing.

Where, though, are those folks who said things like, I don't care if you agree or disagree with the Chicks, it's just not right to "punish" them in such a way for expressing an opinion? Okay, that's not an exact quote, but I swear there were lots of folks making such arguments back then. Seriously, I recall much wailing over the inherent "wrongness" of using an economic boycott to punish unpopular speech.

As I said, many "enlightened" folks are mentioning free speech as a reason Imus shouldn't be immediately fired, but then they go straight to something like:

[I]nstead, a widespread boycott of the show might be the more effective strategy. Take away listeners and there go the ad dollars — and with them the host. That's a form of free speech, too. [Home News Tribune (NJ) editorial]

I don't recall the "that's a form of free speech too" argument showing up in the media (outside of the far right media) as a reason to support the boycott of the Chicks. No, a quick archive search of my local paper unearthed this nugget written after the Chicks' next album debuted at the top of the charts:

So that means the Dixie Chicks, to whom the country music industry has been deliberately cruel, deserve to gloat a lot. Since Natalie Maines, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire are being excessively polite about their sweet vindication, I'll do a little gloating for them.
[...]
"I mean, the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. And just because — they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street." [Quoting Bush.]

That sounds to me like a pretty clear presidential endorsement of a boycott of the Chicks.

Notice how this editorial derides the "a boycott is free speech too" argument? See, I just can't picture the Decatur Daily standing up and crowing about the virtues of free speech if Don Imus were to somehow bounce back from this and rise to the very top of the radio rankings.

The point of this rant -- yes there is one -- is that there's a 500 pound elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. Lots of folks disagreed with the Chicks boycott because they liked the Chicks' message. Lots of folks agree with a planned Imus boycott because they do not like his message. It's not exactly confirmation bias, but it does seem to be a selective application of the free speech defense -- either for the offender or the boycotters. How do you reconcile this? The way I see it, if you were against a Chicks boycott you should be against an Imus boycott. If you thought folks were justified in boycotting the Chicks, then you can't argue free speech for Imus. Either policy is logically consistent, but I don't see how you can mix the two. Why not just stand up and say, "I disagreed with the Chicks boycott because they didn't offend me and I agree with the Imus boycott because he did offend me." Why try to make either case a matter of principle?

In my opinion this is a common problem with political debate today -- both on the left and the right. [Just think about how both wings (at least the strident parts of each) waffle on judicial activism.] Instead of developing consistent political philosophies, we tend to latch onto to whatever evidence or argument supports our preconceived biases -- yet we want to pretend to be wise sages. I say give in to confirmation bias in your daily life, but don't try to sell it to me as a political philosophy.

Econ and the fashion world

Never thought you'd see those two paired in one of my blog posts, huh? I always new Hal Varian was a brilliant man (he wrote this book, which I HATED at first but later came to appreciate), but I have a new appreciation for him after reading his column in the NYT. The column itself is a good discussion of copyright law and intellectual property (it's worth reading), but here's my favorite part:

Since I have the same fashion sense that most economists have — that is,
none whatsoever ...

Amen, Brother Varian. I just don't know why people expect economists to dress well. See, we've got much more important things to think about. Hey, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

So how fashion UNconscious am I? An actual question asked of me before class started yesterday: "So, is that one of those shirts that you buy ALREADY wrinkled?" I'm glad to know I'm not alone.

How much truth?

I see that Billy Donovan is staying at Florida. Though I don't have a dog in that hunt, I'm glad. I think he'd have been insane to leave UF to go to Kentucky, but it wouldn't have surprised me in today's coaching climate. I like a little stability.

In reading the article about his decision to stay at UF, I noticed this bit:

University of Florida president Bernie Machen and Foley have been working on a new contract for Donovan since last year. Negotiations began during Florida's 2006 title run, but Donovan postponed signing a deal worth about $2 million because he didn't want to send the wrong message to the players who turned down NBA riches to stay in school.

True, he's already being paid $1.7 million, but I thought that was a refreshing attitude. His players turned down mega$$$ to come back to school, so Donovan turned down an offer to cash in as well. If it's true, then I like Mr. Donovan a little more today than I did yesterday.

A compliment, sort of

A little background, ... For the most part, I really like my stats students. They're a pretty good group (grade-wise) and they certainly have personality. Many of them have been with me for 2 semesters in stats and some have taken econ from me as well. In other words, we've gotten to know each other.

In econ, I always make out a "things to know" sheet to help the students focus their study efforts on the most important points. As I haven't taught stats as much, I don't always do one for those classes. Besides, stats is more of a "procedural" class and it should be obvious where you need to focus your efforts, right? Anyway, the stats students always beg and plead for a study guide. They started this on Tuesday and I told them it wasn't going to work because M (a student from stats 1) is not in this class. M was the world champion of begging and pleading without being annoying. Whenever she worked up a big, "PLEEEEEEEEASE, can we have a study guide?", I'd always give in and spend the time to make one up for them. So anyway, I told them they were wasting their time since they couldn't beg as well as M.

Well when I got to work this morning I had an email from M:

Well hello [St. Caffeine],
I heard that you might give your class a study guide if I requested that
you did... and here is my request and reasons why. Actually, I must be honest I
liked you as a person but HATED your classes I thought they were the hardest
classes I had ever had! Well, now I would give anything to have you as a teacher
I have not learned hardly anything at xxx [her new school] so far and although your classes were hard I actually left with some knowledge :) I have been meaning to tell you thanks and try to talk you into transfering to xxx with me and be my teacher
and just haven't gotten around to it but a little bug asked me to send you an
e~mail so here it is.

Though her English teachers might not be pleased to read it, I thought it was a rather nice sentiment -- except for the part where she told me she HATED my classes (she took 3 from me)! I don't believe I've ever had a student brazen enough to tell me that, but at least she couched it in a compliment. So how do I "take" this email? Well I chose to concentrate on the good parts (and ignore the little bit about HATING my classes), so I'm taking it as a good thing. Hey, sometimes "ego boosts" are few and far between in my world so I can't be too picky.

P.S. They got a study guide.

News of the day

I saw two interesting stories in this morning's paper. While they're not directly related, I think they do combine to make a point.

First, I saw that a woman in Sylvania (AL) has been charged with DUI while riding her horse. The money quote:

He [Police Chief Brad Gregg] said DUI charges can apply even when the vehicle has four legs instead of wheels.

Of a more personal interest, though, was the news that the AL House killed the bill to raise the maximum alcohol content of beer sold in the state. Currently the limit is at 6% and that precludes many "gourmet" or "specialty" beers from being sold in the state. According to Free the Hops, an organization dedicated to reforming AL's beer laws, 98 of the world's top 100 beers cannot be sold in Alabama because of the alcohol limit or a related limit on container size. Furthermore, AL is one of only 4 (I think) states that still have such limits.

I cannot say I was surprised by the result, but I was disappointed. Opponents offered the same old rationales:

"I can't see us doing something that's going to encourage people to drink more and get drunk faster," said Rep. DuWayne Bridges, D-Valley.

Bridges said the measure would increase the problem of teenagers drinking by making more potent brew available to them.

"Our children don't need to increase their alcohol consumption," Bridges said.
[...]
"The only thing this bill will do is just get our young people dead a whole lot faster," Laird [D-Roanoke] said.

So it's all about protecting out precious children, huh? Even if I overlook the very good arguments that the beers under discussion tend to be very strong tasting beers with rather high price tags that would not appeal to teens, I'm still amazed at the failure of these concerned legislators to follow through on their concerns about the kids.

If you really believe those arguments, then how in hell can you stand by while wine (with more than double the alcohol content of beer) is sold in the state? Even worse, what about hard liquor, commonly above 50% alcohol? Grr, it just pisses me off.

So how do these stories go together? People looking to get "messed up", whether it's a group of teens out on a Friday night or a woman riding her horse down the street at midnight, will find a way. The current prohibition on >6% beer imposes a far greater cost on those who enjoy specialty beers than I believe can be justified by any ephemeral reduction in bad behavior. I guess it's time to renew my membership in Free the Hops. If you care about such things, I encourage you to do the same. It's just $25 and you get a cool t-shirt.

How old are you?

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) asks an interesting question: What's your permanent age?

I’ve observed that everyone has a permanent age that appears to be set at birth. For example, I’ve always been 42-years old. I was ill-suited for being a little kid, and didn’t enjoy most kid activities. By first grade I knew I wanted to be an adult, with an established career, car, house and a decent tennis game. I didn’t care for my awkward and unsettled twenties. And I’m not looking forward to the rocking chair. If I could be one age forever, it would be 42.
[...]
Some people are kids all their lives. They will admit they are 12-years old. Other people have always had senior citizen interests and perspectives. If you’re 30-years old in nominal terms, but you love bingo and you think kids should stop wearing those big baggy pants and listening to hip-hop music, your permanent age might be 60.

If you know me, it won't surprise you to know that I was "born old." I've heard that for years. When people say that to me, I think they mean I have a conservative mindset (not in the usual political sense). I rarely embrace the new fads or the cutting edge trends. I'm a late adopter of lifestyle changes for the most part and I tend to subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. This was true when I was a kid and it's true today. As a child I was hesitant to rush to try new things and today I'd just as soon you leave me alone and let me do what I do. I don't feel the need to be constantly trying new experiences or meeting new people.

Now let me counter that a bit. I do have the ability to be sociable and I do, on occasion, make new friends. I do enjoy going new places, seeing new things, etc., but I don't feel that I HAVE to do such things to keep from being bored. I just don't need a constant barrage of new, exciting stimuli to keep life exciting. On the other hand, I'm a serious night owl and I love to prowl around in the great outdoors. I even enjoy getting in "risky" scrapes in the wilderness. In addition, I sometimes like to go out and "act the fool." Hence, my permanent age is going to span the two extremes.

There's no way in Hades I'd go back to the teen years or even the early 20s. Can you believe the things we used to obsess over in those days? Plus, I like the fact that my work/home/financial situation is fairly stable now. On the other hand, I'm still physically active enough that I'm not going to pick 60. While things (hopefully) will be even more "settled" by then, I honestly would not want to miss the new experiences that'll come between now and then. And, much as it surprises me, I'd miss work. So anyway, I'm not picking 60. So what is my "real" age?

34 years old.

Now it's true that 34 was very recent for me and I might change my pick in a few years, but that seems like a nice age. It's old enough to be "comfortable", yet it's still young enough that I can "live it up" without looking like a complete ass. While it doesn't represent (in me at least) peak physical condition, 34 still is young enough to get lost in the woods without having a senior alert being issued. Plus, while 34 is a little old for singlehood, it's not an admission that you'll NEVER pair up. Okay, but why 34 rather than, say, 35? That is a disturbing issue that I only discovered when my odometer rolled over from 34 to 35. See, as long as you are 34 you can still claim, maybe not completely accurately, that you are in your "early" 30s. Once 35 arrives, though, you've got to be seriously self-delusional to make the early 30s claim. Once 35 rolled around, I realized that I had grown inordinately fond of that phrase "early 30s" and I was loath to give it up.

So, 34 is my permanent age. Anybody else? I'll be honest, I have mental images of all your permanent ages (at least those of you I actually know), but they're mostly based on how old you were when I knew you best. For example, Vol Abroad -- you will always and forever be an eccentric square peg in the round hole that is high school in my mind. I still can't reconcile that with your current real self. Sigh, maybe I'll be able to pull it off after I turn 34 a few more times.