My town

Sometimes Decatur frustrates me -- for example, when 3 councilmen decided, all on their own, to ban all smoking in public places and then limited discussion to 3 speakers per side. In reality the number of speakers was irrelevant as the 3 had already announced they were voting YEA. They could have at least pretended to listen and weigh various opinions, no?

Sometimes, though, I love my little town. For instance, in today's Decatur Daily two stories made me smile. First, no progress has been made in capturing the wily goat that's been roaming all over southeast Decatur for the past few weeks. Second, an "enterprising reporter" (the DD's term, not mine) may have cracked the case of the mysterious white spots that have been showing up on Decatur's streets this summer. Seriously folks, the DD has done multiple stories on the mysterious white spots:

They also are the same streets on which mysterious white, paint-like splatters have appeared for weeks, leading to a month-long investigation by The Daily with little resolution. That was until Wednesday. I was dispatched at about 9 a.m.

I'm not going to ruin the surprise for you, but Mr. Belanger seems confident the problem has been solved.

Decatur, bless her heart!

Ken Burns = good, very good

Sunday night marked the first installment of the much lauded Ken Burns project, The War. While I tend to avoid overly hyped projects, I figured I'd give it a shot. WOW! I'm not going to bother with a formal review, but it really was that good. Ken Burns is amazing.

The footage was amazing, his storytelling style straightforward, and the characters captivating. What struck me most was how the WWII folks described the day-to-day life of being in a war zone. I guess I'd sort of been brainwashed into viewing WWII as "The Good War" where the noble white hats fought against the forces of evil. Very clear cut. No gray area. As I listened to the vets talk about their daily conduct, though, I was struck by how much they sounded like Vietnam vets. Yes, the guys who fought "The Good War" sounded very much like those who fought in that "other" conflict. One guy admitted that after his unit saw how some U.S. prisoners had been tortured, killed, and mutilated -- well his guys figured out how to dispose of some Japanese prisoners they had at the time and they NEVER TOOK ANOTHER PRISONER after that day! It was chilling to see this great grandpa guy just up and admit that.

No, I'm not saying I enjoyed the segment because it showed American GIs in a bad light. It's just that I saw WWII in a much more "real" way than I ever did in a history book. Sure "Saving Private Ryan" showed WWII was vicious and bloody, but the Burns' interviews made it all more real. I guess war IS hell -- even a noble war such as WWII.

Anyway, I enjoyed the segment and I plan to watch the others, though I'm going to have to rely on my DVR to keep them until I get some free time. The first segment was scheduled to run 2:30, but there was still 30 minutes left when the credits started rolling. What was going on? Well I soon found out.

You may or may not have heard about this and I don't remember all the details, but I'll do the best I can. See, Burns' project was going to air on PBS and I'm sure he got some funding from them or the CPB or some group like that, so Congress figured it could weigh in. As Burns was putting the finishing touches on his project, some members of Congress decided that it needed to be more "balanced". I thought he did a nice job (at least in segment 1) of showing the war's impact on Blacks and Japanese-Americans. Problem was, he didn't specifically mention the Hispanic contribution to America's war effort. Now I'm sure many Hispanics fought for the U.S. in WWII, but is there really a special "Hispanic version of WWII" that a documentary has to have to be viewed as somehow complete? I wouldn't have thought so. Some members of Congress, though, threatened to somehow pull the plug on his documentary unless he inserted a sufficient amount of "Hispanicness" into the project. They "negotiated" and reached a compromise.

Now I'm not trying to join in on the "this P.C. crap is ruining our country" conspiracy, but the compromise took away from segment 1 of The War. Burns had wrapped up the segment on a certain note and (I felt) set the stage for the next segment. Then, after the credits, a new bit started up that rehashed a lot of the stuff in segment 1, but this time with a Hispanic vet telling the story. It just broke the mood that lingered after the conclusion of segment 1 and it was obvious this guy was the "token Hispanic" included to take the heat off Burns. I wasn't offended that a Hispanic vet's story was included, I was offended at the heavy-handed, flow altering way it was done. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it wasn't just that the extra segment failed to add anything substantive; it actually detracted from the whole thing, in my opinion.

On balance, though, I heartily endorse The War -- at least so far. If you missed segments 1 and 2, I feel sure PBS stations will be reairing them throughout the month. Check it out.

Would you like some pumpkin with that?

Cheating. It's the bane of every teacher and it's something I struggle with. Being an economist, I realize there's a trade off. I could vigorously guard against every possibility for cheating, but it'd be costly for me. COMPLETELY new tests every semester (actually for every section of every class), a total randomization of seating order for each test, extensive hovering, etc. On the other hand, I could just ignore it completely (as my favorite lit teacher did in college) and pretend it doesn't exist. Like most, I choose a middle ground. [Oh, quick point. I know some who do the completely new test approach, but that involves almost complete reliance on publisher provided test banks and those things just suck.]

I'll admit that I get a little lazy about recycling test questions from semester to semester. I rationalize that by theorizing that we're a community college/commuter school, so there's not THAT much opportunity for test files, etc. I'm not a complete idiot, though, and I use certain questions from semester to semester as a sort of cheating barometer. These are questions that students often miss (because they've overlooked a crucial "tweak" to a central concept perhaps) and so I look for situations where an unusually large number of students get those questions right.

Now what would you do if you were a student who had access to old exams that you thought would be of benefit in your class? Smart students would keep the tests to themselves and use the info prudently. You know, only share with your "best bud" and make sure you miss a few questions just in case. I nailed a couple of students last summer (when the compressed time frame makes us teachers get really lax about new tests) when they forgot that last part. These two girls did exceptionally well on the first test despite the fact that their attendance was spotty and I'd had one of them in class before and she was performing way "above her pay grade" (to use a HSV-area government saying). Let me just say test 2 was much different from the previous semester and both girls exhibited extreme "mean reversion." Then there was the guy who came to me and asked me a question that was DIRECTLY off a previous exam. I answered it for him and then designed an almost 100% new test for his class.

I got to thinking about all this when I read this post from the freakonomics blog about how NOT to cheat. Evidently some folks figured out how to hack an online poker site so they could see the actual cards of their opponents. What would you do?

If you were a total idiot, you would do exactly what some cheaters on the Web site Absolute Poker appear to have done recently. Playing at the very highest stakes games, they allegedly played every hand as if they knew every card that the other players had. They folded hands at the end that no normal player would fold, and they raised with hands that were winners but would seem like losers if you didn’t know the opponents’ cards. They won money at a rate that was about 100 times faster than a good player could reasonably expect to win.

Their play was so anomalous that, within a few days, they were discovered.

What did they do next? Apparently, they played some more, now playing worse than anyone has ever played in the history of poker — in other words, trying to lose some of the money back so things didn’t look so suspicious. One hand history shows that the players called a bet at the end when their two hole cards were 2-3 and had not paired the board … there literally was no hand that they could beat!

I guess I should be encouraged that so many cheaters are apparently great big dolts, but it's still disheartening to see how idiotic people can be. To quote one of my favorite philosophers, "Dragons is SOOO stupid!"

A civics quiz

About a year ago the Huntsville Times changed its op-ed page. Now they have a "from the left" and a "from the right" columnist each day. I don't remember his name, but one day this week one of the "from the right" guys was ranting about how poorly students at elite colleges do on a "civics quiz" given by some institute every year. I've seen this complaint before.

Evidently the institute gives the quiz to incoming freshman and then gives it again to seniors. The big news is not that students fail to make a 100% on the quiz. No the BIG NEWS is that they don't really do any better after 4 years of elite college education. Essentially, some folks claim that universities no longer try to teach basic civic knowledge -- U.S. history, philosophy, economics, government, etc. I agree, though I don't know if I'm as upset as some are by that.

Anyway, the "from the right" guy provided a link to the quiz. I don't want to reveal my score yet, but let me just say I was scared I'd do a lot worse than I did -- though I guessed on a couple and my knowledge of economics really saved me on some of the later questions. Anyway, take the quiz and see how you do. According to the "from the right" guy, the best of the elite colleges only averaged a 69% or so (at least that's what I remember).

Addendum: Since no one else seems inclined to play, or at least report results, I'll tell you my results. In the spirit of the quiz, I'll report my score in "civics" terms. I correctly answered 1/10th[the number of (voting) members of the House of Representatives + number of U.S. Senators + # of Federal Reserve districts + # of U.S. Presidents (so far) from Tennessee] out of 60 questions. I was actually kind of proud of that, though I did kick myself for missing the last question -- I overlooked that it was only asking about federal spending. Of course if I hadn't gone to grad school in econ, I'd probably have missed several more. I just looked back over the quiz and I'd say I'd probably have missed 4 or maybe 5 more questions if I'd just had the basic principles of econ classes years ago.

Free for me, but not for thee

I just found a cool new blog: sabermetric research. For those of you who don't know, sabermetrics involves (roughly) the rigorous statistical/econometric analysis of sports (especially baseball) performance issues. The name comes from SABR, The Society for American Baseball Research.

Anyway, the first thing I saw on SR was a post having absolutely nothing to do with sports. Nope, SR guy was complaining about CR (that is, Consumer Reports). He pointed out 3 potentially egregious errors in the most recent issue, but the one that caught my eye was their opinion of "free samples" provided to doctors by drug companies. After a doctor wrote to them praising this practice as it allows his patients to try out a new drug without a financial commitment, while admittedly allowing the drug company to make a potential future sale, CR responded rather snarkily:

Free samples are not free. They are part of the drug company’s advertising budget and contribute to the high cost of drugs. The free sample is a tool to tune the patient in to brand-name recognition, so that when it runs out they will stick with the same brand, despite the expense. There might be less-expensive drugs that are just as effective.

Now I know it's popular to bash the drug companies, and I certainly don't think they are saints, but this kind of knee jerk reaction bugs me. Mr. SR did a nice job of spelling out the faulty economic thinking behind this sentiment, but what I loved, almost as much as pizza, was when he applied the same reasoning to CR itself:

Strangely enough, CR’s argument doesn’t seem to apply to their own products. In this very same issue, on page 38, they offer me a "risk-free sample issue" of "CR on Health." If I like it, I have to pay for more.

What makes CR’s offer so much more reasonable than a drug company’s? Isn't it true that free issues are not free? Once CR stops with the expense of giving away free issues, won't the price of a subscription drop? And how come they're not worried that "when my free sample issue runs out I will stick with the same magazine?" After all, there are many less-expensive alternatives than $39 a year.

Hear, hear. I really cannot believe CR would be blind enough to criticize free drug samples while engaging in exactly the same behavior with regards to its own products, but I guess we all tend to miss the motes in our own eyes. Wasn't there something in the Bible about that?

Gee, THAT's why ...

I don't remember where it came from, but I've always liked the line about how, despite much evidence to the contrary, "everyone thinks he takes great pictures and has a great sense of humor." I can almost always recognize the subjects of my photographs and I'd like to think that I can be witty. Everyone once in a while, though, it's good of people such as Scott Adams to remind me of what funny really is.

Two things I saw when browsing his blog today:

First, though it's been done to death, he turns in a hilarious rube in the big city story about the NYC subway system:

Second, when someone with a badge throws you on the ground, puts your arm behind your back, puts his knee on your neck, and yells, “DO NOT RESIST! DO NOT RESIST!” you should not resist. I learned this by watching. I also learned that you are not supposed to watch. You are supposed to “KEEP ON MOVING!”

See, those last two sentences. They're perfect and I'd never have come up with just that way to put it.

Second, I'm wondering whether I should use this next week when I start probability in stats. Probably not; though I honestly think it's preferable to another "10 defective parts in a shipment of 500" problem. [For the record, I use VERY INTERESTING baseball examples as often as possible.]

Finally a random note unrelated to my love for Scott Adams' humor, ... My Pandora station just played a Tom Petty song and while I didn't catch the entire lyric, I swear I heard a couplet that went, "... impress all the women, pretend I'm Sam Clemens ..." I honestly can't decide whether this is a sign of Tom's songwriting genius or dementia. Either way: WOW!

Psst, buddy

I know I haven't blogged about poor old Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig and his unfortunate incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. I figure if you are interested in such, well there are PLENTY of places for you to read all about it.

One thing in the whole bathroom sting saga, though, did catch my attention and I'm amazed that no one [Yes, I'm sure SOMEONE has commented on this, but I haven't seen it. Hence, I'm going to pretend I'm the first to point this out.] has commented on it. Doesn't the bathroom cop guy remind you of the "reverso" version of Angelo Mancuso? If you don't remember, or you never read it, Angelo is the unfortunate cop who tries to arrest Ignatius J. Reilly in the opening scene of the funniest book ever written in the English (and I suspect all others as well) language.

See, Officer Mancuso attempts to arrest Ignatius as a "suspicious character" lounging in front of a New Orleans department store. If you've read the book (and shame on you if you haven't), you know that Ignatius would qualify as a "suspicious character" just about anywhere. Unfortunately for Angelo, though, Ignatius doesn't go quietly, the crowd intervenes, and he ends up arresting an innocent grandpa because he speculated that Officer Mancuso might be a "Commoniss". Mancuso's superior is not happy about this PR disaster and he forces Mancuso to hang out, in costume, in the dank bus station men's room until he can bring in an authentic "suspicious character". Needless to say, Mancuso is not too happy about his assignment and he dang near catches his death while waiting to collar a perp for his boss. Too bad Sen. Craig didn't wander into the New Orleans bus depot.

Anyway, what got me thinking of all this was the arresting officer's apparent zeal for his bathroom assignment. I don't have exact quotes and I don't want to be bothered to look them up, but I was a bit taken aback at how much he seemed to enjoy hanging out in airport bathrooms, nabbing offenders. [Exactly what law these offenders was breaking isn't really clear to me*, but that's another, larger, issue I don't want to wade into. Others have covered it sufficiently.] The whole thing seemed like a fake "scandal" in The Onion, dreamed up just to serve as a counter to the Officer Mancuso character. Spooky. Regardless, I think I'll reread part of "Confederacy" tonight.

*Note: I feel sure there was intent to engage in prohibited behavior (at least by some of the offenders), but every account I read seemed to indicate the "bust" was made before any actual criminal behavior occurred. When they did the big sting on the local wildlife refuge that was a major point of emphasis. The officer had to wait for contact of some sort before making an arrest.

iOutrage

I'm sure you've all seen/heard the news that Apple is slashing the price of its nifty new iPhone from $600 to $400 in order to generate more holiday purchases. Okay, nothing odd about that. What strikes me as hilarious, though, is the outrage this has engendered among the folks who went out and bought the $600 as soon as it came out.

For some reason these folks think they have been "done wrong" (in the C&W song sense) by Steve Jobs and the Apple empire. Then there's Eugene Robinson, who doesn't own an iPhone, carping in today's WaPo:

If I were an iPhone owner, I'd be hopping mad. I'd be iRate.
[...]
[W]hen chief executive Steve Jobs announced Wednesday that Apple was slashing the iPhone's price by a third -- meaning that owning a slice of the future now sets you back only $399 -- the iPhone Internet forums lit up with buyers who felt they'd been taken for chumps.

First, and a point that even Robinson makes, this is kind of standard for new technology. Price is initially very high and only the gadget geeks buy, then price falls until the proletariat can afford to join in. Think of cell phones, DVD players, GPS devices, etc. Most seem to think it's a "cheaper technology" phenomenon, but I figure it's driven just as much, if not more, by an attempt to price discriminate and really stick it to those gadget geeks who just HAVE TO HAVE IT RIGHT NOW! Regardless of the reason, everyone knows this happens with new gadgets, so why is everyone so upset?

A second point, though, deals with this implied complaint that it's not the price drop itself that bothers the initial adopters, but the fact that it happened so quickly. Something like, "Man, I paid $600 for this thing, but I could have had it for $400 if I'd waited 6 weeks." If these grousers were among the masses that bought the iPhone the first day, then the same thing was true then. Even here in my area folks who bought iPhones on launch day "paid" much more than $600. They had to camp out all night, stand in line all day, etc. They could have waited and bought an iPhone on the 3rd or 4th day and "saved" all that opportunity cost. Yet they didn't. No, they wanted to be the first with the new gadget and they were willing to pay (both in money and general inconvenience) for that privilege. So why are they complaining now?

Actually Robinson himself has a pretty good theory on that. They're not really mad about the $200. No, it's the fact that now that the iPhone can be had for a mere $400 the exclusivity has worn off much too quickly. No longer will it by THE tech gadget. Instead, it'll be under everyone's Christmas tree.

I think that's a pretty good explanation, though I do get the sense that Eugene thinks the whole spectacle of the iPhone is somewhat unseemly. He essentially ridicules the folks who rushed out to buy one thinking it'd change their lives, yet at the same time he admits to having a Blackberry -- another product that went through a similar life cycle. C'mon Eugene, lighten up. We have to have these early adopters to pave the way for us laggards.

Did she really say that?

I expected that I'd NOT be blogging about Whoopi Goldberg today because I figured it'd be one of those "done to death" topics. Maybe I'm wrong. See, the story was all over ESPN last night and I guess I just thought it'd get more attention from the non-sports press. [Not that I think it's particularly newsworthy, but this is the press that camps out for the latest Paris Hilton sighting.] When I checked the WaPo and the NY Times today, though, all I found was a wire report from Reuters (and one from the AP):

"He's [Michael Vick] from the South, from the Deep South ... This is part of his cultural upbringing," Goldberg said of the Atlanta Falcons quarterback, whose recent fall from grace has been one of the most stunning in the history of U.S. sports.

Vick pleaded guilty last week to federal dogfighting charges, admitting he took part in an illegal, interstate enterprise known as Bad Newz Kennels and helped kill underperforming dogs.
[...]
"For a lot of people, dogs are sport," Goldberg said on the show. "Instead of just saying (Vick) is a beast and he's a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned."

I was offended. I am from the South (much "deeper" than Newport News, VA [map], by the way) and I don't think dogfighting is "part of my culture". Yes, I'm sure there are folks around here who fight dogs, but I figure that's true in all 50 states. If that had been all, though, I'd have ignored it and gone on my merry way. Wait. It gets better.

As I read over the story and thought about the clip I saw on ESPN, I became bothered by something else: Whoopi's extreme ignorance of and patronizing attitude toward a whole region of the country. Seriously, in the clip she made the claim that (paraphrasing), "I'd be much more upset about this and much more critical of Vick if he was from, say, New York."

Honestly, she said (something like) that. To me she all but said, "Those poor Southern hicks, bless their hearts. They just don't know any better than to strangle and electrocute dogs who don't fight hard enough." THAT offends me!

I'm amazed that an intelligent, cultured media personality today would make such a statement. I'm flabbergasted that she'd make the claim and not realize how offensive it was. Yes, I expect that Whoopi will make some kind of statement of "apology," but I don't think she will have "learned" anything.

Suggestions?

Well "they" did it again. Yep, I got up yesterday morning and found that my mailbox had been attacked. AGAIN! Once again, I appear to be the only victim on my street, hence I've concluded (for real this time) that I am being specifically targeted. I don't know how that makes me feel.

Actually I do know. It really pisses me off. What bothers me most is that I'm (almost) totally helpless to stop this. If "they" wanted to, "they" could take out my mailbox every night! I mean I could stay up all night every night and watch my mailbox, but that doesn't seem to be a reasonable plan. So what do I do?

I guess a P.O. Box would solve the problem, but I don't want to do that. Various people have suggested a hidden camera, but I don't expect the quality of the recording would be sufficient to identify the vandals -- especially if they are speeding by in a car. Furthermore, how badly would these cretins be punished for knocking down my mailbox? I think one of the deepest circles of hell would be appropriate, but I doubt the legal system would see it the same way. [Yes, I know a mailbox attack might be considered a "federal offense", but I really doubt the feds are worried about my mailbox (at least not the outside) right now.]

Given that it's happened twice in a (roughly) two week period, I fully expect it'll happen again. How do I stop it? Any suggestions would be welcome. Er, let me say any REASONABLE suggestions will be welcome. So no plans to fill the box itself with concrete or to wire the box to a high explosive charge or anything like that. Seriously, I'm at a loss.