Friday, February 27, 2004
Simmer down, oh control your temper
Simmer down, for the battle will be hotter
Simmer down, and you won't get no supper
Simmer down, and you know you bound to suffer
Simmer down, simmer, simmer, simmer right down
---Bob Marley, Simmer Down
OK, I've had a few days to digest, ponder, and reflect on the no-gay-marriage amendment, and my vote come November.
I watched the Democratic debate last night. I cannot vote for any of those men. They are highly unserious about the war we are in, and all are fiscally as bad as Dubya. That's one boundary condition.
The FMA cannot pass. So says Josh Chafetz, with a vote count up. This is confirmation of why I tend to hold my nose and vote Republican anyways. The Democrats want to invade my wallet, and the GOP wants to invade my bedroom, but the Dems are a lot more likely to succeed.
As an interesting aside, over at Blaster's Blog, Pittspilot documents one of the (small, but valid) upsides to the FMA proposal:
Furthermore, it will ensure that the question is not resolved along purely legalistic lines. Thus, the legislative process can hash out the complex questions.
I too would like the question decided by our elected representatives, rather than unelected justices.
Anyways, though I went wobbly for a bit there, I think my position as a single issue voter has re-solidified.
Simmer down, for the battle will be hotter
Simmer down, and you won't get no supper
Simmer down, and you know you bound to suffer
Simmer down, simmer, simmer, simmer right down
---Bob Marley, Simmer Down
OK, I've had a few days to digest, ponder, and reflect on the no-gay-marriage amendment, and my vote come November.
I watched the Democratic debate last night. I cannot vote for any of those men. They are highly unserious about the war we are in, and all are fiscally as bad as Dubya. That's one boundary condition.
The FMA cannot pass. So says Josh Chafetz, with a vote count up. This is confirmation of why I tend to hold my nose and vote Republican anyways. The Democrats want to invade my wallet, and the GOP wants to invade my bedroom, but the Dems are a lot more likely to succeed.
As an interesting aside, over at Blaster's Blog, Pittspilot documents one of the (small, but valid) upsides to the FMA proposal:
Furthermore, it will ensure that the question is not resolved along purely legalistic lines. Thus, the legislative process can hash out the complex questions.
I too would like the question decided by our elected representatives, rather than unelected justices.
Anyways, though I went wobbly for a bit there, I think my position as a single issue voter has re-solidified.
How Did I Miss This
Apparently a few days ago, with the release of the 2004 Economic Report of the President, the Bush administration decided to consider reclassifying fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs, in order to reduce the job losses.
Needless to say, I was a bit skeptical of that claim, so I went to the primary source. What did I find? In Chapter 2, page 73, we find this sidebar:
Box 2-2: What Is Manufacturing?
The value of the output of the U.S. manufacturing sector as defined in official U.S. statistics is larger than the economies of all but a handful of other countries. The definition of a manufactured product, however, is not straightforward. When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a “service” or is it combining inputs to “manufacture” a product?
The official definition of manufacturing comes from the Census Bureau’s North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS. NAICS classifies all business establishments in the United States into categories based on how their output is produced. One such category is “manufacturing.” NAICS classifies an establishment as in the manufacturing sector if it is “engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products.”
This definition is somewhat unspecific, as the Census Bureau has recognized: “The boundaries of manufacturing and other sectors… can be somewhat blurry.” Some (perhaps surprising) examples of manufacturers listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are: bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors, milk bottling and pasteurizing, fresh fish packaging (oyster shucking, fish filleting), and tire retreading. Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For example, mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service.
The distinction between non-manufacturing and manufacturing industries may seem somewhat arbitrary but it can play an important role in developing policy and assessing its effects. Suppose it was decided to offer tax relief to manufacturing firms. Because the manufacturing category is not well defined, firms would have an incentive to characterize themselves as in manufacturing. Administering the tax relief could be difficult, and the tax relief may not extend to the firms for which it was enacted.
For policy makers, the blurriness of the definition of manufacturing means that policy aimed at manufacturing may inadvertently distort production and have unintended and harmful results. Whenever possible, policy making should not be based upon this type of arbitrary statistical delineation.
So the fast food comment was an obvious hypothetical, used as a device to lead into the difficulty in categorizing manufacturing jobs. Nowhere was there a mention of changing the status quo. Somehow this morphs into an attempt by the administration to reclassify jobs in order to minimize manufacturing job losses.
It's sad how often I have to go to primary sources to get the real story nowadays, rather than spin and hysterics.
Apparently a few days ago, with the release of the 2004 Economic Report of the President, the Bush administration decided to consider reclassifying fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs, in order to reduce the job losses.
Needless to say, I was a bit skeptical of that claim, so I went to the primary source. What did I find? In Chapter 2, page 73, we find this sidebar:
Box 2-2: What Is Manufacturing?
The value of the output of the U.S. manufacturing sector as defined in official U.S. statistics is larger than the economies of all but a handful of other countries. The definition of a manufactured product, however, is not straightforward. When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a “service” or is it combining inputs to “manufacture” a product?
The official definition of manufacturing comes from the Census Bureau’s North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS. NAICS classifies all business establishments in the United States into categories based on how their output is produced. One such category is “manufacturing.” NAICS classifies an establishment as in the manufacturing sector if it is “engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products.”
This definition is somewhat unspecific, as the Census Bureau has recognized: “The boundaries of manufacturing and other sectors… can be somewhat blurry.” Some (perhaps surprising) examples of manufacturers listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are: bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors, milk bottling and pasteurizing, fresh fish packaging (oyster shucking, fish filleting), and tire retreading. Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For example, mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service.
The distinction between non-manufacturing and manufacturing industries may seem somewhat arbitrary but it can play an important role in developing policy and assessing its effects. Suppose it was decided to offer tax relief to manufacturing firms. Because the manufacturing category is not well defined, firms would have an incentive to characterize themselves as in manufacturing. Administering the tax relief could be difficult, and the tax relief may not extend to the firms for which it was enacted.
For policy makers, the blurriness of the definition of manufacturing means that policy aimed at manufacturing may inadvertently distort production and have unintended and harmful results. Whenever possible, policy making should not be based upon this type of arbitrary statistical delineation.
So the fast food comment was an obvious hypothetical, used as a device to lead into the difficulty in categorizing manufacturing jobs. Nowhere was there a mention of changing the status quo. Somehow this morphs into an attempt by the administration to reclassify jobs in order to minimize manufacturing job losses.
It's sad how often I have to go to primary sources to get the real story nowadays, rather than spin and hysterics.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The Economist: Bush Loyalist
Just before I left the NASIOC PP, I got in an argument with the resident lefty 'stock market guru' (who once said he determined bull vs. bear markets in one week samples). This was pretty much the one that broke the camel's back. He was touting how low the unemployment rate became under Clinton, to which I replied:
And I'm sure the 3.9% wasn't the result of an overinflated market or anything.
Go ahead and compare the 5.6% to a number that is inflated, irrelevant, and potentially unsustainable (remember the cries of a labor shortage?)....
He replied with this:
HAHAHAA....an overinflated market is the reason how clinton managed to lower the unemployment rate?!?! are you trying to convince me or yourself?
The conversation went downhill from there, with him blaming Bush for everything bad that happened since 1999, and calling me an idiot for thinking he wasn't.
Well, turns out the people at The Economist are idiots too: Jobs in America
The “jobless recovery” first, then. Despite strong productivity growth and an accelerating recovery from the recession of 2001 (the economy grew by an annual 4% in the fourth quarter of last year), jobs are being created at a feeble rate of 100,000 or so a month. The jeremiahs point out that a net total of 2.3m jobs have been lost since Mr Bush came to office.
Although this date is often used as the starting-point from which to make a comparison, it is a silly one. In early 2001 the hangover effects from the investment boom of the late 1990s were only starting to be felt. Unemployment, at 4.2%, was unsustainably below the “natural” unemployment rate, consistent with stable inflation, that most economists put at around 5%. In other words, perhaps two-thirds of those 2.3m jobs were unsustainable “bubble” ones. Given the scale of job losses—along with the shocks of a stockmarket bust, corporate-governance scandals and terrorist attacks—it is a wonder that the recession was so mild. By the same token, a mild recession is now being followed by a commensurately mild recovery.
Yup. Me and The Economist, idiotic Bush lackeys. Anyone wonder why I left?
Just before I left the NASIOC PP, I got in an argument with the resident lefty 'stock market guru' (who once said he determined bull vs. bear markets in one week samples). This was pretty much the one that broke the camel's back. He was touting how low the unemployment rate became under Clinton, to which I replied:
And I'm sure the 3.9% wasn't the result of an overinflated market or anything.
Go ahead and compare the 5.6% to a number that is inflated, irrelevant, and potentially unsustainable (remember the cries of a labor shortage?)....
He replied with this:
HAHAHAA....an overinflated market is the reason how clinton managed to lower the unemployment rate?!?! are you trying to convince me or yourself?
The conversation went downhill from there, with him blaming Bush for everything bad that happened since 1999, and calling me an idiot for thinking he wasn't.
Well, turns out the people at The Economist are idiots too: Jobs in America
The “jobless recovery” first, then. Despite strong productivity growth and an accelerating recovery from the recession of 2001 (the economy grew by an annual 4% in the fourth quarter of last year), jobs are being created at a feeble rate of 100,000 or so a month. The jeremiahs point out that a net total of 2.3m jobs have been lost since Mr Bush came to office.
Although this date is often used as the starting-point from which to make a comparison, it is a silly one. In early 2001 the hangover effects from the investment boom of the late 1990s were only starting to be felt. Unemployment, at 4.2%, was unsustainably below the “natural” unemployment rate, consistent with stable inflation, that most economists put at around 5%. In other words, perhaps two-thirds of those 2.3m jobs were unsustainable “bubble” ones. Given the scale of job losses—along with the shocks of a stockmarket bust, corporate-governance scandals and terrorist attacks—it is a wonder that the recession was so mild. By the same token, a mild recession is now being followed by a commensurately mild recovery.
Yup. Me and The Economist, idiotic Bush lackeys. Anyone wonder why I left?
Dusty Baker being an idiot again
He should really stop trying to sound deep: Dusty Baker thinks suspicions over which baseball players are using steroids smacks of a McCarthy witch hunt.
While Baker said, "I've got my own ideas about guys around the league," he said all players are being tainted.
"It's like McCarthyism or something. They're looking to see who looks like a communist," he said.
"I'll probably get in trouble for that, too, but that's how I equate it," Baker added. "Oh, he lost weight. He gained weight."
Stop talking, Dusty. Please.
A) Taking steriods isn't a constitutional right. Being a communist is. In fact, taking steroids is a crime.
B) The gov't ain't the one conducting the 'witch hunt' this time around. It's the fans and the media, your customers. Is it any wonder that they want to know the ingredients to the product you're selling? Is it weight training and protein shakes, or is it weight training and HGH? You still have to sell your product, Dusty, and lingering suspicions about its integrity don't help to sell it.
The fans have a right to question, you have the right not to answer. But by not answering, you do nothing to quell the rumors and innuendo. There's an easy way remove that suspicion though: institute mandatory random testing. Otherwise, deal with it, and quit whining.
He should really stop trying to sound deep: Dusty Baker thinks suspicions over which baseball players are using steroids smacks of a McCarthy witch hunt.
While Baker said, "I've got my own ideas about guys around the league," he said all players are being tainted.
"It's like McCarthyism or something. They're looking to see who looks like a communist," he said.
"I'll probably get in trouble for that, too, but that's how I equate it," Baker added. "Oh, he lost weight. He gained weight."
Stop talking, Dusty. Please.
A) Taking steriods isn't a constitutional right. Being a communist is. In fact, taking steroids is a crime.
B) The gov't ain't the one conducting the 'witch hunt' this time around. It's the fans and the media, your customers. Is it any wonder that they want to know the ingredients to the product you're selling? Is it weight training and protein shakes, or is it weight training and HGH? You still have to sell your product, Dusty, and lingering suspicions about its integrity don't help to sell it.
The fans have a right to question, you have the right not to answer. But by not answering, you do nothing to quell the rumors and innuendo. There's an easy way remove that suspicion though: institute mandatory random testing. Otherwise, deal with it, and quit whining.
This Is What I Was Afraid Of
I never got around to completing my post on my concerns about the process of legalizing gay marriage, but W's actions today are just what I feared would result from the actions in San Fran. Gavin Newsom decided to play the part of the judiciary rather than the executive, and the result is what we see today. Rather than enforce the law, he decided to interpret it. Now, we'll try to have an amendment passed quickly, without the length and depth of debate that I believe is necessary, and which leaves open the chance (minimal as it is) to reintroduce discrimination into our Constitution. Once again, this isn't the right process. I hope that it'll turn out like the 13th Amendment, which was originally conceived to prolong slavery, but ended up eliminating it, but I'm not optimistic.
Andrew Sullivan says Bush has declared war on gays today. That's quite true. But it needs to be remembered that he didn't fire the first shot. The Massachussetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom did, and need to share the blame (or credit, as it were).
It's scary day for gay marriage advocates, and that saddens me. But it isn't like there weren't warning signs.
I never got around to completing my post on my concerns about the process of legalizing gay marriage, but W's actions today are just what I feared would result from the actions in San Fran. Gavin Newsom decided to play the part of the judiciary rather than the executive, and the result is what we see today. Rather than enforce the law, he decided to interpret it. Now, we'll try to have an amendment passed quickly, without the length and depth of debate that I believe is necessary, and which leaves open the chance (minimal as it is) to reintroduce discrimination into our Constitution. Once again, this isn't the right process. I hope that it'll turn out like the 13th Amendment, which was originally conceived to prolong slavery, but ended up eliminating it, but I'm not optimistic.
Andrew Sullivan says Bush has declared war on gays today. That's quite true. But it needs to be remembered that he didn't fire the first shot. The Massachussetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom did, and need to share the blame (or credit, as it were).
It's scary day for gay marriage advocates, and that saddens me. But it isn't like there weren't warning signs.
BAH!!! I repeat--BAH!!!!
Well, W's doing his best to make me rethink my position as a single issue voter. Forget Federalism, let's propose a constitutional amendment that has no business being there, and thankfully, has a miniscule chance of ever passing.
Roger Simon nails it:
We need someone who can represent the millions of Americans who back a militant stand against violent religious fascism abroad in order to uphold genuine human freedom here at home....With the Democrats poised to nominate a mealy-mouthed phony who thinks (or pretends to think) there is no War on Terrorism and the man in the White House acting in entirely unnecessary self-righteousness, I feel at a loss. It's going to be a long 2004 for me.
I may be staying home come November. Not that W has any chance of winning in California anyways, but stil....
Well, W's doing his best to make me rethink my position as a single issue voter. Forget Federalism, let's propose a constitutional amendment that has no business being there, and thankfully, has a miniscule chance of ever passing.
Roger Simon nails it:
We need someone who can represent the millions of Americans who back a militant stand against violent religious fascism abroad in order to uphold genuine human freedom here at home....With the Democrats poised to nominate a mealy-mouthed phony who thinks (or pretends to think) there is no War on Terrorism and the man in the White House acting in entirely unnecessary self-righteousness, I feel at a loss. It's going to be a long 2004 for me.
I may be staying home come November. Not that W has any chance of winning in California anyways, but stil....
Thursday, February 19, 2004
The Sweetest Four Words in Sports
Pitchers and Catchers Report
Ahhhhhh. The winter doldrums are ending.
Now I've got to make my Excel spreadsheets to prepare for Fantasy season.
Pitchers and Catchers Report
Ahhhhhh. The winter doldrums are ending.
Now I've got to make my Excel spreadsheets to prepare for Fantasy season.
Maybe I don't want to move to New Mexico
What the heck is up in New Mexico?
A bill requiring an ignition interlock device be installed on every car, truck, bus or motorcycle in New Mexico passed the state house today and is on its way to the senate.
Unbelievable. This is just absolutely ludicrous. Isn't there a Fourth Amendment problem here? "Secure in their...effects"?
My buddy who moved to ABQ a few months ago told me that the police are QUITE serious and strict about checking and enforcing DUI laws. Sure, fine, whatever. Enforce those laws. This, however, is a huge infringement on our liberties. Where's the probable cause here?
Law types (I'm looking at you, Pitts) have any comments?
What the heck is up in New Mexico?
A bill requiring an ignition interlock device be installed on every car, truck, bus or motorcycle in New Mexico passed the state house today and is on its way to the senate.
Unbelievable. This is just absolutely ludicrous. Isn't there a Fourth Amendment problem here? "Secure in their...effects"?
My buddy who moved to ABQ a few months ago told me that the police are QUITE serious and strict about checking and enforcing DUI laws. Sure, fine, whatever. Enforce those laws. This, however, is a huge infringement on our liberties. Where's the probable cause here?
Law types (I'm looking at you, Pitts) have any comments?
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Yay! Midterms again!
Just one class this term, thankfully. But Controls suck. Hard. Like I care what a Bode plot is?
Though I did run the numbers on what this costs my company. If it were coming out of my pocket, yikes. But it's not. Go me. Free money.
Just one class this term, thankfully. But Controls suck. Hard. Like I care what a Bode plot is?
Though I did run the numbers on what this costs my company. If it were coming out of my pocket, yikes. But it's not. Go me. Free money.
Monday, February 16, 2004
It begins
Gay marriages in San Francisco. Ultimately, this is the correct outcome, and it's about time. I just worry that it's not the right process. I'll try to have a longer post on this tonight.
Gay marriages in San Francisco. Ultimately, this is the correct outcome, and it's about time. I just worry that it's not the right process. I'll try to have a longer post on this tonight.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Oh, How I Hate the Yankees
They got A-Rod. Unbelievable. That's 4 separate $100 million dollar contracts on their payroll.
I hope they keep losing in the postseason. I hope...
They got A-Rod. Unbelievable. That's 4 separate $100 million dollar contracts on their payroll.
I hope they keep losing in the postseason. I hope...
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
I'm taking a leave of absence from the Political Playground forum at Nasioc.com. Subarus don't generally draw the most conservative crowd, but in the past couple of weeks the vitriol and ridiculousness directed at the current administration have reached abnormally silly levels. I've been called stupid, blind, naive, facist, ignorant, and evil. And I'm not even conservative, I just don't reflexively hate GWB. In the past week, GWB has been blamed for causing the dot.com crash, the recession, 9/11, and the bubonic plague. Andrew Sullivan had a post titled "Bush-hatred Peaking?" I sure hope so, because if this small sample is any indication of the state of the left, it's on the verge of becoming unhinged.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Oh for the Heady Days of Gridlock
Where's a socially liberal, fiscal conservative who's supportive on the war on terror supposed to turn nowadays? All the Dems with any shot at the nomination are rejected on the latter part, as all of them are wholly unserious on the topic. And when I see things like this from Heritage, coupled with the FMA, I think W begins to lose his appeal for me as well.
What to do? Where do we libertarians go?
Where's a socially liberal, fiscal conservative who's supportive on the war on terror supposed to turn nowadays? All the Dems with any shot at the nomination are rejected on the latter part, as all of them are wholly unserious on the topic. And when I see things like this from Heritage, coupled with the FMA, I think W begins to lose his appeal for me as well.
What to do? Where do we libertarians go?
Let the Instalanche Begin!
Welcome to all. The fare is pretty sparse, as I've been quite busy lately, and started this year behind due to some travel. I hope to improve on that. Check back for more regular updates.
Welcome to all. The fare is pretty sparse, as I've been quite busy lately, and started this year behind due to some travel. I hope to improve on that. Check back for more regular updates.
Bah. Just noticed my comments link disappeared. BlogSpeak went bye-bye while I was out of country. I'll work on that tonight. Just in time for an Instalanche too...
I reiterate: Bah.
Edit: That should do it.
Edit2: Nevermind, still working on it.
Edit3: Done and done.
I reiterate: Bah.
Edit: That should do it.
Edit2: Nevermind, still working on it.
Edit3: Done and done.
Non-sequitur of the Day
From here:
A letter seized from an al-Qaida courier shows Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) has made little headway in recruiting Iraqis for a holy war against America, raising questions about the Bush administration's contention that Iraq (news - web sites) is the central front in the war on terror.
Huh? So because Al Qaeda is actively recruiting Iraqis to kill us (and failing, which is a good thing), and this is somehow contradictory to Bush's position that Al Qaeda is actively working in Iraq? Or does the fact that they're failing to recruit somehow negate the fact that they're trying to recruit? I'm confused.
From here:
A letter seized from an al-Qaida courier shows Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) has made little headway in recruiting Iraqis for a holy war against America, raising questions about the Bush administration's contention that Iraq (news - web sites) is the central front in the war on terror.
Huh? So because Al Qaeda is actively recruiting Iraqis to kill us (and failing, which is a good thing), and this is somehow contradictory to Bush's position that Al Qaeda is actively working in Iraq? Or does the fact that they're failing to recruit somehow negate the fact that they're trying to recruit? I'm confused.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
I've just been schooled in left-wing-economics.
the reason the late 90s run didn't consolidate is because of george bush. NOT BECAUSE prices didn't reflect performance, misallocation of capital or whatever mumbo jumbo you think you read from the wall street journal.
Makes sense, if you neglect the fact that George Bush wasn't president until long after the stock market decline started. I'm sure he was responsible for the Great Depression as well.
the reason the late 90s run didn't consolidate is because of george bush. NOT BECAUSE prices didn't reflect performance, misallocation of capital or whatever mumbo jumbo you think you read from the wall street journal.
Makes sense, if you neglect the fact that George Bush wasn't president until long after the stock market decline started. I'm sure he was responsible for the Great Depression as well.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Superfans bug me.
Why is it that rules should change just because the effect isn't positive on your team? Last night during the Super Bowl, one Patriot superfan was really angry that an intentional grounding penalty on the Panthers was waived off. Replays showed clearly that Delhomme, being clung to by a Patriot defensive lineman, threw the ball at the feet of his tight end, who had stayed in to block. The flag flew, but two or three referees immediately pointed to the tight end, showing that they'd seen the eligible receiver.
Superfan proceeded to proclaim the waving off a 'bullshit call' repeatedly. Ugh. You're wrong, the refs are right. Deal with it.
Some people are way too Type A for me.
Why is it that rules should change just because the effect isn't positive on your team? Last night during the Super Bowl, one Patriot superfan was really angry that an intentional grounding penalty on the Panthers was waived off. Replays showed clearly that Delhomme, being clung to by a Patriot defensive lineman, threw the ball at the feet of his tight end, who had stayed in to block. The flag flew, but two or three referees immediately pointed to the tight end, showing that they'd seen the eligible receiver.
Superfan proceeded to proclaim the waving off a 'bullshit call' repeatedly. Ugh. You're wrong, the refs are right. Deal with it.
Some people are way too Type A for me.
