Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:29:00 GMT
Yesterday my reaction to the extravagance of the Obama inauguration was that it came off more like a coronation than an inauguration and the costs were tremendous. (a word to those who think all costs were borne by private donors: pfft, right).
However, today I read an argument by David Warner over at the Volokh Conspiracy that's changed my mind:
The real battle is between the guy we actually get to elect (Bush/Obama) and the guys we don't (the permanent bureaucracy). The purpose of all the pomp is to impress upon the unelected the fact that the elected guy does have a large gang behind him. We'd do well to remind them more often, if the Bush Administration is any indication.
Thinking through the psychology of the opposite approach, I think he's right. At least until we can get rid of the large unelected bureaucracy. One way to check this would be to understand the perception of Utah's governor, who reportedly insisted on a de minimis inauguration. Any politicos from Utah reading?
Posted in Government, Psychology | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:05:00 GMT
I stopped by Newbury Comics today to buy Will a birthday present (he's two today). I got him a Monster Book of Monsters stuffed toy he absolute went bananas for last time we were in there.
On my TODO index card in my pocket I also had 'wrapping paper' and 'padded envelopes'. Newbury Comics is in the same shopping plaza as K-Mart and since I was shopping on work time I decided to just go there rather than drive down to Wal*Mart and save a couple bucks on products.
I got what I needed, but during checkout I was asked, in order:
- for my e-mail address so I could 'get coupons'. Three times, each worded differently.
- for my ZIP code
- if I wanted to apply for a Sears credit card
- for $7.73 for the goods
- if I would please go online and fill out a survey
- to 'please come back and visit us again'
They're out of their minds. Next time I'm going to drive to Wal*Mart, and it's not for the $2, it's for the check out process:
- give us this much money (incidentally, less than K-Mart)
- "thank you, have a nice day"
Posted in Economics, Psychology, Local | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:15:00 GMT
There's a move afoot to replace the terms 'B.C.' and 'A.D' to denote years with the terms C.E. and B.C.E meaning 'Common Era' and 'Before Common Era'. Anybody who's been to school knows B.C. means 'before Christ' and A.D. means 'Anno Domini', Latin for 'In the Year of Our Lord'. That 'B.C.' is based in English and 'A.D.' in Latin seems incongruous at best, but they've been used for the duration of the Gregorian Calendar and frankly serve their purpose just fine.
C.E. and B.C.E. are simply euphemisms to cover up the fact that the calendar used in most of the world is based on Christianity, specifically the birth of Jesus Christ (or Yoshua of Nazereth for the historically-minded). The Gregorian Calendar was imposed by, who'd'a thunk ... Pope Gregory, and who would you think he'd base his calendar around? (Obviously the name of the calendar system will be next on the block).
There are many good arguments against the Gregorian Calendar, but that's what we've got. The competing calendar standards (e.g. Mayan, Chinese) have fallen to the Gregorian, and there's likely no turning back that tide. So, there's no utility in trying to cover up its origins, and the cost of implementing such changes is without return. At a minimum anybody expected to ever read any historical text would have to be trained in both systems, so at best it's a net increase in cost. If somebody wants to tackle the implementation of a better calendar, perhaps a sidereal one, go for it. You can even call its days a 'stardate' if you must. But until that time, nobody can claim offense at B.C. and A.D. until we take care of the 'Tyr, Odin, Thor, Freyja, Saturn' problem, OK?
Posted in Economics, Science, Psychology | Tags correctness, political | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:59:00 GMT
So the other night I was at a dinner and sat next to a nice fellow who asked me, "what do you think of this Sarah Palin?"
"She's interesting," I began, "what do you think of her?"
"Oh, she's terrible!" came the reply. So, I asked, intending to learn something and continue the conversation, "which of her positions positions do you dislike?"
"All of them!" was the what-don't-you-get reply. "Oh," I said with some fascination, "which one do you think is the worst?" At this point I was suspecting this could be fun.
"Just all of them," was the only answer I received, and the conversation turned.
So, the rhetorical question of the day is how many of Sarah Palin's positions do you think this hater actually knew anything about? It amazes me how people can take strong political positions without knowing anything about the subject. I get this over and over on nuclear energy especially. I think I err on the other side too much, only weighing in on a topic after I've researched it extensively. Well, at least feeling embarrassed in retrospect when I do otherwise.
Posted in Government, Humor, Psychology, Local | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 27 May 2008 23:54:00 GMT
Some notes of interest:
- Female circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV.
- Female circumcision is banned in the US.
- The 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the law, and gender-based exceptions can only be allowed under with “exceedingly persuasive justification.”
- The US Supreme Court held in Prince vs. Massachusetts that religious expression by parents cannot be imposed on children where the state has compelling reason to protect the children.
Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.
Posted in Government, Science, Psychology | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:07:00 GMT
The problem of airplanes being hijacked and used as weapons was solved at 10:03 AM on 2001-09-11 over a field in Shanksville, PA. 'Average' Americans figured out the security equation just more than an hour after the first plane hit Tower 1. Everything since is a distraction.
The specific problem that's supposedly being solved by Airport Security is using airplanes as weapons. That one's been solved - you can't do that anymore if you're a hijacker.
But, what if you're a hijacker who doesn't want to use the airplane as a weapon? Everybody is still going to think you do. So they're going to rush/kill you, probably before you even get to the cockpit. I agree that the hardened cockpit doors were a good idea, which is why the Israeli airline has had them for decades. But we have them now, let's move on.
The only thing you can do to an airplane now is blow it up. But, you don't even need to do that by suicide if you don't want to, so why would you? If you're a sociopathic maniac wouldn't you rather live and extend your reign of terror? In the US we have a policy against negotiating with terrorists, so you can't hijack to have demands met for release either. So, curiously, the 9/11 attacks dried up hijacking as a viable means of anything.
But to bring home the point, there have been hijackings for decades before 9/11, even bombings (Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie and perhaps TWA-800), and we didn't implement draconian searches after that. There was more reason at the time - nothing you can do can ever fully prevent these things, terrorists aren't stupid (they're doctors and engineers - at least some of them) and this kind of chicanery just wastes everybody's time and money. So long as a terrorist can take one up the wrong way and get binary explosives onboard, there's a hard limit on how safe air travel can be. Even at that, planes can't handle all weather, and life isn't a risk-free proposition.
Meanwhile, if you're in any number of professions which require even occasional air travel (or even a leisure traveler), the Federal government is infringing on the Fifth Amendment prohibition against being deprived of liberty without due process of law. The due process of law, and Hamilton was very specific about this, is a trial by a jury of your peers, and the liberties are derived from 'natural law', as described as 'the law of the land' in the Magna Charta, and inherited by our system. Let's not be coy - at these 'security' checkpoints you are being detained by the government, they're just letting you go quickly if you cooperate. If you don't cooperate your detainment will be longer.
Travel by air is the de-factor standard method of travel in the US for many businesses, and many would not be able to maintain their living without it. For those who answer, "just drive", this would be analogous to a practice at the founding of our country where your wagon was subject to search and seizure if it were on a road, but the government would tell you, "stop complaining, you can always walk through the woods." That would have been considered just as reprehensible then as it is now.
Truthfully I'd love to see a private-sector implementation of a 'safe airline'. There would be no carry-on luggage, pockets would be empty (standard-issue clothes would be best), and everybody would get an MRI on the way in to look for internally concealed weapons.
I think it would go out of business. Quickly.
Posted in Government, Philosophy, Psychology | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:00 GMT
Here's an excerpt of a story from the Wall Street Journal about a guy who's gaming quarterly earnings analyst calls, by asking nonsensical questions riddled with Wall-Street Speak. Most CEO's try to answer the questions anyway. It would be good to know which CEO's saw through the subterfuge.
The WSJ wonders what the point is... it's Socratic Irony. The CEO's can't tell the difference between a real analyst's call and the goofball. It's an indictment of the system, and the article makes it clear the participants don't get it. They would not be expected to.
One wonders if Sasha Cohen is doing a radio show.
Posted in Economics, Psychology | no comments | no trackbacks
