San Diego Padres All-Time Team

Today I posted my draft chapter on the San Diego Padres. For the book introduction and several other team chapters posted so far, see the book project index page.

Just give me good grades

Shawn Klein has posted on Consumerism in Education, and he makes several interesting points on the complaint that too many college students have "the view that since they are paying for the class, they should get an A or more direct control over the classroom itself." He first notes that consumerism isn't the problem per se, but rather that "students (and others: parents, administrators, educators, politicians, etc.) have the wrong idea of what is being consumed." He then makes a very insightful analogy:

Educational institutions are selling access and opportunity for education; the student has to get that education himself. An analogy to personal fitness training is apt here. If Sally purchases a year of personal fitness training at her local gym, she is not buying fitness; she is buying access to a trainer who has knowledge about fitness and can direct her efforts towards her goals. She is buying the access to facilities and equipment. She is purchasing the opportunity to get herself fit. If Sally became upset because the trainer was pushing her and challenging her during her sessions or because she failed to reach her fitness goals due to her own sloth or lack of effort then Sally is seriously misplacing her disappointment.

The same applies for education. When Tommy pays tuition at an education institution he is purchasing access to experts who can direct him towards his goals (and even help him determine these goals); he is purchasing access to facilities such as libraries and research centers. He is buying the opportunity to get an education, but he has to work to achieve these goals, much like Sally has to work to achieve her fitness goals.

If more students viewed education in this way, consumerism would be a benefit to them and to educators. Paying for one’s own education provides a powerful incentive to actually do the work that will help in achieving one’s goals. Even for the more apathetic students, I think the attitude would shift from “I paid for the credits, give me the A” to “I paid for the credits, I better do something about it”. This would be similar to the experience many have after buying a gym membership: “well, I paid for the membership; I might as well make use of it”.

His whole posting is a good read...

Of transistors and grains of rice

The June 19, 2006 issue of BusinessWeek had a supplement section on innovation. On page 27, they noted the following:

Last year, human beings produced more transistors (and at a lower cost) than they did grains of rice.

Really? If that is true, then I find that to be amazing! I would never have guessed it.

Blog Categories and Index Page

Just a brief mention of a new feature I've added here at Philosopher Stone... blog categories.

The software/platform I currently use -- the very popular Blogger -- does not natively support categorization for my blog posts (some platforms do). From the beginning I knew I'd want to have categories available, so that both I and readers could quickly find just the posts in a particular area of interest: economics, baseball, whatever. Not a big deal at first, but now that I've got about 100 posts under my belt, I figure it was about time.

So I either had to switch to a different platform, or create my own solution. Since I've been otherwise happy with Blogger, and switching could introduce some negative side effects, I figured I'd just code my own solution, which has the benefit of being able to design it exactly as I want it.

So you'll notice that over on the right sidebar (for the blog main page and the monthly archive pages) there is a list of 27 category links, grouped into five groupings. Click on any of the categories, and you'll get a page at my website that lists (with dates and links) each of my blog postings in that category. You can also then click each of the categories on that page to quickly browse around the categories.

A few caveats. Some blog posts appear in multiple categories. I'll adjust the categorization scheme as my blog posts warrant it. Also, most but not all of my posts are included in the index. Posts like this one about my blog itself won't be, and a few others aren't so far because I found them hard to categorize. And the index will sometimes be a few days behind the blog itself, but I'll do my best to keep it up to date.

Why only $10 an hour? Why not more?

The Chicago City Council approved an ordinance to force so-called "big-box" retailers (like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, K-Mart, Sears, Toys R' Us, and many others) to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour, plus another $3 per hour worth of benefits. This is a so-called "living wage." See the news reports from Washington Post and NY Times (and just about everywhere else).

My question is: why only $10 (plus $3)? Why not $10.50? Or $12? or why not $14.63 per hour, plus $5 in health benefits per hour, plus 10% company match on a 401K plan, plus cheap life insurance, plus free lunches twice a week, plus a minimum of 6 weeks paid vacation, plus three free wishes for each employee? Why just $10?

I mean, the city council aldermen obviously have knowledge that the big-box retailers will hire just as many people no matter what they are forced to pay them as minimum wages and benefits. Clearly there will be no impact on employment levels or development of new stores in the city, nor any negative economic externalities of any kind, so why not go higher?

Err... wait. Just kidding.

This is wrong on so many levels... But on the most fundamental level, minimum wage laws as such are a gross rights violation of individual rights. Employers own their businesses. Period. They can offer to hire you or not, and the two parties get to negotiate wages. This is the all-important trader principle found in a free-market economy -- and it is what is so very lacking in centralized, statist economies like those found in ubiquitously floundering and failing socialist countries.

Employees do not have a right to a job, hence they do not have a right to a job with particular perks attached, nor a conditional right that if hired, then you are guaranteed to get certain wages and perks. We simply don't have such rights. Governments passing ordinances as if we do is a misuse of government force and violates our rights of liberty and property.

All I can say is, good luck Chicago! In addition to the rights violations, I fear for the poor in your city, who as a whole, will be hurt by such legislation.

UPDATE: Will Wilkinson has also blogged on this, and it is worth reading. He rightly describes the ordinance as one that would "would forbid Chicagoans from legally entering into agreements to work for less than $10 an hour and $3 in benefits—even if they want to—with retailers with $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet." He also describes some study data that is relevant to the issue.

Los Angeles Angels All-Time Team

Today I posted my draft chapter on the Los Angeles Angels. For the book introduction and several other team chapters posted so far, see the book project index page.

Not a Fan of the Jury System

We have all heard of court cases that make us roll our eyes and wonder about justice in America. I won't mention any here, and I'm sure everyone has their own favorite examples. But what I don't hear or read very often is people questioning the jury system as such in this country.

James Dorn of Cato wrote a brief but interesting item today, Abolish Jury "Draft". As the title indicates, he argues that the current compulsory jury system should be abolished because it is a violation of our freedoms. He compares it to the military draft, while admitting it isn't as significant a violation as that was. In its place he wants to "institute an all-volunteer jury" system. He makes some interesting points, many of which I agree with.

I'm well aware of the historical reasons for the current jury system in America (at least the basics). But there are a few things I don't like about it. First, as Dorn argues, there is the very important liberty issue. But even beyond that, I consider it to be horribly inefficient and economically expensive for the country. Many more people are called for duty than are actually serve on a jury. That is a lot of people taken away from their jobs, for one or a few days, on a regular basis. This is especially true for situations where the attornies on each side have reasons for rejecting a lot of the candidates. And even though there are exemptions for various reasons, a great many people who not only would rather be back at their jobs (not to mention vacations) really should be back at their jobs from the perspective of economics. This "total expense" of the jury system would be hard to calculate, but as Dorn notes, it is far more than the daily pittance paid to the jurors who actually serve.

But my main objection is that our system has people -- like me -- with no training in the law -- making important decisions of guilt or innocence. Even if television fiction (Law and Order, etc.) and non-fiction (the O.J. Simpson case, etc.) are not the norm, the very idea that lawyers on both sides can appeal to the emotion of jurors and use other non-objective tactics to sway votes means there is something wrong with the system. Further, weighing evidence should be a science: it takes a lot of epistemological skills, something the average person simply doesn't have, or at least doesn't make use of very often. And the law itself can be a very technical, complicated matter -- seemingly more so all the time. So why do we trust average, untrained citizens to pass judgement on someone's guilt or innocence?

Having voiced my vague objections, I'm not sure that Dorn's idea -- a voluntary jury system -- is the answer either. I've long thought of advocating something more radical than that. I currently favor replacing the compulsory jury system with a system of paid professional jurors. It would be a sort of new legal profession: we have judges, we have lawyers, so too we should have professional jurors. They could be educated, trained, accredited, and so on, just like judges and lawyers are. They would learn aspects of psychology, criminal psychology, sociology, forensics, the law (of course), and other relevant fields.

The benefits of this seem obvious to me. Jurors, with few exceptions, would then be well-educated in the law, in the relevant science that arises in cases, in psychology, and so on. They would be far less-likely to be swayed by emotion, because it would be their job -- their professionally sworn duty -- not to be so swayed. And I think pretty quickly lawyers would radically change their tactics as well, knowing that the jurors were now a very different breed.

Back in September 2005, Steve Forbes wrote a brief column, Junking Judicial Malpractice, making a similar suggestion but in a very delimited (though important) context. Here is the entire thing:

President Bush has proposed putting caps on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. Too often, frivolous lawsuits succeed with juries that are unversed in medicine. And many times awards bear no relation to culpability or the damage allegedly done. A more effective, lasting approach to fairness, however, would be to create medical courts. After all, we have special tribunals for bankruptcy, patents, taxes and other areas. Typical citizens can't be expected
to master the intricacies of medical care.

The recent Vioxx decision is a good example of a case judged on emotion instead of fact. The plaintiffs never demonstrated that the medication killed the patient, but the jury wanted to
punish Merck and "send a message to the big drug companies." The bestseller Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, discusses how doctors who don't have a good bedside manner get slapped with lawsuits far more frequently than do their brethren with more patient-pleasing personalities.

Medical courts would rely on impartial experts rather than hired guns for the plaintiff bar (or for defendants). These panels would be able to distinguish between genuine malpractice and high-risk, complicated medical procedures.

Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) have introduced legislation that would allow states to experiment with medical courts. Victims of medical malpractice would receive justice--as would innocent doctors and hospitals.

I totally agree with Mr. Forbes on this.

But I'd go even further. Not just medical courts, but all courts. Why not have professional jurors, who are educated (fairly well) in the law, in the relevant sciences, who understand what is and is not evidence and how to weigh evidence, who are far less likely to be swayed by emotion, or their racial/religious/ethnic views and biases, and so on, be the ones deciding guilt and innocence? Justice is too important to leave it to anyone else.

This is not a position I am confident on, just something I have been thinking about over the years. I'd be interested in readers' thoughts on it, pro and con.

Toronto Blue Jays All-Time Team

Today I posted my draft chapter on the Toronto Blue Jays. For the book introduction and several other team chapters posted so far, see the book project index page.

So-called Smart Growth and High Real Estate Prices

Thomas Sowell makes some interesting points about conservation of "open spaces" and the broader desire for "smart growth". He has some data regarding San Francisco in particular, which has sky high real estate prices these days.

Collections of Cells and Federal Funds

I read two brief items today about President Bush's veto of legislation on federal funding of stem cell research. Both were pretty good pieces, but neither quite lays out my complete view on the matter.

Michael Tanner's article Does the Senate Vote on Stem Cell Research Matter? focuses attention on the fact that stem cell research is not actually illegal, and is actually moving ahead in the private sector without federal funding. He gives good examples of such projects that are going on now, and so argues that the veto doesn't matter. Worse, he notes, this bill and the veto are politicizing science:

"Stem-cell researchers have become just one more special interest at the federal trough. And, as such, the coming debate is a perfect example of how science becomes politicized when government money is involved.

Instead of a serious scientific debate about the merits and drawbacks of a promising new therapy, one side will treat us to extravagant claims from celebrity spokespeople implying that miracle cures for everything from spinal injuries to Alzheimer's disease are just around the corner. The other side will downplay studies that show promise from embryonic stem-cell research, while overselling results from adult stem cells. In reality, most scientists believe that embryonic stem cells may eventually help people with Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and spinal injuries, among other conditions. But widespread application of this research is years, likely decades, away."

And he is correct as far as that goes.

But he is very wrong to contend that the veto doesn't matter. And this is where the second item I read today comes into play. David Holcberg and Alex Epstein wrote a very short item in the form of a Letter to the Editor, which over at Principles in Practice goes by the title Bush's Opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Anti-Life. They note:

"Contrary to the claims of Bush and others who oppose embryonic stem cell research, embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are not human beings. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of, at most, a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While these early embryos have the potential to become human beings—they are not actual human beings.

To restrict the freedom of scientists to use clusters of cells to do such research on the basis of religious dogma is to violate their rights—as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research."

I wouldn't say that scientists who don't receive federal funding are having their rights violated (though this issue is muddied by the long history of government funding of science, which violates all our rights as taxpayers since it is outside the proper scope of government action).

But I think their basic point is a critical one: collections of cells aren't people, they don't have the moral status granted by personhood, and so don't have a right to life (moral or legal). I argue that personhood and rights is based on our rational faculty. But even if you argue for personhood and rights based on something broader (the ability to feel pain, etc.), minute collections of cells still wouldn't qualify. They only qualify via either an arbitrary intrinsicist view of personhood as conveyed by "being human" (having the human DNA), or by the view from religion that personhood status is conferred at conception because that is when a soul (or something) enters the one or very few cells that then exist. Bush's view, from what I understand, is the latter view -- and so, as Holcberg and Epstein write, this "shows once again his commitment to impose his religious agenda on all Americans."

So while I quibble over whether scientists rights are being violated as a result of this veto, I would agree with them that this veto definitely does "matter" (contra Tanner's implication). Religious views (faith-based, mystical, supernatural, etc.) should not be involved in setting public policy or law.

However, Holcberg and Epstein don't go on to say or even imply anything about federal funding of science as such. Knowing a bit about their philosophical positions, I assume they are against it, but you couldn't tell that from their brief editorial -- in fact, one would conclude the opposite. (To be fair, they likely don't discuss this because of space limitations, given the format of their letter.)

So here is my view: given that this legislation was not actually authorizing new funding for scientific research, but (as I understand it) was merely lifting the ban on allocating federal (taxpayer) funds already budgeted for scientific research towards stem cell research... the legislation was a good thing, and the veto was wrong. I would be against, however, federal funding of scientific research in general (as I'm pretty sure Holcberg and Epstein are as well). So any bill that was introducing new funds for scientific research -- whether for stem cell research or any other kind of research -- would get a thumbs down from me. And this is because such research is simply outside the scope of legitimate government action -- because it has nothing to do with the protection of individual rights. It should be left to the private sector, where based on Tanner's examples, it seems it is proceeding anyway.

Two Vader Edits

It seems a day doesn't go by that I don't find or get sent another hilarious video clip. Today's two treasures are via my friend Branden Heffernan's fine blog. The videos in question are hosted at the increasingly valuable site YouTube of course. They are edits of various clips of Darth Vader from the original Star Wars movie, with bits of dialogue from James Earl Jones from various other movies replacing most of Vader's actual lines. The results are surprisingly good.

The first one is shorter, and is pretty good... I particularly like the ending.

The second one is the must see though. It is longer, and is consistently hilarious throughout.

Of course, it helps you can recognize the various other films that the Jones dialogue is from, but even minus that, these would still be pretty funny I think.

Blogs Banned in India

In the wake of the recent bombings in India, Basia for the blogpost on this)

Diagnoses Delayed in Great Britain

Here is a nice posting from Tom Palmer at Cato on a report from Great Britain on the long waits for health care in that country -- long waits just to get your diagnosis in fact. The BBC has reported the National Health Service has for the first time published data on such "hidden waits" -- as opposed to the waiting line for surgery or other care after your diagnosis. Of course, many in Great Britain already knew of these long waits, since they have been suffering through them.

But let's not let this latest admission deter the US government's march toward ever-more government-controlled, socialistic health care. Let's not ask why there would be such long waits. Obviously reality will be different when the USA does it. Afterall, our politicians mean well - such philosophic and economic diagnoses would just get in the way.

RIP: Roger (Syd) Barrett (1946-2006)

As Pink Floyd is my all-time favorite rock/pop group, I was saddened to hear of the death of Syd Barrett, one of the founders of the band back in the 1960s. Although he was only with the band at the very beginning, his influence lingered, and several of PF's later great songs either were inspired by him or were about him (e.g., Shine On You Crazy Diamond).

For more information about him, see the Wikipedia entry, the article written by Syd's sister Rosemary, and this article over at AllMusic. There is some interesting info in all three.

On Net Neutrality, again

I last wrote about this issue back on June 20th. But I continue to read and hear a lot of FUD from the backers of so-called "Net Neutrality", whether from individuals or from big corporations like Microsoft, Google, eBay, and others.

It is a somewhat complicated issue, because of the US government's history of intervention in the economy, and in this case, in the phone and television businesses in particular. So I can understand people being confused on this issue -- I even was for a little while. All the more valuable then are brief articles like Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom, by Alex Epstein, which concisely lays out why fighting against so-called "Net Neutrality" is both the practical and the moral thing to do.

Fat Boy Slim Juggler and Hula-Hooper

Courtesy of links from Stephen Hicks, some more good video clips... this time it is a Juggler, then a Hula-Hooper, then another Juggler -- all set to Fatboy Slim tune. I like the two jugglers more, the first one because he is flawless and fast, and the second because he has so many distractions and still does a great job.

The Bible as told with Legos

Thanks to this post over at Principles in Practice, I have now been introduced to the amazing world of the Brick Testament. At this site you will find over a thousand images of scenes from the Bible, created with toy Lego bricks. The creator of the site (and the books that go with it), is "The Reverend" Brenden Powell Smith -- who of course is not a Reverend at all. From the homepage you can quickly browse by theme, or you can see what's new to keep up with his latest work. I particularly liked his latest one, On Love. And be sure to note the legend at the bottom that warns you which sections have nudity, sexual content, violence, and cursing -- which there is plenty of each in the Bible of course (no kidding).

Good stuff... an amazing project!

Internet Tubes: Stewart on Stevens

This is a classic clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P83FGtPCuvc

John Stewart rips Senator Stevens knowledge of the Internet. Although the context for this was the recent congressional issues of Net Neutrality and Online Gambling, those issues don't really get discussed much in this clip. It is just funny, no matter what your views are on those issues. And scary, given the power that ignorant folks like Stevens have...

Update of the Movie of Atlas Shrugged

As I discussed here in April, it is looking more and more likely that we will finally see a movie produced of Ayn Rand's classic novel Atlas Shrugged -- a favorite of mine. It even has a page at IMDB now.

The co-executive producers, Howard and Karen Baldwin (of Baldwin Entertainment group, which produced the Oscar-winning hit film "Ray", amongst other major movies), held a Q&A session on the project during a session of the summer seminar conference of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center. It was a very informative session, and Robert Bidinotto has summarized the details at his blog here. This is a great write-up, and Karen Baldwin has said his summary is "perfect". It is well worth reading, as are the numerous comments to his post. But here are a few highlights:

• The book will be created as a movie trilogy, not as a single movie. That is great news, because the novel is over 1,000 pages (with small font!).
• The first of the trilogy has an initial budget of about $40 million.
• The first draft of the script has been completed, by James V. Hart, whose major screenwriting credits include "Contact", "Hook", and "Tuck Everlasting".
• Philosopher David Kelley worked closely with Hart to ensure the screenplay's fidelity to the novel.
• The Baldwins have been deluged with major stars who want a part in the film. Atlas Shrugged is a very popular and influential novel (particularly in the USA), so this is no surprise to me. I've read countless articles over the years where major stars expressed such an interest, but the various attempts at doing the novel as a movie never materialized.
• In particular, Angelina Jolie has expressed a strong interest in playing the lead role of Dagny Taggart, something the Baldwins were clearly excited about.
• The next, and critical, step in the project is to hire a good director. Once that is done, then casting will occur, and production can really begin.

For fans of Rand's novel a popular pastime has long been to come up with a dream movie cast for all the major (and minor) characters. Obviously with a limited budget, such an all-star cast would be difficult to achieve. However, such a project could benefit from strong interest by big-name actors who want to be in the film because of their love of the book. If some were willing to lower their asking prices, then the cast could have greater star power than one would otherwise reasonably assume -- though far from the complete all-star listings that fans fantasize about of course.

For some good examples, see Robert Bidinotto's and Vodka Pundit Stephen Green's. Off the top of my head, I don't have any strong opinions for who should play the key roles of John Galt, Francisco D'Anconia, or Dagny Taggart (if Angelina doesn't already have that wrapped up, then maybe Jill Hennessy or Ashley Judd?). But drawing partially on Robert's and Stephen's discussions, I like the following ideas for other characters:

• Liam Neeson as Hank Rearden
• Sharon Stone, Carrie-Ann Moss, or Annette Benning as Lillian Reardon
• Val Kilmer or Viggo Mortenson as Ragnar Danneskjold
• John Cusack as Eddie Willers
• Kevin Spacey as James Taggart (or any number of other roles)
• Morgan Freeman, Patrick Stewart, Sean Connery, or Anthony Hopkins as Hugh Akston
• James Cromwell, John Malkovich, or Ian McKellan as Dr. Robert Stadler
• Fred Ward as Ken Danagger
• Gene Hackman, James Garner, or Brian Dennehy as Midas Mulligan
• Johny Depp or Nathan Fillion as Quentin Daniels
• James Gandolfini as Orren Boyle
• John Malkovich or Jeremy Irons as Dr. Floyd Ferris
• Alan Rickman as Dr. Simon Pritchett
• David Hyde Pierce as Phillip Rearden (or any number of other roles)
• William Atherton or William Macy as Wesley Mouch (or any number of other roles)
• Steven Seagal as Cuffy Meigs
• Jon Lovitz or Danny DeVito as Bertram Scudder
• Gene Hackman, Fred Thompson, Kevin Spacey, or William Hurt as Mr. Thompson

The ideas I like the most are Stone as Lillian, Ward as Danagger, and Kevin Spacey and David Hyde Pierce as any of a variety of roles.

Assuming the movie is true to the novel in important respects, I'll be happy with just a few stars and mostly unknown (but good) actors otherwise -- I just want to see the movie get made!

Incredible Insect Closeup Photos

See here for insects! Thanks to Stephen Hicks for the link.

Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism

The latest issue of the newsletter of National Association of Scholars had several items of interest to me, including the article "More Academic Mischief" by president Stephen Balch, as well as the description of his address of the Pennsylvania legislature (both the item on page 3 and the exec. summary on pg. 5 are good reads). Then the item "NAS Challenges NCATE and ABA Accreditation Authority" too.

But of greatest interest for me is the recognition of the new Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (see pg. 7). From the Institute's website: "Founded in the fall of 2005 with a generous grant from the BB&T Charitable Foundation, the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is dedicated to exploring the moral, legal, constitutional, political and economic foundations of capitalism. The Clemson Institute is particularly devoted to fostering a serious examination of a free society."

Their mission statement includes the following: "Through teaching, scholarship and community outreach programs, the Clemson Institute provides a public forum for investigating the underlying principles and institutions of capitalism (e.g., individual rights, private property, contracts, voluntary associations, entrepreneurship, the rule of law, limited government, and free trade )."

Most notably, Institute founder and Clemson professor C. Bradley Thompson notes that "the Clemson Institute is the first and only university-related program in the United States that takes as its core mission the defense of capitalism as the moral and just social system."

Their academic advisory council is loaded with talent: Gary Becker and Vernon Smith (both Nobel Prize winners in Economics), Gordon S. Wood (Pulitzer Prize winner for History), Alan Charles Kors (co-founder of FIRE), and other top names.

Oh, and one last thing to note here... it doesn't surprise me that BB&T's foundation is what launched this new Institute. To see why, review the info at their corporate philosophy page, especially the page detailing their values. How many corporations -- like a bank -- have such a meaningful and focused mission statement and set of values? How many quote Aristotle on their website? How many banks will actually take a stand on their values and principles, like BB&T's policy on eminent domain (posted 1/25/2006)... here is the first sentence of the press release:

BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

I Could Be an ESPN Analyst

I could be an ESPN Analyst. I can write, I can talk, and I apparently have comparable knowledge of baseball to many ESPN baseball analysts. Tonight I took the 50-question ESPN Baseball quiz, and I scored a 41. The nine analysts whose results are given have scores that range between 31 and 45, so I fit there nicely. And the lineup of twelve current major leaguers who took the quiz, their scores range from 24 to 40. Fun quiz...

Sports Records Least Likely to be Broken

My local paper had a brief blurb today referring to the list of Top 10 Unbreakable Sports Records, from the interesting site AskMen.com (which I hadn't visited before). Go read the article to find out why they chose each of the following:

1. Cal Ripken's 2,632 consecutive baseball games played.
2. Jerry Rice's 22,895 NFL pass-receiving yards.
3. Cy Young's 511 career pitching victories.
4. John Wooden's 88 straight wins as a college basketball coach.
5. Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point basketball game.
6. Wayne Gretsky's 215-point season.
7. Nolan Ryan's 7 no-hitters.
8. Ty Cobb's .366 career batting average.
9. Michael Schumacher's 7 Forumula racing championships.
10. Rocky Marciano's 49-0 boxing record.

These are all very impressive records of course. Discussion's of this subject often start with Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, so it is interesting that it is missing from their list. I could see someone breaking that record someday though, so I'm not lobbying for it to be included.

I don't know much about racing or boxing, so I can't comment on the last two selections. Cobb's average seems safe, as does Nolan's number of no-no's. I wonder though what is harder to top: Nolan's mark, or Roger Clemens' 7 Cy Young awards?

I'm not a Hockey fan so I won't comment on Gretsky's record. Wooden's seems untoppable, given the broader competition that exists today, and because so many great players leave school for the NBA after one or two years.

But what struck me about this list, was Cy Young's career wins total only ranking third. Those top three are all highly unlikely to be topped, but it would take a change in the nature of the modern game for a pitcher to come anywhere near Young's 511 wins. The main reason is that we don't have three-man rotations any more, we have five-man rotations. As the author states: "A pitcher today would need to average 25 wins a season for 21 years to surpass Young; with an average of just 35 starts each year, that's an all-but-impossible task." Someone could more easily break the records of Ripken or Rice, because those wouldn't require a change in how their respective sports are currently played.