Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

We visited the Cleveland area this past week, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was of course one of the things we saw. I had never been there before, so I am glad I was able to see it. I think it is definitely worth a visit if you are in the area, or if you can combine it with various other events in Ohio. It is packed with memorabilia and exhibits, so it takes the better part of the day to tour it. Here are some comments I have:

• Having had discussions about Rock music with my friend David Ross just before going on this trip, and us both lamenting the fact that Jethro Tull was not yet voted into the Hall, it was more than a little ironic to hear... that's right... Aqualung blaring out of the external speakers as we approached the building. That just didn't seem right at all. I think they should only play songs from artists that are actually in the hall of fame!
  
  
• Although I enjoyed touring the hall, a couple of knocks on it are that it wasn't made very clear what the process for induction was, or even exactly how they define Rock and Roll as such. They do a good job of describing what it is not, in that they have a nice section that pays tribute to the early influences on RnR. And I know it would be difficult and controversial to attempt a definition of the genre (see the Wikipedia entry, and the impressive list of rock sub-genres), but still... I felt that was missing. Perhaps I missed some important plaque or display that did these things though -- there is a lot there to take in. Here is a brief bit of info on the induction process, from their website:
  
  

  "Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist’s contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.
  
  The Foundation’s nominating committee, composed of rock and roll historians, selects
  nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of about 1,000 rock experts. Those performers who receive the highest number of votes, and more than 50 percent of the vote, are inducted. The Foundation generally inducts five to seven performers each year."

• The 1-hour long video about the inductees was quite good. The seating was horrible (metal benches with no backs), but the video was good. As that video (presumably) gets longer and longer each year, they'll really need to improve the seating! But they showed interesting soundbites and music clips of each performer and the others included in the Hall. (This video is the equivalent of the plaques for each member of the the Baseball Hall of Fame.)
  
  
• All of the other exhibits varied in how interesting they were to me, but overall, it was quite interesting indeed. And like other Halls of Fame, they include historical memorabilia from far more artists than just those officially inducted.
  
  
• As for comments on who is not yet included, obviously I consider Jethro Tull's absence to be a travesty. They have been eligible since 1993, so who knows if they'll ever make it now. They are a unique group: longevity even through significant band member changes (with Ian Anderson and Martin Barre being the constants), unique music across several rock sub-genres, Ian Anderson's incredible use of the flute, and so on. See the Jethro Tull Wikipedia entry for info.
  


• Beyond that, I don't have any huge objections to who is in so far. And even the order of how they have entered seems fairly reasonable to me (started in 1986). I like the fact that The Beatles didn't make it in until the third year, which allowed the Hall to have a good set of "early" rock and rollers before the era of the bands really begins to enter. The 2006 class includes two favorites of mine, Black Sabbath and Lynyrd Skynyrd.
  


• It is interesting to consider the artists who are included both as part of a group and as soloists. This includes at least John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison (The Beatles), Paul Simon (Simon and Garfunkel), and Eric Clapton (Cream and The Yardbirds). I think Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath) might also make it one day as well.
  
  
• Who else will be included in the future? Obviously Madonna. And R.E.M. And Nirvana. And Metallica. Off the top of my head, others that I think are very likely to be enshrined include Guns 'n Roses, KISS, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Van Halen, Rush, Beck, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Genesis, Green Day, and possibly Deep Purple, Moody Blues, Dire Straits, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, ... and with any luck... Jethro Tull.

On Economic Mismeasurements

And yet another good post from Will Wilkinson, Mismeasuring Progress, on why some common economic indicators do not paint an accurate picture of progress.

More Thoughts on Inequality

I recently recommended Will Wilkinson's thoughts on inequality (and his questions regarding why people like Krugman, qua economists, care about it at all). Will continues to write on this issue, and it continues to be an excellent read. See his posts What, Me Worry... About Inequality? and then the very short Equally Wrong. I'd quote salient points, but it is hard to pick just parts -- plus Will's writing style can be a bit technical and dense at times... but this is good stuff!.

Hurricanes? I ask... where are all the hurricanes?

So far, I haven't heard a peep in the media, or from those who promote global warming theories and the claim that it is mankind's fault, regarding the slow start to the hurriance season this year. Maybe I've just missed it though. And of course there is a long way to go... perhaps we will still get a lot of them by the end of the year, and perhaps even an above-average number of them. We'll see..

But I'm not alone in noticing this... thanks to Robert Bidinotto for this link that shows the data so far.

Economists and Inequality

Another fine bit of blog-writing by Will Wilkinson. This time he asks Why Do Economists Care About Inequality?, and he raises many good points in discussing it. Highly recommended.

Amazing but True: If Free, People Will Take More

The August 14 issue of BusinessWeek also has a nice one-page article on the effect of Medicare on overall health care costs, "So That's Why It's So Expensive". A recent study by economist Amy Finkelstein at MIT has shown that -- in addition to increasing use of expensive technology -- the introduction of Medicare in1966 is to blame for spiraling health care costs. The obvious reason for this is what I state in the title of this posting: consumers opt for more care if someone else pays for it (in this case, the government -- which is to say, all of us, through our taxes).

The less obvious reason is that "insurance guarantees a steady source of revenue for hospitals and other health providers. Such ready cash encourages them to build new cardiac-care centers and stock up on the latest high-tech equipment, knowing it will be paid for." This is yet another unintended effect of government programs that end up having undesirable results... which then get politicians interested in creating further government programs to "fix the problems" that all of sudden have mysteriously arisen (in this case, rising health care costs).

Cuba's Present and Future

There was a nice short article about conditions in Cuba in the August 14 issue of BusinessWeek: "Cuba: Visit to an Island Frozen in Time". I have no idea what will happen in Cuba when Castro passes away, but the evidence provided here makes it clear that it won't be easy for the people of Cuba to improve their condition. The second to last paragraph in this article I think mistakenly praises the "social services" provided by the Castro regime, something a few of the commenters on the page (especially "Bianca" and "Amused") set right.

Presidents and "Presidents"

In his brief posting Labeling Dictators, David Boaz notes the shameful way that dictators are often referred to in the media. The example he gives is noting that while Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay is remembered as a "military strongman", Fidel Castro is regularly referred to by his title of "President". Since I highly doubt that "Military Strongman" was Stroessner's official government title... one must wonder about this inconsistency. (Checking at Wikipedia... Stroessner's title was "President" as well.)

I've always noticed this, and it ticks me off. People like Castro, Saddam Hussein, and many others should not be referred to as "President". This does damage to the concept: it fuzzies the mind, blurs to gray what are black and white distinctions, and makes it easy to talk of dictators as though they are legitimate leaders who deserve a place at the negotiating table and a spot in international organizations and the like. They do not. The important distinction is between leaders who are elected by free and fair elections (even with relatively minor disputes in those elections arising from time to time)... and those who are in power through force -- whether they came to power through force, or in some cases were elected but then turned to force to retain their power. Terms like "President" and "Prime Minister" should be used for the former, not the latter. To allow the Castros and Husseins to use those terms is to give them a legitimacy they don't deserve.

And its not like the English language lacks a variety of terms that could be used instead. What dictators should be called, aside from "dictator", could include: military strongman, criminal, thug, tyrant, totalitarian, and many others. Where appropriate you could use "king/queen", because that usually provides additional information -- that the ruler is in power for hereditary reasons, which these days I hope has a negative conotation.

And of course there is always the option to simply refer to dictators as "leader" or "ruler" of their country. Ruler has a bit of a negative tinge to it, while Leader might be slightly positive sounding, but either are pretty neutral in my view. But the important point is that they don't conflate dictators with legitimately elected/chosen heads of state.

The Dogs Aren't the Problem

And while I'm at it, another nice piece of work by Mr. Balko is this blog entry, "When Dogs are Criminalized, Only Criminals will own Dogs". Sad story for a lot of dogs that will be killed off, it seems more because of irresponsible owners who sometimes train them to be dangerous and government leaders who are clueless about what to do about it, than because of any inherent danger in the so-called "breed". (For more info on this type of dog, see the Wikipedia entry, which includes a discussion of common myths.)

An Epidemic of Isolated Incidents

Radley Balko of Cato, who has written extensively on the increasing militarization of police forces in the USA, and the large number of botched police raids, has created an informative, interactive map of his data on this subject. It is another interesting use of a map based on the Google map service. Click on each pin to read the info about that incident, and use the navigation tools at the top left as needed to move around the map. Very interesting.

Sowell on What Studies Prove (Or Don't Prove)

Thomas Sowell's recent column "Before You Believe Any 'Study'..." provides some disturbing examples, including a personal one from his youth, and amounts to good advice for all of us.

Gore Lives as Very-Light-Colored-Green

I have no way of confirming or disconfirming the claims in this editorial, but I have heard similar questions raised elsewhere. See the USA Today editorial Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe.

Star Trek Inspirational Posters

Some of these ideas for Star Trek Inspirational Posters are pretty funny. There are three pages of them.

Economic Growth in the World Today

Nathan Smith over at Tech Central Station recently wrote an excellent piece on current economic growth around the world, Don't Look Now, But the World Economy is Booming (thanks to Stephen Hicks for the link). He begins by providing ample data, in the form of percentage growth rates, for various countries in recent years. This is an impressive array of data, and worth seeing alone. But then Smith goes on to give several reasons for this consistent growth: high commodity prices, demographic transitions in some countries, and the impact of the market-capitalist system in those countries where it has been relatively unimpeded. Along the way he makes an interesting distinction between what he calls "sweatshop" and "non-sweatshop" developing countries. And finally, he ends with some remarks about poverty, suggesting that if current trends continue, there is reason to be optimistic that extreme absolute poverty (as opposed to relative poverty like that found in the US and many European countries) may one day soon come to an end. Definitely an interesting read!

Sowell on Minimum Wage Decision in Chicago

I recently blogged on this, here and here. Thomas Sowell had some good additional points in his column Minimum Wages in Chicago: A Glimmer of Hope. Here are some highlights that I hadn't read before (or mentioned in my other posts):

• Not only did Mayor Richard M. Daley denounce the minimum wage hike to $10 (for just big box retailers), but did so did both Chicago newspapers. Plus: "The crowning touch came when Andrew Young, former civil rights leader and former mayor of Atlanta, went to Chicago to criticize local black leaders who supported this bill."
  
• "A survey has shown that 85 percent of the economists in Canada and 90 percent of the economists in the United States say that minimum wage laws reduce employment." (I ask... what kind of theories are the other 10% working from?)
  
• And he ends nicely with: "Most studies show unemployment resulting from minimum wages. But a few studies that reach different conclusions are hailed as having “refuted” the “myth” that minimum wages cause unemployment. Some of these latter studies involve surveying employers before and after a minimum wage increase. But you can only survey employers who are still in business. By surveying people who played Russian roulette and are still around, you could “refute” the “myth” that Russian roulette is dangerous. Minimum wage laws play Russian roulette with people who need jobs and the work experience that will enable them to rise to higher pay levels. There is now a glimmer of hope that more people are beginning to understand this, despite political demagoguery."

Unnecessary Censorship via Jimmy Kimmel

I've only seen the Jimmy Kimmel show a few times, so I wasn't aware of his series of segments called "Unnecessary Censorship" (their "salute" to the FCC!). If you go to YouTube and search on this phrase, plus Kimmel, you'll get many clips from this series -- here is a link. These are pretty funny. But a warning: even with the bleeps, they might not be considered work-office safe. (Thanks much to Diana Hsieh for bringing this to my attention.)

Favorites List: Led Zeppelin songs

In June I posted my first list of "favorites": a sortable list of a few dozen of my favorite pop/rock songs from all artists except Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin, and Enya.

I've now created a second "favorites" list... this one is for my favorite Led Zeppelin songs.

I find these to be fun projects, so more such favorites lists for music, movies, art, and so on will be created in the future.

New Law: Used Cars must be priced at 15K or more

Don Luskin, a contributing writer at SmartMoney.com and a Chief Investment Officer for an economic consulting firm, has written a great column in which he proposes a new law, one that sets a requirement minimum price of $15,000 for used cars. The idea is that this would help people -- especially poor people -- who have used cars that aren't worth very much because they would be guaranteed of getting at least 15K when they sell them. The obvious problems with this -- problems largely for the very same people (those likely to want to sell or buy low-value used cars) -- are twofold: if your used car isn't worth near 15K, then you'll have a hard time selling it now, and further, people in the market to buy a used car but who can only afford to pay $3,000, or $8,000, or $12,000, won't be able to get a car at all now.

The point is that the exact same logic is involved in the minimum wage laws. In cases where the job in question isn't worth the new legal minimum, the business will not hire people or will let people go who were previously working for the lower amount (an amount that was at or below the value their work provided the business). To make this clear, Luskin discusses the case of France:

"Consider what happened in France, where there is a minimum wage roughly twice that mandated in the United States. Go to a grocery store or a toy store there. There are hardly any clerks to help you. No baggers to pack up your stuff when you check out. Merchants simply can't afford to pay the too-high minimum wage for this kind of work.

So two things happen. First, you waste your own valuable time having to find what you want without help and bagging your own orders. Second, low-skilled workers who would normally be clerking and bagging — if the high minimum wage hadn't eliminated those jobs — are simply unemployed. The minimum wage in France may be double that of the U.S., but so is the French unemployment rate.

And that high unemployment rate is persistent, too. Without low-wage entry-level jobs, unskilled French workers — especially youths and minorities — have no way to acquire the skills necessary to work their way up to higher-paying jobs."

Becker and Posner on the Chicago City Council

A few days ago I blogged (see "Why only $10 an hour? Why not more?" on the Chicago City Council's ordinance to raise the forced minimum wage -- only for large retailers -- to $10 an hour. The always interesting Becker and Posner have written on this subject, Becker here, Posner here, and then Becker again here. Here are a few points that Becker makes:

• "Large retailers that continue to operate in Chicago will reduce their use of low skilled workers by replacing some of them by more skilled employees, and by machinery and other capital."
• "Retailers will also try to avoid being covered by the ordinance by reducing their space to just below 90,000 square feet."
• "In a city like Chicago the burden from these responses to the ordinance will fall disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos since fewer jobs will be available to workers in the city with less education and lower skills."
• "In addition, prices in Chicago of items sold relatively cheaply by stores like Wal-Mart and Target will rise because fewer of these stores will open in the city. The mega stores that remain will raise their prices because their costs will go up. Since city customers of these stores are mainly families with modest incomes who seek low prices rather than elaborate service, they more than the affluent classes will be hurt by the rise in prices and reduced availability of big box outlets."
• "This ordinance might raise serious Federal constitutional issues because of its discriminatory treatment of large retailers. Since to my knowledge the City Council has not offered any plausible reason for basing the ordinance on square footage of floor space, it is likely to be considered a violation of equal protection of the laws."

Global Warming is quite busy

Here is a very interesting list of links to things that "Global Warming" has been said to be the cause of. Now, one would expect a massive global change of any kind to effect a lot of things, like if a massive asteroid hits the earth, or if the sun changed in some dramatic way. But I don't intuitively put the increase in CO2 levels from human activity to be on that obvious of a level, so the length of this list of claimed effects of "Global Warming" seems a bit hard to believe to me.

This was my first experience with the site Numbers Watch. Although its site design looks like something from 1996 or so, it is updated regularly and seems to have some good resources included. The other "list" like the one mentioned above is a list of things that have been argued to give you cancer. But there is much content at this site besides these two lists, and I plan to look it over more in the future.

Questions raised on NSF Coral Reef Report

Patrick J. Michaels of Cato has raised some interesting questions in Okay Coral regarding a recent NSF study about the connection between increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the acidity of the oceans and the effect of this on coral reefs. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, so I'd be interested in hearing any responses to the questions he raises, if any are forthcoming from NSF or elsewhere... so if readers know of any, please let me know.

A good sign for change to organ donation policy?

Virginia Postrel recently had two more good posts on the topic of organ donation, and the need radically change the status quo system (the system that is against allowing payments for organs, etc.). See this brief post, and even more so, see this post that includes a lengthy quote from At the recent pediatric nephrologist Richard N. Fine, MD, the outgoing president of the American Society of Transplantation, who at the recent World Transplant Congress 2006 called on his medical colleagues "to challenge prior prohibitions and enhance approaches that have heretofore been taboo to the transplant professional." I consider it a good sign that someone as prominent as this is publicly calling for this kind of change in organ donation policy.

Prospects for Active Players to make HOF

Another annual Cooperstown induction ceremony is now behind us. Local sports columnist Bob Matthews wrote an interesting column on Sunday, Cooperstown awaits these 13 locks.

I agree with his 13 locks, and pretty much in the same order that he lists them. I might bump Pedro and Junior above Piazza in the order. Initially I wondered about Jeter as a "lock" already, but upon reflection I agree: assuming he gets there this year, he'll have had 10 seasons of 100+ runs, four 200+ hits, moderate power, good speed, good defense, plus he has provided plenty of team leadership and other intangibles. He rarely leads the league in any categories, but he is consistent great, and in the post-season too where he has hit .307 with 16 HR and 16 SB in 462 at-bats. And he isn't slowing down a bit, batting .354 (career high) as I write this. So yes, he is a lock at this point. I'm not sure if all of these guys will be first-ballot Hall-of-Famers, but I would argue they all should be even if they retired today.

I also agree that Vlad and Hoffman are near-locks. Vlad doesn't quite have the career numbers yet that Manny has. Although Hoffman has more lifetime saves, he hasn't been quite as dominating as Mariano. And remember too that Mariano has been lights-out in the postseason: 8-1 with 34 saves and a 0.81 ERA in 111.7 IP. Yikes.

Of the next tier, I think many of them will make it, just not on the first ballot (given the way that seems to work). So in that sense I consider them "locks", it just might take them a few years to be voted in. In this group I would list Craig Biggio and then Frank Thomas. I'm slightly less confident in the following (in this order): Chipper Jones, John Smoltz, Jim Thome. It helps that all three are still performing well, and so are likely to add more good numbers to their resumes before they are finished.

Unlike Bob, I think Schilling has a less than a 50% chance of making it. His career was very late to get going, and heroics not withstanding, he has only had a half-dozen truly good seasons. If he can get up closer to 250 wins, then I'd put him in. Then next is Jeff Kent, who has 340 HR and 1356 RBI while playing mostly at 2B. That is pretty good, so he might eventually get voted in. Todd Helton, even with a lifetime .333 average, is a big a question mark at this point. If he retired today, I'd say no, largely because his huge numbers are obviously inflated by the Coors effect. But if he can rebound from declining numbers this year and last, then he could rise up my list.

Mussina has never won 20 games, and likely never will. If he can get up to 275 career wins, then he is in the same class as Blyleven, John, Kaat, and others... and they are struggling to get in the Hall... so I predict he won't make it.

Bob gives Omar Vizquel 10-90 odds of making it... I wouldn't even go that high. He has 10 gold gloves and 357 SB, and likely won't play more than one or two more seasons, if that (hitting .302 so far this year though). He has only been an all-star three times. Compare that with Bill Mazeroski who was a middle-infielder and won 8 gold gloves and was an all-star 7 times, and it took the veterans committee to vote him in. And Vizquel of course doesn't compare with Ozzie Smith, who had 580 SB, 13 gold gloves and 15 all-star appearances.

I'd actually give Andruw Jones a much better chance than Vizquel. He already has 8 gold gloves in CF and is only 29 years old. He has power numbers and seems to have really found his stroke this year and last. And I'd rank Gary Sheffield over Helton, though not quite up there with Thome and Thomas. Carlos Delgado might rate higher than Helton for me as well.

And I agree that Tejada, Ortiz, Berkman, Soriano, and Pujols are "building strong cases for Cooperstown". And Bob notes about Pujols that "his first six seasons have been as impressive as anyone to ever play the game." It won't take too many more great years for him to be a lock as well... in fact, I'd wager that once he finishes his 10th full season (required for eligibility), he'll be lock right then and there.

And finally, I have no disagreements with Bob's list of "nice careers" but not Hall of Famers category. The ones that come the closest for me from that list are Jim Edmonds (.290 career average, 347 HR, 8 gold gloves), Bobby Abreu (.301, 198 HR, 261 SB, and still going strong at only age 32), and Billy Wagner (2.38 ERA, 306 SV, and 902 K in 679.3 IP).