On Switch Hitters and Speed

I received an email recently from a fellow member of SABR (The Society for American Baseball Research), that was asking opinions on who the all-time best switch hitters were. I immediately thought of who I consider the "Big 3" to be: Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose, and Eddie Murray. But after that I wasn't as sure... a few other names came to mind, but I decided that before responding I should consult baseball-reference.com. After doing so, I responded as follows:

"I'd rank them as follows:
1. Mickey Mantle
2. Pete Rose
3. Eddie Murray
4. Frankie Frisch
5. Roberto Alomar

Close call between Alomar and Chipper Jones. I might switch Jones and Alomar by the time Jones retires. Also, if it is just hitting -- then I'd choose Jones for #5 here... but I think Alomar is the better all-around player (including defense and speed). So depending on what you are after, you might need to switch my fifth-place vote.

Honorable mention to: Max Carey, Tim Raines, Ted Simmons, Bernie Williams, Chili Davis, Ken Singleton, Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel."

But in doing this little bit of research, I noticed (or re-noticed) an interesting fact. Only 1 of the top 100 players in all-time batting average was a switch-hitter: Frankie Frisch who ranks 70th. For Home-runs, only 4 of the top 100 were switch hitters: Mickey Mantle ranks 13th, Eddie Murray ranks 20th, and two others.

But 20 of the top 100 all-time base-stealers were switch-hitters. Indeed, 8 of the top 21 were switch hitters. There is Tim Raines who ranks 5th, Vince Coleman 6th, Max Carey 9th, Willie Wilson 12th, Otis Nixon 15th, George Davis 16th, Maury Wills 19th, Ozzie Smith 21st, and so on.

So that made me wonder: why would that be? Why would switch-hitting correlate much more with base-stealing than with hitting for power or hitting for batting average? Likely someone has already written about this -- perhaps many SABR members have! But without looking into others' research on this question, I can think of a three possibilities:

1. If they started off as right-handed batters, but knew they were fast, so became switch hitters in order to sometimes bat lefty and get the added step or two towards first to beat out bunts and infield hits (or so they might have thought as youngsters). I checked those 20 switch hitters in the top 100 SB, and 17 throw right-handed, with only 3 throwing left-handed. So I'd be inclined to say that many of these folks were natural right-handed hitters.

2. As young players, if speed is your major (perhaps only) real strength, then learning to switch-hit can make you more valuable to the team. Or so the thinking of fathers and coaches might be.

3. Another possibility is a bit more complicated. Say kids determine (through observation or advice from parents or coaches) that becoming a switch hitter is a good idea during little-league and high-school baseball years. Say it is seen to raise your value to the team, because you can hit well against both righties and lefties, and so on. But then as you rise up the competitive ladder, it becomes more and more difficult to compete as a switch-hitter. Most hitters are perfecting their swing from just one side of the plate, and a SH has to work on both. If you lack speed (or other tools of the game, like defense), then you might be more likely to abandon switch-hitting in order to focus on just high-average hitting or power-hitting, and to do this best, you might think you should focus on just hitting RH or LH. But if you have a lot of speed, if that is your prime asset, then you might not be as driven to improve your BA or your power numbers, and so stick with switch hitting. Once you have reached the ultimate level, the MLB level, it is quite difficult for you as a switch-hitter to excel in BA or HR, relative to your peers, because they for years have been perfecting their swing from just one side of the plate or the other. So you don't rate amongst the best in those categories, but your great speed still allows you to swipe all those bases.

Just my speculations on this...

Favorite Soothing Music from Rock Artists

I've added a third page to the "Favorites" section at my website. This one details a music playlist that I have compiled over the years, that I listen to pretty regularly. This collection of 23 songs are what I consider "soothing" music, but they are all from artists who are not known for this kind of thing at all. Included are songs from Black Sabbath; Crosby, Still, and Nash; The Doors; Jethro Tull; Led Zeppelin; Neil Young; Robert Plant; Queensryche; Simon and Garfunkel; Smashing Pumpkins; Steve Miller Band. Can you guess the songs?

The only group or artist excluded from the list is Pink Floyd -- because there are so many good songs from them that fit this category, I have a separate, similar playlist for those... which I'll get up on the site someday as well.

LifeStraw: A Brilliant Idea

Skimming through the USA Weekend supplement to my local paper, I came across a two-paragraph blurb about a product called LifeStraw. It uses filters and other components to purify water as someone sucks it through a tube -- thereby making it very easy for people to get clean (or at least much cleaner) drinking water very easily. This is a brilliant invention, and sounds like it could really improve the health of millions who suffer from water-borne illnesses in third-world nations. They cost only $3.50 each, and the article said that international development agencies were developing. If this really does what it claims to do then, congratulations to Vestergaard Frandsen, the European company that developed the device!

Apparently Most People are Homeless

This past Sunday, in the Real Estate and Rental supplement to my local newspaper, there was a brief front-page article reporting some findings from a recently announced report on housing and affordability. I couldn't find this particular article online, but here is the official press release that it was apparently drawn from, from the "Center for Housing Policy". It has the dire and chilling title: "HEALTH CARE WORKERS PRICED OUT OF HOMEOWNERSHIP IN MAJORITY OF U.S. METRO AREAS, NEW STUDY FINDS". See also the Paycheck to Paycheck database that the study is drawn from.

A more misleading press release I have not read in a long time. And the study it is touting isn't very good either. From the press release one would be led to conclude that 30%, 40%, or more of Americans are literally homeless -- living on the street. Let me explain...

I won't argue with the assumptions made: 10% downpayment for a 30-year mortgage, family won't spend more than 28% of income on mortgage/prop. tax/insurance, and the salary data they used was from Salary.com. One could quibble with any of this, but I won't because the problems I want to discuss are far bigger.

The press release talks of comparing average salaries for each occupation around the country, with median home values in the country. The median home is $248,000 they say. And on that basis, registered nurses ($58,640), police officers ($45,780), elementary teachers ($47,104), and many other folks cannot afford such a median home. That's because you'd need $84,957 a year to qualify for that $248,000 median home.

But this is comparing average salaries across the country with a median home for the whole country. Everyone knows that both home prices and salaries vary greatly from city to city, region to region. So it is really quite meaningless to speak of national averages and medians here and then make grand conclusions based on them. The Paycheck by Paycheck website linked above lets you compare with a metro area, and there both the salary and median home data are for that region. And indeed you find that individuals in those occupations cannot afford a median home in, say, San Francisco. Even though they get paid more than people in the same fields in say, Western NY, the home prices in SF are really high. So that is better data at least -- but the press release doesn't talk that way at all.

But of even more importance... this article makes several ridiculous hidden assumptions:

• Single income household. It only talks about a police officer not being able to afford to a median home. But what about a police officer married to an elementary school teacher? They then earn about $93,000 together, which is enough to buy that median home. Is it really that shocking to learn that a single person -- who isn't a doctor, lawyer, pro athlete, business executive, etc. -- cannot afford, on their own, to buy a $248,000 home? No, not at all. But how many single people are trying to buy such homes, on their own?
• A $248,000 home. That sounds pretty nice to me. My home is a 2-bedroom, and it is worth about half of that. So you can get very nice housing for much less than the median home price! And these occupations they are lamenting can't afford the median home can afford a home a like mine, no problem. And it would be ample space for a single person, which again is what they are talking about!
• Priced out of homeownership. That is in the title of the press release! But obviously the people talked about... even singles without roommates... are not priced out of home ownership... just priced out of median-home ownership, meaning a home worth $248,000.
• The Big Assumption. The big assumption, implicit in the statements and tone, of this study and press release, is the following: police officers and elementary school teachers, who earn the average salary for their occupations only, and who are not married and do not have roommates, somehow should be able to have a median priced home ($248,000 home ... how many bedrooms is that for one person?!). The market isn't providing this to them, so something is wrong with the market and it needs to be fixed. These people deserve such a nice home, all for themselves. It is "disturbing" that often they cannot afford them.

The press release goes farther than just talking about homes. It also notes that nursing aides can't even afford to rent a typical one-bedroom apartment in 80 of the 210 metro areas or a typical two bedroom apartment in the 147 of the areas. Even assuming they are talking about rental costs that are relative to the person's geographic area (which the website does), much of my above points are still valid. These are single people -- not couples with two incomes, and not single people who have roommates. Nursing aides, who apparently earn barely more than janitors, who don't have roommates and aren't married... turns out they cannot afford the median apartment rent. But no where in this report do we learn what level of apartment they can afford. How far off from the median or typical apartment? An apartment that is still an acceptable living space? Again, such people are not homeless -- but you might think that if you read this article, of you might become scared to think that they will someday be entirely priced out of any home or rental possibilities.

What can be concluded from this superficial data that they have collected is the following: working, single people, who don't have roommates, often cannot afford the median home (or in some low-end cases, in some expensive cities, even rental apartments). But this just means they'll have to live, for now at least, in below-median accomodations. This means below $248,000 for homes. So what is at all surprising about this? Let alone "disturbing" as the press release states?!! Did we really need a study to tell us any of this? And does it really need the hyperbole and sensational headlines this press release is giving it? Beyond calling this news "disturbing", my local paper's headline was "Even apartments are out of reach for some workers", but the press release headline quoted above is much worse -- because it implies police officers and teachers, even single ones, cannot afford any homes at all.

Selling Spectacles to the Poor

A few months ago I wrote briefly about the great trend towards microfinancing to aid the poor. In the Jan. 13 issue of The Economist they had a brief article on a similar concept. Often poor people need something as simple as a good pair of eyeglasses to greatly improve their ability to earn a living. And yet often aid money doesn't reach them at all, or reaches them in a way that helps with something else -- but doesn't get them the eyeglasses they need so that they can become self-supporting. But this article describes Scojo Vision, an American optical firm that produces eyeglasses and makes them available for just a few dollars to the world's poorest. While $3 is a lot to the poorest in third-world countries, it is a no-brainer investment for such indivduals because it enables them to earn much more due to improved vision. Another great instance of the market helping the poor where government continues to flounder.

Fascinating Travel Log of Iran

National Geographic Adventure magazine had an interesting article in its November 2006 issue: Iran: Travels in Hostile Territory. It is a bit long, but worth it.

Updated PPA Website

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) website has been recently given a facelift... looks pretty good. I particularly like the nice and succinct "Important Facts Congress Should Hear" section in Yellow in the middle of the homepage. Here is a nice, very short intro item too. There is lots of good info on this site... so if you are interesting in protecting the great game of Poker, and online poker in particular, check it out and become a member!

How Not to Argue for Hodges, Maris for the HOF

I read in my local newspaper today a letter to the editor by Jerry Ryan, who is described as "a die-hard Yankees fan and a dedicated baseball historian." An editor noted that in the letter Ryan discusses two players "who he feels have been unjustly overlooked throughout the years" in terms of their deserving entrance into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Without intending it, I think this editor was being very precise in his choice of the word "feels", because I suspect that is exactly what I think is going on here. Ryan's photos shows someone with gray hair, so I suspect he might fondly remember Roger Maris (being a Yankees fan), and also no doubt remembers Gil Hodges (at least as a manager, if not during his prime playing years). I say that because I don't think that Ryan is really doing a lot of good thinking about these players and whether they are deserving of HOF membership. That might be too harsh an assessment -- based on just one brief letter to the editor -- but since his support of these two players falls into the common fallacies of reasoning that so often afflicts those who argue pro or con a player's HOF membership, I thought it would make for a good, instructive (and fun!) blog posting.

The only thing he writes about Roger is "Maris is the only man to beat Babe Ruth without the taint of steroids." True enough. But that is talking about one season only. Clearly one year does not make a career. And take a look at Roger Maris's career accomplishments. After several mediocre seasons for KC and Cleveland, he burst onto the NY scene in 1960, winning the MVP award with 39 HR and 112 RBI. And then 1961 was the historic season, where he and Mantle fought for the HR record, with Maris eventually blasting 61 HR with 142 RBI, 132 Runs -- though only a .269 BA (he of course took home MVP again that year). But after that season he began to fade, and other than those two years, he never was in the top 20 in MVP balloting. He was only an All-Star 4 times. He hit 30+ HR only three times. Heck, he even only had 150+ hits twice! Lifetime numbers are 275 HR, , 851 RBI, .260 BA, .476 SLG, with essentially no speed (21 SB). He did win one gold glove, but consider his various HOF measurements:

• Black Ink: Batting - 18 (122) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
• Gray Ink: Batting - 57 (423) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
• HOF Standards: Batting - 22.0 (608) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
• HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

So he comes up short across the board. And then look at his most "Similar Batters" ratings, where a rating over 900 is considered quite relevant indeed:

1. Bob Allison (946)
2. Hank Sauer (939)
3. Jay Buhner (922)
4. Jesse Barfield (918)
5. Dean Palmer (914)
6. Tony Armas (914)
7. Eric Davis (907)
8. Danny Tartabull (905)
9. Jermaine Dye (902)
10. Bill Nicholson (902)

No of course no one is going to argue for these guys for the HOF, nor should they. Are Maris's two MVP seasons, and the one being a record-setting year, enough to vault his resume above these guys -- who have similar career numbers -- and into the elite circle of hall-of-famers? I just don't think so. Should there be a display commemorating his great season in Cooperstown? You betcha. No doubt. But should he be a member? No way.

As for Gil Hodges, Mr. Ryan commits a classic HOF argumentative fallacy. Here is what he writes:

Hodges had a higher lifetime batting average than Harmon Killebrew and Willie
McCovey; more hits than Frank Chance, Hank Greenberg and George Kelly; and more home runs than Greenberg and Johnny Mize.

Gil was a man of great character and modesty. He was magnificent in the field. And, oh yeah, he led the "Amazing Mets" of 1969 to victory. Did I mention Hodges once hit four home runs in a single game?

Hodges is not outclassed among the 18 first-basemen currently in the Hall of Fame.

Mr Ryan does at least one thing correctly, as he limits his comparisons to players who play the same (or at least comparable) positions. But beyond that good start, can you spot the obvious flaws in his reasoning?

First, he starts by comparing Hodges with Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew, noting that Hodges as a higher batting average than either: Hodges has a .273 BA, while McCovey has .270, while Killebrew has a lowly .256. But this is not very valuable on its own. Batting average varies a great deal between leagues and eras, so one needs to consider BA relative to those factors. The lgBA for Hodges was .273 -- exactly what Gil hit! But the lgBA for McCovey was only .261, so McCovey's BA was 9 points higher than the average of his contemporaries. And Killebrew's lgBA was .259, which drastically alters one's perception of his lowly .256 mark.

But beyond that, one also needs to realize that BA is not why Willie and Harmon are in the HOF -- they are there for their massive power numbers. McCovey hit 521 HR and 1555 RBI, and had a .515 SLG percentage (compare with .388 lgSLG). Harmon hit 573 HR and 1584 RBI, and had a .509 SLG percentage (compare with .392 lgSLG). Compare these numbers with Hodges: 370 HR, 1274 RBI, and .487 SLG (compare with .420 lgSLG). While Willie and Harmon, did each have about 1,000 more at-bats than Gil, they clearly had more power (see esp. their higher SLG in eras with lower league average slugging)... and it is mostly because of their power that they are in the HOF.

Mr. Ryan then goes on with the same reasoning style by comparing Hodges hit total (1,921 -- which isn't very impressive frankly) with that of Frank Chance (1,273), Hank Greenberg (1,628)and George Kelly (1,778). But again, their career hit total is not the main reason these three are in the Hall of Fame. Chance was a high average hitter (.296 BA vs. .264 lgBA) with speed (401 SB) who had a fine eye at the plate (.394 OBP vs. .326 lgOBP). Even more importantly, Chance was a player-manager for most of his career, leading the Cubs (yes, the Cubs) to two World Series championships and two other NL pennants. Hodges' managerial career, 1969 notwithstanding, does not compare well.

Hank Greenberg is a Hall-of-Famer because, although his career was relatively short, his many strong seasons were very strong. Unlike Maris who had two really great years, Greenberg had seven of them (plus a few other mediocre ones). While he played during a very offensive era (the 1930s), his numbers are still impressive: .313 BA vs. .286 lgBA, .412 OBP vs. .361 lgOBP, and .605 SLG vs. .419 lgSLG. He had HR totals including 36, 40, 41, 44, and 58. And he had RBI totals including 127, 139, 146, 150, 170, and 183. He twice took home MVP honors, and four others times was in the top-10 in balloting.

George "Highpockets" Kelly is not in the HOF because of his lifetime hits either. He was a .297 hitter who five times had 100+ RBI. But actually, comparing Hodges with Kelly comitt a different HOF Fallacy. It is highly debateable whether Kelly should even be in the HOF. Bill James argues quite persuasively in his wonderful book What Ever Happend to the Hall of Fame? that the veterans committee, beginning in 1970, made a series of "simply appalling selections, littering the Hall of Fame with... [players] from the New York Giants (1919-1926) and the St. Louis Cardinals (1927-1937)." This was due to prominent members of the veterans committee at that time, most notably Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry, getting their teammates chosen. James goes into even greater depth on this issue in his book The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. He even goes so far as to say that Kelly might be the worst player in the Hall of Fame! And since he argues so well that Kelly was only nominated due to favoritism on the veterans' committee, comparing a player you are arguing in favor with Kelly just doesn't seem like a good strategy.

Mr. Ryan continues to compare Hodges lifetime home runs (370) with the likes of Greenberg (331) and Johnny Mize (359). As I already noted, Greenberg hit those HR during some truly outstanding seasons. Indeed, he smashed those 330 in only 5,193 at-bats, while it took Gil 7,030 at-bats. You can say the same, to a lesser extent, regarding Johnny Mize, who hit his 359 in only 6,443 at-bats, with 51 in 1947 being his career high. But again, Mize wasn't just about HR: he had a .312 BA vs. .274 lgBA, .397 OBP vs. .345 lgOBP, and .562 SLG vs. .395 lgSLG -- all of which are notably superior to Hodges' numbers.

The rest of Mr. Ryan's point about Hodges are all fine and well-taken. I won't argue against Gil's modesty and good character, although I will note that the famed 1969 World Series win was the lone bright spot of his managerial career (he had a lifetime .467 record as a manager).

None of this is to say that Hodges isn't at least a borderline candidate for the Hall of Fame, and perhaps, in the end deserving of the recognition. I'd consider him one of the ten most deserving currently up for consideration by the veterans' committee. But if you are going to argue in favor of him, you need to do so in a stronger way. The 1969 World Series aside, it is worth noting that Gil had seven consecutive 100+ RBI seasons. He had 11 consecutive 20+ HR seasons, and six of these were 30+. Granted he didn't run well (63 SB lifetime), but 1B usually aren't known for speed on the bases. He won three gold-gloves from 1957-59, and was an all-star 8 times. And while he never rated higher than 7th in the MVP balloting, he did get votes in 9 seasons. So those are all fine things won can say that are relevant when considering his HOF resume, and none of them commit classic HOF argument errors.

On the con side, however, won must consider his various HOF-relevant ratings. As we saw with Maris earlier, Hodges doesn't fair so well here:

• Black Ink: Batting - 2 (579) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
• Gray Ink: Batting - 128 (137) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
• HOF Standards: Batting - 31.7 (249) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
• HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Far better than Maris on the Gray Ink, but not as well on Black Ink, and tied on HOF Monitor. And then consider the Similar Batter scores for Hodges:

1. Norm Cash (932)
2. George Foster (921)
3. Tino Martinez (921)
4. Jack Clark (916)
5. Boog Powell (898)
6. Joe Adcock (895)
7. Lee May (894)
8. Rocky Colavito (893)
9. Willie Horton (888)
10. Roy Sievers (880)

This perhaps a better looking list than Maris has. But none of these guys are, or should be, Hall of Famers.

Since I mentioned the wonderful The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, I thought I'd also toss some of his rankings of all-time 1B (through 2001 I think). He starts off of course with Gehrig and Foxx, followed by McGwire (one wonders if a newer version of his list would send McGwire plummeting due to the steroid scandal). Bagwell and Murray are enxt, but then we see four of the players Mr. Ryan mentioned ranked 6-9: Mize, Killebrew, Greenberg, and McCovey. Then come the likes of Frank Thomas (likely for HOF), Cap Anson, Don Mattingly (not in HOF), Tony Perez, and Will Clark (not in HOF). Then Dick Allen at 15th (not in HOF), Keith Hernandez (not in HOF), Orlando Cepeda, Dan Brouthers, and then another scandal-ridden star, Rafael Palmeiro. At 20th we have Norm Cash (not in HOF), then Fred McGriff (questionable for HOF), Roger Connor, Mickey Vernon (not in HOF), George Sisler, Frank Chance, Bill Terry, Boog Powell (not in HOF), Cecil Cooper (not in HOF), and Dolf Camilli (not in HOF). It is only here, at the 30th spot in the list, that we see Gil Hodges. And it is interesting that James' brief writeup for Hodges at this point is entirely centered on how "beloved" a player he was, and how well he was able to accept the public's adoration for him.

So in the end I'm on the fence about Gil Hodges and the HOF. But what I hope I've shown in this posting is that if you are going to argue for Hodges (or Maris even), you need argue with the right amunition, and not commit classic HOF Fallacies.

Results from Googling Myself

My friend Sally Howard emailed me today and noted that at the Old Farmer's Almanac website the Question of the Day for 1/20/2007 was this: "What information do you have on Thomas Stone, signer of the Declaration of Independence?" Few have heard of that Thomas Stone, but I learned of him several years ago when I first "Googled" myself by searching for "Thomas Stone" at Google.com. Since many, I wondered of my long-time work on the web was enough to get some of webpages that mention my name near the top of the Google results for such a search. I found that this 18th century Thomas Stone was far higher ranked at Google than I was. I think many years ago the highest anything about me could be found was perhaps on the fifth or tenth page of Google results.

Well, things have changed apparently. Without any effort on my part to raise my "google ranking", I was pleased to discover today that the About Me page at my EpistemeLinks website now is the sixth ranking result at Google for a search on "Thomas Stone". The 18th century fellow still dominates the top results, but now I'm pretty high up there too. I guess that doesn't surprise me too much, since the EpistemeLinks site gets a lot of usage and is very well linked around the Internet (well, at least at philosophy-related sites like college philosophy department sites and so on).

A bit more surprising was that the 12th highest Google result was for my relatively newer -- and far less viewed -- "Philosopher Stone" blog site. I only started the blog last year, so I was glad to see it already at the top of page 2 for Google "Thomas Stone" results. If it is similarly ranked at other major search engines, this might explain the apparent uptick in readership from people who I don't know. Like many blogs, mine started with mostly readers who know me already. But lately I've been getting some emails from people I don't know, with positive and critical comments about my writing there.

Zuula.com is a Great Search Resource

I recently came across the meta-search engine site Zuula.com. It provides search results from many of the big search engines, and does so in convenient tabbed pages. I found the interface to be very nice, and it has separate search features for general web, images, news, blogs, and even jobs. The jobs feature even seemed pretty accurate for the few I tried, including when narrowing by zip code. Even though the site claims to still be in "beta" mode, I think it is already very nice!

Watch the iPhone Introduction from Steve Jobs

I recently blogged at great length about how excited I am at the recently announced Windows Home Server. In that posting I mention how the recently announced iPhone product from Apple was getting a lot of press, but that I thought WHS was deserving of more buzz than it has gotten (virtually none!). While I still think that is a fair statement, having now seen the iPhone Introduction Video where Steve Jobs officially unveiled their product, I must admit the iPhone looks mighty impressive. This is a long video (about 90 minutes!), but I found it to be worthwhile. Jobs demos most of the features of the new iPod + Cell Phone + More, so it gives you a great idea of what to expect in June when this thing is available (at least in the USA). To watch the video, go here and then click on "Watch iPhone Introduction".

I don't use a cellphone much, and I don't even have an iPod yet! I've been thinking about getting one recently, as I'm sure I'd use it (I still use a CD player for jogging for instance). But having seen this iPhone introduction, I'm getting excited about the future for these kinds of devices. A few random comments about the iPhone, and this Intro Video with Jobs in particular:

• The new scrolling interface for looking through phone contacts, and also for scrolling through your music, is really slick.
• The "pinch" to zoom interface for photos and so on is really slick too.
• The initial pricing at $499 and $599 will of course slow sales, and leaves open the market for other cellphones and the current line of iPods and other MP3 players.
• The ability to have internet widgets on the device -- like stock info, weather info, and google maps is quite nice.
• The Starbucks phone gag, where Jobs located and then called a local Starbucks, and ordered 4,000 lattes to go... that was kinda funny.

But for me, by far and away the "WOW!" moment of his entire presentation was seeing the full internet displayed on the 3.5 inch iPhone display. That is, the entire New York Times homepage -- not one created specifically for mobile devices -- but the same webpage you would see in your computer's web browser. Of course, you can't read it that small... but it was so easy to then ZOOM IN and view the page, I could definitely see reading web content on this device. And ditto for email -- I could see travellers using this for real email, not just short little emails composed on or for such small-screen devices. Because of the resizing capabilities, and the ability to quickly see it in landscape view, you could read real (long) emails on this thing. This Web and Email featureset, along with internet gadgets, is what really blew me away from the annoucement and demos.

Top YouTube Videos via IceRocket

I've discovered a very interesting website called IceRocket. It provides various blog-tracking and online-video-tracking mechanisms, but the thing that first attracted me to the site was its "Top YouTube Videos" listing page. Now, YouTube itself has a page that constantly updates the Most Popular videos. And sometimes funny and amazing videos that I like to see make it on that list. But very often it also includes things I don't care about. YouTube has its own "community" of diehard fans and regular users, and certain serial videos have become popular, perhaps most of "Lonelygirl15", which became famous enough to warrant a cover story in Wired magazine recently. Since I don't care about those kinds of videos, I need a list that would weed those ones out.

The IceRocket "Top YouTube Videos" page should do that. This page tries to track which videos are getting linked the most at blogs and the like, and such videos would most often be (I'm assuming) stuff that people find funny, amazing, or otherwise worth mentioning. The latest episode of Lonelygirl15 might get a lot of viewers at YouTube, and creates lots of commentary at that site amongst fans, but it isn't likely to get a lot of linking from bloggers saying "You gotta ee this video... its funny/cool/amazing!". I'm sure other sites are trying to track such videos-mentioned-on-blog trends, but I like IceRocket's attempt at this.

As of right now, here are several worthwhile videos currently making waves in the Top 30:

• Ice is Dangerous, Even in Portland - amazing long skids and accidents on icy roads.
• Stephen Colbert Explains the Whole AT&T Thing - Clip that makes fun of Telecom companies splitting and merging over the years.
• Pachelbel Rant - funny comedy/music performance about an overplayed and overused classic
• 100 Person Flashmob Randomly Chasing After People - This is GREAT!
• Freak Accident at Football Match - Wow... crazy wind blast.

Not only does this list provide great videos, but it'll be interesting to see, week to week, how some videos move up and down the chart. I plan to check this out weekly, and I'll probably post links to my favorites every now and then.

On BW's Chinese "Sweatshops" Article

I found the article Secrets, Lies, and Sweatshops: How Chinese Suppliers Hide the Truth from U.S. Companies in the Nov. 27 issue of BusinessWeek to be rather poorly written. But I've come to expect this level of reporting from BusinessWeek, as say, compared with the generally far superior weekly, The Economist.

The cover shows a dark image of an apparent "sweatshop", with two lines of seated female workers, heads-down, producing something in a factory, but with one worker's head turned around and looking somewhat distressed. The article's main points may very well be true (if not particular enlightening). The article describes at some length that the audit processes put in place by major American and other Western companies (Wal-Mart, Sears, JC Penney's, Nike, etc.), in the wake of protests against "unfair" labor practices in China and other such countries, are not always having the desired results. And that this is because the contracted factories (not typically owned by the Western firms, but rather by Chinese businessmen) are finding ways around the rules, regulations, etc., and can fool the auditors and pass the inspections even while making little, if any, real improvements to labor practices. The examples discussed are admittedly not so much of the clear rights-violating variety, such as slave labor, workers forced against their will, or even child labor, but rather things like skirting minimum wage laws, not paying two or three times regular wages for overtime worked, and not giving appropriate vacation allowances. I'm not in a position to contest any of these asserted facts, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some (or even many) factories in China or other countries with large numbers of low-skilled workers are trying to get around the laws imposed by their governments or the rules imposed by their contracted Western companies.

What I want to comment on are the many important facts that this article failed to report, data it failed to give the reader, and questions it failed to even ask. And not for want of space: the article was the cover story and the longest in the issue. Here are a few of the things that irked me about this article:

• We are told that, depending on which figures you use, the average wage in the Chinese manufacturing sector is 42-65 cents an hour. But this tells the reader virtually nothing. What does that buy in China? Not much, I'd assume. But more than it would in the USA or Europe. Couldn't the article spend two sentences noting what that really amounts to for the Chinese worker, in buying power?
  
• The article notes that while some factories are getting away with faking their audits, some others have been investigated and closed down due to failing to follow Chinese labor laws or the rules set forth in recent years by Wal-Mart, Nike, etc. But I see no mention of what happens to the hundreds or thousands of workers who had been working, voluntarily, in those factories, and are now (temporarily, one hopes) out of work. What wage will they be making in their next job, and how long on average will it take for them to get that job? Or must most of them choose to return to the poor rural life they were hoping to escape?
  
  This is the inherent tension in these kinds of labor laws and rules, because they don't, as such, protect actual individual rights, but rather restrict the workers freedom to voluntarily exchange their labor for the wage the market will bear (i.e., their skills relative to demand). Up to a point, labor laws such as these might not have a negative effect on those they are intended to help (i.e., raising a minimum wage by a nickel might not lead to a loss of jobs), but at some point they do. In the case where the factory closes down, and the people return to the rural countryside they were trying to escape -- how is that helpful to them exactly?
  
• Also on this point, at the very end of the article the authors note "Chang says he regularly loses skilled employees to rival factories that break the rules because workers are eager to put in longer hours then he offers, regardless of whether they are paid overtime rates." This is a critical point, so it is a shame that it is buried at the end of the article. These workers would love to make 2x or 3x their regular salaries for overtime they work -- who wouldn't? But short of that -- and with good reason since the profit margins at the factory in question have been slashed from 30% to 5% over the past 18 years -- the workers would "eagerly" work extra hours at the same regular pay rate they get for their normal hours... if only they were allowed to. When they aren't allowed to do so, they quit and sign on with another factory in town -- one that will give them the overtime hours, while breaking the rules against it.
  
  Noting this more prominently in the article, and continuing down with that logic a bit further, would have made for a far more enlightening article. It does get mentioned again in the sidebar titled "How to Make Factories Play Fair", under the heading "Worker Demands". That makes it sound like the workers are demanding a reprieve from inhumane treatment, and on some level they are -- but not what many readers would initially guess. Instead we find out "Many young Chinese production workers want to earn as much as they can in a few years and then return to homes in the countryside. They often insist on logging as many hours as possible, even if they don't get full overtime pay." But their desires are being thwarted, because leftists laws and rules say "No, you can't do this work for the wage you are agreeing to be paid."
  
• Also in that sidebar, it reads "The question is whether such new approaches will improve the lot of the average Chinese worker. Issues like nonpayment of wages, overtime without extra pay, ..." Stop right there! Presenting those two issues as though they are of the same general kind is ridiculous. The first is a clear violation of the individual rights of the worker -- they agreed to do X work for Y wages, and now the factory isn't paying them. But the second issue is only a violation of an arbitrary law of the government, or a rule from a Western company, not an individual right of the worker. And as noted above, the workers are willing to work the extra hours for the same pay as their regular hours!
  
• Another failing of the article is that in the examples it discusses it doesn't do a good job of making clear which of the "labor laws" are actuall laws enforced from the Chinese government, and which are not actually laws, but perhaps rules that the Wal-Mart or Nike expect their factories to now follow (after so much pressure was put on them in recent decades). This is an important distinction for the reader to understand. The former speaks to the massive government control and intervention in the economy (even while China reforms away from hardline communism), while violating the latter (through fake audits and so on) amounts to a breach of contract between the Chinese factory and the Western companies such as Wal-Mart and Nike. It is important that the types of violations involved get clearly made to the reader.
  
• And the last thing I'll mention... in a few spots in the article we are told that "Americans expect ever-lower prices for many goods, driving the demand for cheaper supplies from China." But this is just asserted, and worse, it isn't true, at least not as strongly as worded. Individuals qua consumers are price-conscious and that is as it should be. Rational consumers, whether American or otherwise, want the most for their money. In some cases this can result from lower prices, but it can also result from improving quality. A lot of goods are not going down in price in recent years, not to mention "ever-lower". But they are going up in quality -- computers with more power, clothes that are more durable or color-fade-resistant, and so on. It can also result from things being provided in a timely manner -- time is important to consumers, as they will pay more (up to a point) to get something they want when they want it, instead of having to wait. This is the old trio of production management -- cost, time, quality -- but as considered from the perspective of the consumer.

Hammer and Tickle: Jokes under Communism

I was browsing around the Moving Picture Institute's website today. This is the organization that supports the production of movies and documentaries that have a pro-liberty theme. I noted one of their productions in this earlier blog post, namely the very provocative movie Mine Your Own Business.

But the main reason for this posting is that I followed a link from MPI's site and found this very well-written item from May 2006 in Prospect magazine, Hammer and Tickle. Here Ben Lewis tells the story of jokes under Communist rule in the Soviety Union and elsewhere. Read the article to not only laugh at the many example jokes he gives, but to also be amazed again at just how ridiculous and terrible communism and socialism are. I mean... people in the thousands put in jail for telling jokes? Hundreds of thousands? I could quote many very nice passages from this article, but I prefer to just recommend that you read the entire thing.

Wired on some Common Falsehoods

The Dec. issue of Wired had an interesting brief item from Aria Pearson debunking some common fictions, all of which I've heard as though they were true at one point or other. Here it is:

Fiction: If you fall into quicksand, you’ll be sucked under and die.
Fact: You’ll only sink up to your waist.

Fiction: Sitting too close to the TV will ruin your eyes.
Fact: It causes fatigue but no permanent damage.

Fiction: Earth’s rotation causes bathtubs, sinks, and toilets to drain clockwise in the northern hemisphere, counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere.
Fact: They can go either way in either hemisphere. The shape of the basin and the direction of the incoming flow overwhelm the minuscule effect of planetary spin.

Fiction: Benjamin Franklin’s kite was struck by lightning.
Fact: The kite picked up electricity from the air, causing an arc between Franklin’s hand and a key tied to his end of the string.

Fiction: A penny dropped from the top of a skyscraper can kill someone.
Fact: It could never pick up enough velocity to kill, just to bang you up a little.

Fiction: Swimming after you eat will cause cramps and lead to drowning.
Fact: There is a very slight risk of cramps, but only for vigorous swimmers.

Fiction: A drunken teenager can tip over a sleeping cow.
Fact: It would take several semisober people and a paralyzed cow. Anyway, cows sleep lying down.

Fiction: There’s a dark side of the moon.
Fact: The entire lunar surface receives sunlight during the moon’s monthly orbit around Earth.

Fiction: Swallowed chewing gum takes seven years to digest.
Fact: Gum is not digested. It passes through the gastro-intestinal system, usually within 24 hours.

Russia and the Lack of Freedom

The latest issue of Imprimis had an interesting piece titled "Freedom vs. Non-Freedom: A View from Russia", adopted from a speech by Andrei Illarionov, former chief economic advisor to Vladimir Putin. Full of facts and data, he chronicles the decline of freedom in Russia over the past several years. Given the bad news he has to report in this area, I have to wonder how much longer his "independent free market think tank in Moscow" will be allowed to operate.

Windows Home Server... sounds really great!

I have recently been doing some research about NAS boxes (network attached storage), because I want a good backup solution for the mulitple computers in my home, and I also want to share my digital music througout the house. Well forget about NAS boxes! What I will describe below is much more than NAS -- its an entire platform that provides NAS and much more, provided by Microsoft and various OEMs later this year. It has been a secret until this week!

You may have heard about the recent announcements from Apple about their new iPhone product. And of course the news media is talking these days about Windows Vista and Office 2007. But something that isn't getting much attention was announced this week at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES 2007), and I think it really has huge potential.

I'm speaking of Windows Home Server (WHS). This is a new version of the Windows OS that in some ways is unlike any that we've seen to date. Here is some basic info first:

1. The target audience is anyone with multiple computers in their home, or who have multiple computers plus other devices on their home network.
2. Based on Windows 2003 Server, but easy to use and intended for use at home.
3. Availability, from Paul Thurrott: "The product will enter a private beta in late February or early March 2007 and will be released publicly in the second half of 2007. Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice."
4. The devices -- hardware with the software -- might cost around $500 or so (depends on the OEM vendor of course -- they have been working most closely with HP on this so far).
5. No monthly fees for any of the below detailed functionality or services.
6. It is a "headless" machine, meaning there is no monitor. Also no keyboard or mouse, as you control the box from any other desktop or laptop PC in your house, via software installed on those machines (much like through a Web browser, except it doesn't actually use HTML).
7. All the machine has in terms of ports and such is the power port, an ethernet port to connect to your router, and 4 USB ports. Given its uses, nothing else is needed.

So what does WHS do? Well, here are the the main features that MSFT is talking about for now:
Central storage of your media and datafiles. You can store your music, photos, video, etc. on this one box, instead of having it scattered on the various computers in your home. This media will be available through the WHS machine to each desktop or laptop in your house. Other types of files, such as word or excel files (or anything) can of course also be centrally stored on the WHS box. Right now, if you want to access a file or your digital music from one computer on another, the one that has the files needs to be on. But by moving it all to a central WHS, the other computers in your house need not be on for you to do what you want. For example, you can access your music through non-computer devices on your network, like an XBOX 360 for instance, without any computers (besides the central WHS) needing to be on.

This also means you can centrally store your bookmarks/favorites, on the WHS, instead of separately on each computer, or via a bookmark service on the Web. Another use would be to centrally store your rotating screensaver or desktop pics (e.g., images of your kids or whatnot), so that this one collection is the basis of all the screensavers on all the computers in your home.

It also means you can centrally store your data in your own home, rather than getting central storage by sending your datafiles to Google (GDrive) or Microsoft (LiveDrive) for remote storage... although that might still be advisable for ultimate remote backup, if you trust those companies enough compared to the risk of flood or fire at your home!

Automated Backup of your computers and data. Right now many of us manually do backups of our most important data files, or figure out a backup "solution" to make that easier, or actually ghost entire hard drives on our own, for each machine in the home. Many people don't do it very often, or at all, because it just isn't straighforward. In Windows Vista, Microsoft has introduced some backup-related improvements such as Previous Versions, Complete PC Backup, and Backup and Restore Center. But even Vista's backup utilities are all about an individual PC: they work only with the PC on which Vista is installed... and lots of us won't even have Vista computers for a while anyway.

The WHS will make backup a complete no-brainer. Paul Thurrott describes it this way: "WHS provides a single solution for backing everything up in your home, every night, without having to push buttons. This includes a new form of image-based PC backup--similar to Complete PC Backup in Vista, but based on new patent-pending Microsoft Research technologies--as well as drag and drop access to individually backed files, from different points in time." So it backs up the entire hard-drive on each machine in your home -- every night between midnight and 3:00 am. And it does this using very smart technology that uses snapshots and so on, so that it isn't duplicating files each time. In fact, consider all the files that are identical on each of your machines -- e.g., all those core Windows files that you know nothing about. This backup service will not duplicate those as it does the backup of each machine -- it is smart enough to just backup each unique file once. It also doesn't backup files again if they haven't changed since the last backup. But of course it does all of this "under the hood", so when you need to find a file version from a particular date, it is easy to do so. You can see how this approach would greatly cut down on the space that would otherwise be needed on the WHS for backup. How smart is this new technology in this regard? Well, Thurrott reports that he has been told that it can backup 15-19 TB of data stored in 300 GB or less of backup space. Pretty good, eh?

Naturally, the first time it does a backup it takes a while, but subsequently it would be much quicker... but since you are asleep while it is happening, it doesn't much matter. (Although I didn't hear of this as a feature, it would be nice to be able to also do the backup on demand -- say, after you just created a great file you don't want to lose... or be able to do it when computers are shut down... for folks who turn off their computers over night.)

Restore at the file/folder or entire system level. If you accidentally delete a file, you can get it back from yesterday's, or last week's, backup version. Same for an entire folder of files. Or if lightning or a virus strikes and your system gets corrupted and you need to do a complete re-install of Windows, you can do so quickly and easily using the complete backup that was taken automatically... last night between midnight and 3:00 am while you were sleeping. No more "lost weekends" due to reinstalling windows, all the apps, trying to get back your data from backups (if you had any recent backups!), and so on. You can do this even if you can't even boot up -- because you'll have a boot CD that will get you connected to the WHS from which you will copy over the last good image of your entire drive... and now you are back up and running on that laptop or desktop PC.

Remote Access to WHS. The WHS machine provides the ability, from any browser, to type in the IP address of your WHS, and you are taken there. You are connected to the WHS box under your desk or in your closet, from your vacation in Bermuda. Play music from home on your laptop anywhere in the world. (To make this work, Microsoft is providing WHS users with a free personal Internet address via Windows Live.)

Remote Desktop. The WHS box provides desktop access to the actual computers in your home, via Remote Desktop using WHS as proxy. This means you could use the apps on these machines, including games, office apps, photoshop, etc., from any machine with a browser and internet connection (because it goes through your WHS box as proxy, through the IP address assigned to it.) This sounds similar to things like GoToMyPC, if I am understanding it correctly.

Printer server. You can hook up your USB printer directly to the WHS server, and it will be available to all the computers on your network. Many already hook it up directly to their router, or have another print server solution... but we don't. I still have it hooked to a single computer and then shared. That is fine... until that one computer is turned off or gets messed up... then no printing until it is back online!

Computer health monitoring. As Paul Thurrott describes "WHS also monitors the health of each PC it is protecting. WHS will monitor Windows Security Center in XP (SP2 and up) and Windows Vista, and provide a single dashboard view of the health of all of the PCs in your household. So if someone turns off anti-virus for some reason, you'll know about it. There's no remote management of this in the first version, though that will come in a future update."

More than just NAS, its a rich windows platform. Developers can build applications for this WHS platform, from small add-ons and gadgets to bigger applications. They said that if you can install it on Windows Server 2003, then you can install it on WHS. Many things it wouldn't make sense to install on the WHS box, but think of apps for Home Automation, like lights, heat, etc. Or digital picture frames in your house of the future - someone could write a script that randomizes the photos stored in a folder on your WHS box for display in the picture frame. The General Manager of WHS at MSFT said: "I love the idea that I have no idea what Third party developers are going to build to extend the WHS." There will be a "Gadgets Gallery" for WHS, and they will facilitate collaboration amongst WHS developers in other ways too. Lots of possibilities beyond what you can do out of the box.


One person described the WHS as "the CPU of the home".

Another person said the possibilities with WHS "reminds me of the stories of Bill Gates' house, with all the digital stuff he had... many years ago." It seems the rest of the world might be catching up later this year!

A few other bits of importance:

• Your WHS box would be accessible from computers in your network that has the "connector" software installed on it. These must be Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Vista computers to use all the functionality. Have a Mac too? From Paul Thurrott: "You can access the WHS shared folders as you would any other Windows share, and that means your backup program -- like Apple's Backup -- can use a share as a save location as well."
• User Accounts. You can control access to the data on the WHS so that different family members have read/write, read-only, etc. access to particular files, folders, etc.
• A guest account is available, but is not turned on by default. Using this, people who come to your wireless-networked house with their laptop can just type \\server and have whatever access to content on the WHS that the Guest Account has been allowed (its not clear to me if the "connector" software is needed for this kind of basic filesharing access -- perhaps that is only needed for the other features, like automated backup and remote desktop and so on?)
• No drive letters to keep track of. Per Paul Thurrott again: "WHS aggregates all of the storage attached to the server into a single store pool, regardless of whether that storage is internal, external, or a combination. As you add drives to the server, the available storage pool simply increases.

So to me, the WHS reminds me of seeing how computers "just work" in the futuristic sci-fi movies and shows (like how Captain Picard uses computers in Star Trek The Next Gen for instance). If even only a majority of the above promises becomes a reality, this will still be pretty cool I think. And yes, all of the above can be done today, but not in an easy way for the non-techie to do and not all from one device, and practically out of the box.

I think that this technology will be quite disruptive in the market -- in a good way for consumers! I think that today's NAS and NAS-like machines are in trouble. I also think that online central-storage services, like those from Google and Microsoft, are also in trouble.

Again, all of the above can be done today. But I don't think that there is a way you can do all this for less money, time, or simplicity than what WHS will provide.

I want one of these WHS devices... now!

If somehow the above wasn't enough info for you, see these links for where I culled the above info from... in rough order of how valuable I think they will be to you, so if you only have a bit of time, start at the top of this list with the two videos:

http://www.on10.net/Blogs/jesse/windows-home-server-will-live-in-your-closet-simplify-your-life/
25 minute video, in interview format, that shows a lot of screenshots of the WHS software interface.

http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=270965
25 minute video, in interview format, about the WHS. Kinda funny actually, and very informative.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp
Great writeup from guru Paul Thurrott. He is often skeptical of new MSFT products, but he is very excited about the WHS!

http://www.engadget.com/photos/windows-home-server-early-gallery/126876/
Picture gallery of the HP WHS device, at CES I assume -- including screenshots of the software interface.

http://kindel.com/blogs/charlie/
Blog from Charlie Kindel who is I think the General Manager of the entire WHS product at MSFT. Something I'll be watching for sure!

http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/447351-0-0-225-121.html
The HP page for their version of the WHS device, called HP MediaSmart Server for now.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2079953,00.asp
A brief item from PC Mag about this, and its announcement by Gates at CES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server
Stub entry at Wikipedia about the WHS.

http://www.stopdigitalamnesia.com/
In my opinion, rather lame marketing from MSFT for the WHS. For me, the videos above are much better.

Congratulations to Mr. Ripken and Mr. Gwynn

I recently wrote about the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, here and then a bit more here.

I was glad to hear that both Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn are going into the Baseball Hall of Fame this year, during their first year or eligibility -- though it was obvious that they would be. One question was whether either -- and esp. Ripken -- would become the first unanimous selection. It didn't happen, but Ripken did place third all-time, with 98.53% of the votes (537 out of 545). What those 8 "no" voters were thinking is beyond me. And Gwynn got an also outstanding 97.61% of the vote (see this ESPN article for the basic news coverage of the results). The all-time top 13 percentage votes are now as follows:

• 98.84 Tom Seaver
• 98.79 Nolan Ryan
• 98.53 Cal Ripken
• 98.23 Ty Cobb
• 98.19 George Brett
• 97.83 Hank Aaron
• 97.61 Tony Gwynn
• 96.52 Mike Schmidt
• 96.42 Johnny Bench
• 95.82 Steve Carlton
• 95.13 Honus Wagner
• 95.13 Babe Ruth
• 94.68 Willie Mays

I listed the top-13 because that is now where Willie Mays ends up -- how could 23 of 432 voters not vote for him?! In my view, all of these 13 are clear-cut hall-of-famers, so I would have rather seen them (and others as well) all tied at the top with 100% of their possible vote totals.

For interesting data on the vote's history, and the players in the HOF, see this page.

I'll share some additional thoughts on this year's voting results. First, I would have liked to have seen Rich Gossage get in this year as well. He came very close, climbing from 64.6% to 71.2%. The requirement is 75% to get in. I think this might be in part because Bruce Sutter, a contemporary relief pitcher with Gossage, was finally elected last year, so perhaps this caused some voters to reconsider, or "allowed" them to now vote for Gossage (if their thinking was that they wanted to see Sutter get in first).

Gossage actually jumped ahead of Red Sox slugger Jim Rice, who actually slipped a bit from 64.8% to 63.5%. Andre Dawson remained in the next spot, but also slipped a bit from 61% to 56.7%. In future years, that lack such obvious superstars like Ripken and Gwynn, I'd like to think at least Dawson will make it in -- I definitely think he deserves it, though I'd vote for Rice too. The other one that I have stated I think is deserving, pitcher Bert Blyleven, also fell in vote percentage, from 53.3% to 47.7%.

In fact, most returning candidates fell several percentage points this year, and I can think of only the Ripken/Gwynn effect as the reason for this. This includes the likes of Lee Smith (39.8%), Jack Morris (37.1%), Tommy John (22.9%), Steve Garvey (21.1%), Alan Trammell (13.4%), Dave Parker (11.4%), Don Mattingly (9.9%), and Dale Murphy (9.2%). The one exception in this crowd was SS Dave Concepcion, who rose from 12.5% to 13.6%, jumping ahead of Trammell and Parker in the process.

Several players fell far enough to no longer be eligible next year, as you must get 5% of the vote to stay on the ballot. Most notably, pitcher Orel Hershiser dropped from 11.2% to 4.4%. Albert Belle also went from 7.7% to 3.5%.

Only two other first-timers got enough support to remain for next year. Mark McGwire got 23.5%, but given the steroid clouds that hang over him, it will be a tough battle to gain much more support than that, in the near term at least. And Harold Baines barely got enough, at 5.3%. I think he could rise a bit in future years, but my earlier prediction seems on target: I doubt he'll ever make it in. And hey, I was even correct in my prediction as to who the four weakest on the ballot were... I said that the four weakest candidates were Devon White, Wally Joyner, Scott Brosius, and Bobby Witt... and these are the four guys who didn't get a single vote!

RFID Tags to Track Luggage

I've read a few news briefs in recent months about the push to use RFID tags to help track luggage at airports. This seems like a no-brainer to me, from the perspective of usefulness and how much it could improve the lost luggage situation with flights. It might be very expensive to implement, and so might take a while to happen, but I have to believe it would be worth the costs for all involved.

And I guess we'll soon find out, to some extent at least, because it seems Hong Kong International Airport will become the first airport to implement the technology in an "end-to-end" fashion. I'm not sure what that means, because it would seem that to be truly "end-to-end" it would need to be implemented at both the takeoff airport and the destination airport, not just at one. So to really see the system's worth we'd need a lot, and someday all, airports to support it. But this is a start at least... a big expansion for RFID use, going beyond supply chain management (a la Wal-Mart)!

Mercury in Fish Another Overblown Issue

Today I read two somewhat contradictory stories in my local paper about mercury levels in fish, and to what extent this is a health hazard for us. The first (originally from Washington Post, but see it here) describes a recent report that suggests some areas are more susceptible to mercury pollution than others, describing these areas as mercury "hot spots". As a report about a report, it seemed like a fine article I suppose. But what it lacked was any mention of why we should care much about the issue. It just took it for granted that everyone knows that mercury-in-our-fish is a bad thing. And that is probably making a safe assumption on the part of readers, since we have been bombarded with stories of how dangerous mercury found in our fish diets can be for our health.

But the story gets very much complicated by the second, shorter article I read today. In the USA Weekend supplement to my local paper, the "Eat Smart" column by Jean Carper was titled "Phony Fish Scare?". Here it is in full:

Don't let a mercury scare keep you from eating fish, says William Lands, Ph.D., formerly with the National Institutes of Health and a leading expert on the benefits of fish oil. He says virtually all fish, even those high in mercury, are safe.

"Mercury is toxic in the absence of selenium," Lands says, "but fish is loaded with selenium that neutralizes the danger." A new University of North Dakota study shows that common fish, including grouper, swordfish, tuna and salmon, have much more selenium than mercury. Even albacore tuna (high on the government's hit list) has 15 times more selenium than mercury, making it perfectly safe, in Lands' view.

Is there any fish Lands would avoid because of high mercury? No, except maybe the pilot whale, not seen in U.S. markets.

So that was eye-opening for me. Selenium, which is common in fish, counter-acts the dangers from mercury.

So I did a little looking around the web, and I found several interesting things. The first was this article, which has an interesting excerpt including a graph showing the relative levels of mercury and selenium in various types of fish, and also in pilot whale -- the mammal mention by Lands above. Very interestingly, there are far greater levels of selenium than mercury in all the fish species shown: sole, flounder, salmon, tuna, pollock, halibut, cod, snapper, grouper, and swordfish. But in the case of pilot whale, the relative amount of selenium is much lower than in all the types of fish listed.

The info in the article was taken from materials at mercuryfacts.com, which seems to be the same site as fishscam.com. This site has lots of interesting materials, including critical comments about prominent scientists and environmentalists who are promoting fear of mercury in fish. As just one item on their site, see "The Flip Side of Mercury". One also discovers that much of the health concern over mercury in fish comes from a study that involved... guess what... pilot whale. See also the Mercury Myths page, which details problems with the following common claims:

• The amount of mercury in our environment (and in the fish we eat) is dangerously increasing.
• Mercury in fish presents a serious health risk to Americans.
• The health risk from mercury outweighs the health benefits of eating fish.
• You can get mercury poisoning from the amount of fish you might consume in a given week or month.
• Every year in the United States, 630,000 children are born with mercury levels in their blood that put them "at risk" for neurological disorders later in life.
• Eight percent of American women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

Apparently there is good reason to doubt each of these claims.

Don Parrish's Trip to 13 Countries in the Middle East

My friend Don Parrish went on a trip to 13 middle-eastern countries in 30 days this past fall. He is a member of the Travellers Century Club, which has a membership requirement that you have been to 100 or more countries! He recently posted his overview and highlights from this trip, which is a fascinating read with lots of great data about the countries he visited. See especially the section called "Overall Observations".

But that is not all... he is going to provide a separate report for each country he visited on this trip, complete with photos from each! He has started with Iraq, and if the others are anything like the one he tackled first, I can't wait to read them all.

And if you enjoy these trip reports, see his many others from over the years... starting with his outstanding one on his trip to North Korea (that's right... he went there recently... a rare event for an American). This one page is packed with so much great info and wonderful photos... a real gem. And see also his additional report on Arirang in North Korea, which includes amazing photos too.

Keep up the good work Don!

Foreign Aid, and Planners vs. Searchers

Johann Norberg writes that in his view the book The White Man's Burden, by William Easterly, is book of the year for 2006. He begins:

Politicians like Gordon Brown say that it is a shame that people die in poor countries when it could have been prevented with medicines that costs twelve cents, and suggest big new development aid projects to finance this. William Easterly points out that there is another problem: "This is the tragedy in which the West spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid in the last five decades and still had not managed to get twelve-cent medicines to children".

With facts and studies, anecdotes and stories and both passion and a sense of humour, Easterly shows that the problem is that foreign aid has been dominated by Planners who have plans and promises, but don't motivate anyone to carry them out, and is never held accountable when they fail. That is why the $2.3 trillion reached tyrants in countries like Zaire, Sudan and Pakistan, but they rarely bought medicine for the children. In the Planners' place, Easterly puts Searchers, with local knowledge, step-by-step solutions, exposed to competition and held accountable for the results.

Needless to say, this book has been added to my reading list.