Bananas and Peanut Butter as Proof of God

Here is a YouTube video in which someone argues from the various attributes of Bananas (and mankind's hands) to the existence of God as creator (and evolution is wrong). Then here is another YouTube video where someone is arguing that because new life is never found in jars of peanut butter, therefore God created life and evolution is wrong.

For the first one, I wasn't sure if this was a joke or not. It looked like the guy might be making fun of creationists. But I'm not sure, because I glanced at a few comments on that page and it seemed that other viewers were not seeing this video as a joke.

The second seems clearly to not be meant as a joke -- it is more professionally done, and the beginning makes clear this clip is not meant to be a joke. But if all I saw was the peanut-butter theory guy, I might have thought it was a hoax created by an atheist -- in which case it would be completely hilarious!

Suffice to say, these are extremely poor attempts at reasoning. I am categorizing this post under "funny", and I did chuckle at these two videos, but really -- these are actually quite sad (assuming they weren't created by atheists to ridicule the reasoning of creationists). I mean, if these people have kids, and the kids are being taught these sorts of ridiculous things, in place of science... then I must ask, a la Dawkins, is that not some sort of cruelty to children's minds?

Halo Meets Monty Python

Here is a YouTube video that is a creative combination of the video game Halo with a classic Monty Python skit. I often wonder how people think of these things!

Otters Holding Hands

At the risk of people questioning my manhood, I must admit that this YouTube video is interesting. I don't know much about Otters, so I have no idea if this kind of thing is common, or whether it is common in other species either. At first I thought it was coincidence, but it seems pretty intentional... I mean, after they separate for a bit when they swim back around to each other the one reaches out to reconnect. Pretty cool...

The Evolution of Homer Simpson

Absoutely classic bit from the most recent Simpsons episode. Here it is at YouTube. The first part is the same Simpsons intro sequence as always, but then when they all get together on the couch at the end, there is an extended sequence that shows a Homer character evolving over millennia starting with a single-celled organism and ending with the current-day Homer. I love how they worked in various other Simpsons characters as creatures along this journey. I especially liked the apperance of Moe, and what happens to him (watch for it!). Hilarious...

Thoughts on Bill James Handbook 2007

I've been meaning to write a few of my thoughts about some information provided in The Bill James Handbook 2007. Most of its pages are filled with tables of player statistics, most of which can be found elsewhere (including for free online), but there are also many interesting short essays. This is of course a very enjoyable book for any serious baseball fan, especially those of us who are in fantasy or roto leagues. Highly recommended!

But before the 2007 season gets underway, and some of these comments become outdated, here they are.

Barry Bonds the Run Scorer. I hadn't realized until reviewing the active career batting leaders listings that Barry Bonds has scored about 200+ more runs than he has batted in: 2,152 Runs vs. 1,930 RBI. Not surprising after a moment's thought, given his insanely high walk rate and OBP.

What is the deal with Jeff Nelson? He has pitched since 1992, mostly for the Mariners and the Yankees. I was surprised to see him ranked 8th in Opponents BA amongst active pitchers with 750+ IP. He has held hitters to a .224 average over his career! Even better, he ranks 4th in Opponents SLG (.331), and 6th in Opponents Hits per 9 IP with a 7.26 mark, 3rd in HR Allowed per 9 IP with a 0.63 mark, and 5th in K per 9 IP with a 9.51 mark. In all of these cases he rates higher than Roger Clemens! Granted, Roger has logged far more innings. But my point is to ask why Jeff Nelson has never landed a job as either a top starting pitcher or a closer? He seems to have great raw numbers, also including a 3.41 career ERA compared with 4.55 league average ERA, and 829 K in 784 IP. And yet he's never started a single game in the majors, and has never had more than 8 saves in a season. As a result of toiling as a middle-reliever and setup man he has only been an all-star once, even though his numbers seem quite impressive. He has even posted a 2.65 ERA in 54 postseason IP.

UPDATE on 4/2/2007: My friend John Erhardt has provided me the following comments on this: "Re: Jeff Nelson -- he was pretty terrible against lefties. He was basically a two-pitch pitcher (fastball, and the most ridiculous slider I've ever seen), and that was it. That was all he'd need when facing a righty. His slider would break down and in to a lefty, which is their wheelhouse. His impressive numbers have come largely because of a very carefully defined role. Even his great years with the Yankees were handled carefully: Nelson would face the righties, Mike Stanton would face the lefties. So aside from the usual problems that plague relievers (stamina, funky delivery), his arsenal wasn't really set up to be a starter. No changeup to speak of, and no really good pitch to throw to lefties."

Career Assessments. This section is extremely interesting. Here a particular method from Bill James that uses performance, age, etc. to give a probability that a player will reach a particular career milestone. So for example we see that Barry Bonds has a 97% chance of getting 756 HR. A-Rod has a 31% chance, and Pujols 22%. The 600 HR club is likely to grow in the coming years, and not just because Griffey Jr. already has 563 (and so has a 96% chance of reaching the milestone). A-Rod is given a 90% chance, Manny Ramirez 72%, and the still-only-29-years-old Andruw Jones a 57% chance. Plus Pujols of course with a 55% chance -- though given his consistency, I'd have thought it even a better shot than that.

No active player has a real shot at breaking Pete Rose's all-time hits record, and only Derek Jeter and Miguel Cabrera have even a 5% chance of reaching 4,000 hits. The 3,000 hit plateau is of course more reasonable, so here we find Jeter with a 71% chance, A-Rod 63%, and Vlad Guerrero 44%. A bit surprisingly, Edgar Renteria is given a 34% chance: since he turns 32 in August and has only 1,770 hits thus far -- and has never topped 200 in a season -- I would have thought he'd have less of a chance.

And as for pitching, as I wrote in a previous blog posting, the 300 Win club is not likely to see very many more members. Tom Glavine has 290 wins and so has 74% chance (why so low?), and Randy Johnson has 280 wins and so has a 70% chance. I guess their age (Glavine 40 and Johnson 42) leads the odds-making system to consider career-ending injury to be a high-risk at this point. But after these two the odds drop significantly, as Mike Mussina is next with 239 wins at age 37 leading to only an 18% chance of reaching 300. Young Johan Santana is off to a good start, with 78 wins at age 27, but his long way to go means he only has a 16% chance at 300.

And lastly, tables for Projected Career Totals for Active Players (batters only) provide a glimpse of what some young stars might end up with as career numbers -- if they stay completely healthy and play a full career. This is interesting in trying to read from current numbers whether these players have real HOF potential or not. Here is a sample, including many of the younger players, for whom such predictions are hence that much more speculative... see the book for many more:

• Carlos Beltran 475 HR, 2672 H, 385 SB
• Lance Berkman 511 HR, .295 BA
• Johnny Damon 2922 H, 242 HR, 401 SB
• Carlos Delgado 583 HR, 1862 RBI
• Adam Dunn 618 HR, .234 BA, 3,109 SO (yikes!)
• Jason Giambi 500 HR
• Troy Glaus 539 HR, .245 BA
• Vlad Guerrero 633 HR, 636 D, 3468 H, 2055 RBI, .318 BA, 265 SB
• Derek Jeter 3,604 H, 298 HR, 2089 R, 374 SB, .308 BA
• Andruw Jones 677 HR, 2009 RBI
• Paul Konerko 471 HR
• Carlos Lee 433 HR
• Derek Lee 421 HR
• David Ortiz 547 HR, 1726 RBI
• Albert Pujols 867 HR, 867 D, 3752 H, 2448 R, 2559 RBI, .323 BA (WOW!)
• Aramis Ramirez 531 HR, 1758 RBI
• Manny Ramirez 691 HR, 3041 H, 2228 RBI, .305 BA
• Alex Rodriguez 772 HR, 3429 H, 2234 R, 2273 RBI, 335 SB
• Alfonso Soriano 428 HR, 363 SB
• Mark Teixeira 558 HR, 1802 RBI
• Miguel Tejada 461 HR, 3249 H, 1900 RBI
• Vernon Wells 418 HR

Ryan Howard is said to be on his way to 711 HR, but I think it is far too early in his career to include him in this table. On the other hand, Carl Crawford and Miguel Cabrera were oddly absent from the table, and I would be interested to see the results from applying this method to their careers thus far.

From Breadbasket to Basketcase

The overall situation in Zimbabwe seems to be getting worse and worse. In June of last year I blogged about Zimbabwe, about a PBS special on the country in particular. Now the March 17-23 issue of the Economist provides both an editorial, Toppling a Tyrant , and an article, "The Face of Oppression", (both require subscription) about the latest news. The rule of Robert Mugabe (now 83 years old) continues on, and he talks of wanting to stay in power for many more years. Members of the Movement for Democratic Change (an opposition group) were beaten recently by Mugabe's henchmen. And then consider these latest numbers:

Once the bread-basket of southern Africa and one of the continent's wealthiest countries, Zimbabwe is now a basketcase and suffers a severe shortage of food. It is also the world's fastest-shrinking peacetime economy, with unemployment now standing at 80%. Its inflation rate is the world's highest: currently 1,730%, although the IMF thinks that figure could rise to over 4,000% by year's end. From infant mortality to life below the poverty line, the country's unhappiest trendlines run remorselessly upwards. To stifle dissent and quash opposition, Zimbabwe has been turned into a police state where elections are routinely rigged.

As I've said in previous postings, nations like this are actually being run by criminals -- and I mean that literally. Mugabe is a "President" name only. Since he and his fellow rulers violate the individual rights of the people on a regular basis, and quite intentionally, they are properly seen as moral criminals. Too often the words "dictator" and "tyrant" are used, and people don't grasp that what these words actually mean is "criminal who has power over the people in his geographic area".

And I'll also add (again) that countries such as Zimbabwe should not be in the United Nations, or any other international body, in which the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, et al., are members. Whoever represents Zimbabwe at the United Nations is representing the criminals (meaning right-violators) in the government of that country -- so by sitting down with such a person, and negotiating on this or that issue (trade, aid, whever), are we not sanctioning this regime as even minimally legitimate? One might think that including such countries in the UN is better than not doing so, because it helps in some way the poor people of such countries. But consider the long-term picture here: consider how many of these countries, run by criminal dictators, continue on that path for decades, with no end in site!

Is "working with" the ruling government, to try to minimize the damage they do to their own people, really helping the people in those countries over the long-run? Might it be better to take a principled stand, kick all countries run by kings, tyrants, dictators, etc., out of the U.N., refuse to have any diplomatic or government-supported dealings with them, and isolate them as much as possible in all other ways (economics, etc.)... and see what happens to such criminal-led regimes then? Ideally, that would have been the principled-stand taken in the first place, when the U.N. was first created. Being the optimist that I am, it is never too late to correct this mistake...

Places to Sleep

My friend Basia has written a post with lots of pictures of all the places she has slept in the past three years. She travels a lot, so I suspect few people have slept in as many odd and exotic locations as she has! Check out her collection...

A First for Me: PayPal Used at Lunch

I had lunch today with three friends, all ex-colleagues of mine, at a favorite local Chinese restaurant. At the end of the meal, we had the standard issue of how to divide up the bill. Two of the guys only had 20 dollar bills, so we were in the standard predicament. Then a couple of us thought at the same time... why not use PayPal? So I paid for the lunch on my credit card, one of the guys paid me his share with cash, and the other two are paying me back via PayPal. Geeky? Perhaps. But I suspect one day this will not seem novel at all -- in fact, no doubt some people do this all the time already, though it was a first for me.

One of the guys (Tim), later noted in email that "I just PayPal'ed you your money." Then he wondered about creating a verb "To PayPal" someone. The world of technology has led to many new verbs of course, e.g., "to Google someone". But I haven't heard or thought of "PayPal" used as a verb until today. Tim jokingly wondered if the past tense would be be "PayPaled", "PayPalled", or "PayPaid". I'm against PayPaled for pronunciation reasons, but beyond that I have no idea!

Waiting for the Smell in the Air

I don't usually write "personal" blog postings... but this one verges on that I guess. I recently saw my first spring training baseball game on TV, and of course that was a great feeling. Then a few days ago the temperatures here in the Rochester, New York area rose into the 50s and even low 60s I think. I was able to go for an outdoor jog (just 3.5 miles) on one of those days, which was great, because I really need the exercise. And we actually had ample rain in recent days too.

But then last night winter weather returned, and this morning we have a good 5+ inches of fluffy snow and the temps are again well below freezing. So my spring joy is being delayed.

In particular, I am still waiting for that "ah, its wonderful" emotional moment (or series of moments) that I experience each spring. I grew up in this area, and I very much appreciate its change of seasons each year. Every spring as a child and adolescent I played baseball on a team (little league through varsity high-school) -- I was mostly a pitcher. Practices would start in early March (or even late February, albeit indoors). There was a certain smell in the air that I'd experience every year at that time. It was a combination of many things: the smell of spring rains, warmer air temperature, the smell of the dirt of the ballfield, the smell of the leather of baseball glove, the smell of fresh-cut (or at least revived and growing) green grass, and even the faint scents from flowers blooming or the leaves first coming out.

For me, it is what I get from my sense of smell during this time -- even more than the sense of touch of the warmer temperatures, or the sense of sight of the sun and grass -- that most triggers positive emotions of the season. And for me, it is very much tied up with baseball, and not just the weather as such. To a lesser extent I have a similar reaction, at some point in September, as the fall season starts to settle in: thoughts of something new (based on school starting for so many years), the start of the football season (I didn't play on a team, but we played lots of pickup games and of course I watched lots of pro and college football on TV as a kid). But given that the weather then is turning colder, not warmer, and that the changes in vegetation signal death (or at best hibernation) rather than renewed life, it just isn't the same for me as the birth of the spring season is. Plus as a kid baseball starting was far more important to me than football season or school starting!

Alas, those moments will be delayed a while longer this year... as I stare out my window at the falling snow.

TelePresence and the Future

Because of a project I'm involved with at work, I've recently become somewhat familiar with the latest high-end video-conferencing systems (at least the one from Cisco). So I was interested to read the article The 21st Century Meeting in the February 26 issue of BusinessWeek.

The article relays some of the premature announcements about video-phones and other devices from years past (including the comical failure of AT&T's planned video-phone from 1960s (think "Technology of the Future" types of displays from the World's Fair -- hard not to laugh!).

What's different today is that it is actually happening. At least for very large companies with a lot of money to throw around. HP, Cisco, and other companies have created high-end video conferencing systems (the word "TelePresence" is sometimes used, as it is the name of the Cisco solution set, and has the chance to become a generic term for this kind of solution, much as "Kleenex" is for facial tissues). The Cisco setup is a nice conference table (half) with three large screens on the other side. On those screens are shown one or two people piped in from around the world. Because the rooms used are optimized for acoustics, lighting, and other environmental conditions, and are made to literally feel the same as each other around the world, the experience can give a very high level of realism.

Given another article in this issue of BW, on the explosive competition and growth of flat panel TVs (and their "flat" margins), it seems that this kind of high-quality video-conferencing will only become more and more widespread. What was needed to do this right was broadband Internet, large flat-screens, and other technology infrastructure pieces all maturing enough to make it possible. That has happened, and the technology has been proven. At this point, it will just be a matter of slowly making it better, cheaper, and eventually -- I predict -- ubiquitous.

And not just in business. There is every reason to think that eventually this kind of video-conferencing will be standard in homes as well. People might not have three screens and a large table, but they'll have one large screen (at least) that can display multiple friends or family from around the world, picture-in-picture style. And they'll have a video camera, affixed to the screen, that is showing them back to everyone else on the connection.

Nothing beats being there: in-person family reunions or gatherings of friends will not go away. But given the obvious costs and risks of travel -- both of which have increased (or at least become more of a concern) in recent years, when you consider gas prices and terrorism -- there is every reason to think that people would love to be able to see each other when talking to each other. This won't be called a "video phone" solution, since the "phone" isn't going to be the major technology piece of it. The key technologies are the Internet (broadband), flat panel screens, affordable webcams, and the various protocols and geeky stuff that makes it all work.

In recent years I've heard of a growing trend towards having "virtual conferences" in the academic arena. Rather than hundreds of people gathering in one location to hear each other give papers on academic topics, they can stay in their own offices and watch the speaker, see the PowerPoint, and even ask questions, just as nicely as being there in person. And as this new wave of video conferencing solution matures and becomes cheaper, we'll see more and more possibilities here. Dozens of individuals could gather, via the Internet, to hear a paper read and then discuss it in a workshop-type of atmosphere.

Think about Star Trek -- particularly Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the other series that followed it. It seemed entirely natural that everyone there communicated by "video conference": (1) ship-to-ship encounters between the Enterprise and the Klingons/Romulans/Ferengi/whoever, (2) intra-ship communication from room to room, bridge to engineering, and so on, (3) and ship-to-Earth (or any other 'fixed' destination) communication, such as Captain Picard communicating with Starfleet Command. Often this was depicted on the Bridge big-screen, but also often on the built-in flat-panel screens at various people's desks. But it also was shown on portable tablet-style devices. All of these scenarios make sense, and I predict we will see them -- for business first, but also for consumers, and eventually quite reasonably-priced.

Think too of all the money currently spent on travel, both business and personal, that could be saved if high-quality video-conferencing were ubiquitous and reliable. Granted, some of that money would go towards paying for and maintaining these systems -- but surely there would be money leftover (once the prices become reasonable), which could then be spent on other areas of life. And more importantly, think of all the time and aggravation saved by traveling less -- time that again could be spent on other pursuits (more innovation, productivity and profit in business, more happiness in one's personal life). And that is not to mention the reduced risks from travelling less.

I'm far from alone in seeing the possibilities here. Consider this from the end of BW article:

At Cisco, CEO John T. Chambers imagines a day when high-quality video technology is so affordable that households will connect to each other via videoconferences simply to "hang out," one living room connected to another. It's back to the '64 World's Fair, but with broadband and high-def TV.

Again, people will still want to see each other in person from time to time -- even if it means travelling around the world to do it. Some people will still gather for in-person conferences, in both business and academia, and surely families and friends will still gather in person. But I suspect all of these will, one day, be at least partially replaced by video-conferencing. And even those physical gatherings that still occur -- they will almost always be supplemented by attendees who couldn't make it there in person. Think of a group of business people with one who couldn't make it to the meeting. Think of an academic conference where half of the people gather in a University auditorium, but the other half stay at home in their offices but can still be full participants (watching, listening, and asking questions). And think of the family reunion, where 50 people gather at someone's house, but one elderly person wasn't well enough travel (but doesn't mind being seen on screen by everyone else), and a few others had business schedules that didn't allow them to join in person, but they can spare a few hours to see and talk with everyone who did make it to the event. The possibilities are endless.

Some might lament this change, fearing that if actual physical meetings become few and far between, that we will lose something of great value. But this need not happen. Like all technologies, there will be some who, for a while, use it in such a way that it distorts their personal value hierarchy. Some people who aren't really that far away from each other might regularly rely on video-conferencing, only to realize over time that they are really missing the personal, in-the-same-room connection one gets by being there. But people will adjust over time to this change, to the opportunities it presents us.

Consider the Internet as a whole. For a long time people were lamenting how much time was being spent at computers, instead of being out there amongst people in 'real-life'. And certainly this complaint lingers on, especially with the rise of virtual worlds like MMPGs and Second Life. But it is also true that people are collaborating with each other in ways they never would have before the Internet, especially with the maturing of the various "Web 2.0" technologies and phenomena, including blogging, Wikipedia and other wiki-sites, photo-sharing (e.g., Flickr), video-sharing (e.g., YouTube), and so on. Virtually none of that personal interaction and collaboration would have come about without the Internet.

So I believe that similarly, over time, people will adjust as video-conferencing technology becomes affordable and ubiquitous (including eventually in the home). People's actions and values will adjust where needed, and their lives will, on the whole, be greatly enhanced.

Squirrels Drive Utilities Nuts

Yes, I know... bad pun, but that was the headline in the USA Today story that ran in my local paper yesterday. In summary, squirrels can be a major nuisance for power companies, and hence for just about all of us, as they can cause major outages. They do this, it seems, by getting themselves electrocuted, so that is not very funny: I grew up in a woods in the country in Western NY, so I had squirrels around me all the time and enjoyed feeding and watching them year-round.

But I nonetheless found the article itself to be quite funny. Consider these quotes:

• "What caused more outages? The lightning or the squirrels?"
• "Many states are grappling with a big increase in the number of power outages caused by squirrel electrocutions."
• "In Georgia, squirrel-related outages more than tripled from 5,273 in 2005 to 16,750 in 2006."
• "Stopping the squirrels is costing utilities millions more dollars."
• "It appears that the problem may in part be due to acorns."
• "...says Peter Smallwood, a squirrel expert and biology professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia." [Italics mine]
• "Smallwood, who has studied squirrels for more than 20 years, said their affinity for power lines and fighting through manmade barriers is in their nature."
• "Hundreds of gallons of raw sewage poured into Mobile Bay in Alabama after a squirrel cut power to a sewage lift station there."
• "Stopping the squirrels is not easy."
• "PECO, which powers Philadelphia and its surrounding counties, spends $1 million a year on squirrel guards to stop outages from "those rascally little varmints," Engel said. The utilities say they're seeing some success. PECO has seen its squirrel-related outages tumble from 11,605 in 2003 to 1,345 in 2006."
• "But squirrels adapt to the technology, forcing the utilities to switch to different forms of what's known in the business as "wildlife abatement technology." "Whenever we think we've got them figured out, they try something else," Engelman said."

Maybe its just me, but I find something quite funny in the phrase "squirrel-related". I admit the issues here are serious, for both man and squirrel, but this article still gave me many laughs. Maybe its the name "squirrel" itself -- that is an odd name when you think about it.

That last quote above made me think of the Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation, who had shielding against phaser pistols fire, and after a period of adaptation, against even those that had modulating frequencies.

And the article as a whole made me think of Al-Qaeda. I mean, we've all heard how terrorists are likely to target our utilities (nuclear plants, electric grid, etc.). Maybe they already are. Maybe they are in cahoots with the squirrels. Maybe they promised them a huge pile of acorns in the afterlife to be suicide runners into the transformer fields! I am hereby starting a conspiracy theory along these lines!

A NY Poker Warrior and a NY Gambling Hypocrite

Two bits of news caught my attention recently, both related to gambling, and both related to NY politicians. First, see this announcement from the Poker Players Alliance that former US Senator Alfonse D'Amato has joined the PPA as their new Chairman of the Board. He is described as "a passionate and skilled poker player who loves to win in both poker and politics." I can only hope that this increases the chances that the PPA can have positive influence in getting Poker recognized as a game of skill in the federal legislatures. While my first choice would be that it be simply made legal, I am willing to accept "taxed and regulated" as an alternative to the current direction of banning the game. The new law enacted in 2006 doesn't literally do that, but it makes it illegal to transfer money into gambling websites, thereby essentially making the game illegal for Americans to play online.

As I've said before, this sort of law is wrong for countless reasons. Most fundamentally it is a violation of individual rights since playing poker online is an act that does not violate others' rights, therefore no law should be enacted to prohibit. But even if you don't agree with this minimal-government philosophy, consider that the law is entirely hypocritical by allowing for horse-racing and state-run lotteries (which takes no skill at all!), and will be a complete failure in attempting to protect problem gamblers and children: online gambling will continue, but will be done deeper underground, supplied by less-reputable companies. Further, the billions of dollars in tax revenue that could be obtained from a "tax and regulate" approach is being lost, as is the good that money could be used for to help problem gamblers.

This is all quite obvious, and I can only hope that former Senator D'Amato can hasten the day when that law will be repealed, or at least when poker (and similar games) will be carved out of it with additional legislation that regulates and taxes them. But self-righteous social conservatives, often driven by irrational, mysticism-driven ethics, have once again imposed their views on all Americans, and in the process violated our individual rights (this happened countless times throughout our history -- just think of all the actions that violate no one's rights, but are nonetheless against the law, or were at various times in our history).

The other story was reported in various places, but I saw it as the third tidbit from the "Cross Country" section in the March 5 issue of US News and World Report, "Rolling the Dice on Indian Gambling". Here we learn that newly elected NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has endorsed the building of an Indian-run casino in the Catskill Mountains. It is predicted that it will generate $100 million in revenue for the state, obviously a big reason for the endorsement.

This is not particularly interesting news for me all on its own, until I learn that it will be run by the St. Regis Mohawk Mohawk tribe, and that its location will be 400 miles from the Mohawk reservations. This is dubbed an "off reservation" casino, something that Interior department opposes. It is unclear whether they will allow such things it seems.

At what point will this country wake up and ask the fundamental question: why can't American citizens, people like you and me, start our own casinos, hold poker matches (online or in-person), and so on? I'm not ignorant of the obvious facts here: it is illegal in most states, but is not illegal on Indian land since they are considered "sovereign states". For a governor to stretch this and endorse Indian people running a casino on non-Indian land... can't we see the obvious flaw in our laws?

Why is some gambling illegal, but not others? Again, this is a violation of our rights and always has been! Horse-racing is legal, slots are not. State-run lotteries -- which are entirely luck-based -- are legal, but poker -- a game of both luck and skill -- is not. The hypocrisy of this is mind-boggling!

I realize that the fight to legalize gambling is a massive uphill battle. Not only are social conservatives and religious fanatics against it, but presumably the Indian tribes would be as well. And some interests in Vegas and Atlantic City, at least at first, until they realized they might profit in the long run. But all of this is irrelevant to both the principle and the practicality of the matter at hand. The law against gambling in this country is a violation of our individual rights, and alway shas been. And like all laws against "crimes" that are in fact not rights-violations at all, the law against gambling is impractical and counterproductive: it forces gamblers further underground, creates a black-market, keeps those with problems (in this case problem gamblers) from seeking help, and fails to produce revenue through taxation that could be used to combat any negative externalities that are created. Again, ideally gambling would simply be legal for adults to partake in, but like cigarettes and alcohol, legalization through a "regulate and tax" scheme is preferable for everyone to the current scheme of prohibition and blatant hypocrisy.

Hello (I Love You)

No, not the classic Doors song. As nice as that song is, I'm here talking about a new song from Roger Waters, Hello (I love you), which apparently is used in the upcoming movie The Last Mimzy (scenes from the movie are used throughout the video).

I think this is a nice tune. There are several references back to classic Pink Floyd hits, and these will inevitably be applauded and criticized by fans depending on whether you think they are cool or corny (I kinda like them). But aside from that issue, I just think this is a nice song - it is rich sounding (for a rock song), and includes strings and other instruments typically not found in music from rock artists (apparently it was produced along with award-winning composer Howard Shore).

H2H Fantasy Draft Complete

I'm in two fantasy baseball leagues. One is a traditional Roto 5x5 league, and it has a live draft later this month. The other is a H2H points-based league, and we just concluded our online draft yesterday. In this 10-team league we have 23-man rosters, field a starting lineup plus one utility (any position) player each day, and start six pitchers -- 3 starters, and 3 relievers. You can have any combination of reserves you like, but you cannot have more than 8 starting pitchers on your roster (since you can rotate them in and out of your lineup on a daily basis as they pitch in reality). Also, we have 10 waive moves, mostly used for injury replacements as needed -- since we have no DL.

We are allowed a robust 8 keepers, so there is definitely continuity from year to year. I had one of the best teams least year, so my 8 keepers for 2007 are very strong:
1B Ryan Howard
3B Aramis Ramirez
SS Jimmy Rollins
OF Vladimir Guerrero
OF Travis Hafner (DHs count as OF)
OF Bobby Abreu
SP Cole Hamels
RP Mariano Rivera

I know that Hamels was a risky bet there, but I have confidence in the youngster. Clearly my offense is very strong here -- I just lack starters at C, 2B, and the Utility spot. What I needed most in the 15-player draft then was 1-2 more solid closers, and lots of starting pitchers. So here is how I drafted, in order:
SP Jered Weaver
SP Matt Cain
SP Dan Haren
RP Bobby Jenks
OF Alex Rios
C Mike Piazza
SP Javier Vazquez
1B/3B/OF Aubrey Huff
SP Anibal Sanchez
C Michael Barrett
SP/RP Brandon McCarthy
2B Marcus Giles
2B Jorge Cantu
SP Anthony Reyes
SP Kelvim Escobar

I actually would have chosen a non-SP with my first choice if given the chance, as amazingly catcher Victor Martinez was available! He would have easily been my top choice, but because I did well last year, I picked 8th out of 10 teams and he was gone by the time my turn rolled around. My top choice from the available SPs was taken as well (Jeremy Bonderman), so I went with the young phenom Jered Weaver. As you can see, my staff is loaded with high-risk, great potential youngsters: Hamels, Weaver, Cain, Sanchez, McCarthy, and Reyes. None of them are rookies, but most are still quite raw, 2nd-season guys. Some will no doubt struggle, but I am hoping that perhaps 3 out of these 6 will show strong growth, or even breakout in 2007. My veterans are Haren, Vazquez, and Escobar -- with Haren having the most upside potential, and the other two being fairly low risk in my opinion.

I'm not a big fan of Jenks, but he was the best RP available at the time. McCarthy was an important pickup for me strategically, as he is eligible in our league at both RP and SP. If he bombs in Texas, I can dump him for a surprise saves-accumulator. That is the thing about relief pitchers, beyond the top 10-15, it is really hard to predict who will get saves in any given season. There are always surprises. I've learned the hard way that in fantasy/roto leagues, you shouldn't overpay for saves, because you can always pick some up cheap during the season once bullpen roles get established. If McCarthy works out well but one of the other SPs I have gets hurt or under-performs, then that guy will get dropped for a true reliever who is grabbing saves -- say in early May for instance.

I plan to use Alex Rios as my primary Utility slot player, though any of my reserves could play there as needed. Mike Piazza was a strategic pickup, because he'll be eligible as an OF reserve after a while as he should be mostly DH-ing this year for Oakland. So assuming he is hitting well, I'll play him at C, OF, and U. And I was surprised that Barrett was still available that late -- a solid second catcher for sure!

Aubrey Huff was a strategic pickup, since he is eligible in this league at 1B, 3B, OF, and of course Utility. With a short bench and no DL, have guys that are multi-position eligible is really helpful. If he can hit 25 HR with 90 RBIs, I'll be happy.

Obviously I left 2B until near the end. My view was that after Chase Utley there is a big drop-off. The guys ranked 2-15 at 2B are not that different from each other. Sure Cano, Weeks, and a few others are better than the bottom guys, but not that much better -- and not at all if the lower guys play to their potential and have career years. So given my other needs, I decided early on I'd chance it and grab two 2B late in the draft -- two guys that I hope can rebound from poor 2006 seasons. Giles and Cantu fit that perfectly, so I grabbed them. I just need one of them to perform well, as the other will just be used on off days and will likely get dropped when injury situations arise. Surely either Giles or Cantu will come through for me, right?

Tom and Jerry Cartoon Conspiracy

Consider if you will this video at YouTube of an Iranian "scholar" giving a lecture to students (or conference attendees, I'm not sure) giving his views on how the Tom and Jerry cartoon was created as a Jewish conspiracy.

Or consider if you will this video at YouTube of an Iranian "scholar" giving a lecture giving his views on how various Hollywood blockbusters like the Alien series, Jurassic Park, Predator, and others... are actually attacks against Islam.

I could quote many laughable claims, and entire syllogisms that are just beyond belief, from these two videos, but you can just view them for yourself.

Oh, the interpretative hoops these guys go through! These are great examples of what happens when postmodernism combines with premodernism. Here we have an "anything goes" postmodernist approach to interpretation and "critical" analysis of something, combined with the essentially premodern mentality that is religion (and in this case, a particularly paranoid advocate of his religion). And the offspring is of course utter irrationality. Not surprising, since you are adding one irrationality onto another -- what else could result but something laughably ridiculous and illogical?

There are many, many more videos like these two at YouTube -- many linked directly from the two pages above. And I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the source of these great clips... The Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. Check out their awesome website for loads of great translated videos that you simply won't find anywhere else -- certainly not on any of the major news channels on TV. And be sure to see their relatively new blog as well (started in December). Great stuff...

Getting Timber from Underwater Forests

The February issue of Wired had a very interesting article called "Reservoir Logs" about "A submersible robot called the Sawfish can harvest healthy timber from long-forgotten underwater forests. Clear-cutting never looked so green."

Chris Godsall, CEO of Triton logging, is an entreprenuerial and inventive genius. Read the article to find out how he is able to profitably cut down long-dead forests that are deeply submerged under water, and how he overcame various technical hurdles (like the fact that the trees are water-logged and hence wouldn't float after being cut). All this, and the environmentalists are applauding as well because the more wood we can get from already dead, submerged forests, the less clear-cutting of regular forests the market will ask for.

More New Led Zeppelin-Related Music Reviews

Well, at least "new" for me. I recently purchased three music items on eBay, all Led Zeppelin-related. Last year I created a page at my website where I rated my favorite songs from Led Zep and gave some added commentary. Since then I've blogged a few times on related CDs as I acquired them. So here are a few thoughts on each of these latest ones:

1. How the West Was Won - Led Zeppelin. First, this is a 3-CD set, so that is nice! Released in 2003, Jimmy Page describes them on the inside cover as follows: "While I was searching through the archives for visual and audio material for the Led Zeppelin DVD I re-discovered these 1972 performances from teh 25th June, LA Forum and 27th June, Long Beach Arena. This is Led Zeppelin at its best and an illustration of How The West Was Won."

I almost always like to hear live performances of my favorite rock artists from years gone by, as each one is a slightly varied take on the studio recordings that I love and have memorized. The year 1972 means that material on these CDs would mostly be from their first four albums only, and so it is, though a few items from The Houses of the Holy were also performed.

The first CD has a great version of "Stairway to Heaven", though it would be hard for Led Zep themselves to not do a good version of that one! And the inclusion of "Over The Hills and Far Away" was a nice surprise.

The second CD has a really long version of "Dazed and Confused" (25:25, compared with 6:28 for studio recording). It is actually a medley though, and includes a version of "The Crunge". Some of the guitar work and the bass beat at the beginning reminds me of Black Sabbath in some ways. Then a long version of "Moby Dick" (19:20, compared with 4:20 for the original) is also included, with a really long Bonham drum solo of course. Good stuff!

The third CD starts with a long medley piece that begins with "Whole Lotta Love". They launch right into this one full blast, and at about 2:00 in it gets really cosmic sounding, even more than the standard recording does. The medley has a few songs, and even ends with a cover of Gene Pitney's famous "Hello Mary Lou".

Overall there are only 18 tracks on the 3 CDs, but as I said, some are quite long. For a Led Zep fan, I consider this set to be a must!

2. Walking into Clarksdale - Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. Released in 1998, I somehow had missed this one until now. I found the 12 tracks on this one to be quite nice overall. I can't say I dislike any of them. The first song, "Shining in the Light", is easily my favorite from this album. I guess a second favorite would be "Most High", but there are many nice songs here. I do recommend this for Led Zep fans.

3. Mighty Rearranger - Robert Plant. Released in 2005, I also hadn't noticed this one's release. I don't like it as well as Clarksdale, though again, I didn't really dislike any particular song. None jump out at me as ones to add to a playlist though. Diehard fans would have to have it of course, but everyone else can probably pass on this one in my opinion.

Libertarian Party Hysterics

I haven't been a member of the Libertarian Party for many years. One could still call me a "libertarian", depending on your meaning in using that name, since I believe in very minimal government -- essentially government should protect individual rights, and do nothing else. But as many have before me, I increasingly shy away from using the word "libertarian" to describe myself. I won't go into all the philosophical reasons for this now, nor will I comment on specific policy differences I have with others who go by the name "libertarian".

For now I just thought I'd comment on what I see as increasing hysterics from the official Libertarian Party in this country. While I was a member of that party for a few years, I haven't been for sometime now. Nonetheless I still get some of their mailings, either by mistake or because they are hoping I will re-join. So I recently received their 2006 Annual Report. First, a few mundane positives and negatives. They wrote it with some elements of a comic book style -- the title of the slick brochure is "2006 Adventures in Liberty", the cover shows a Clark-Kent-like man tearing off his shirt to show the LP logo underneath, and there are a few images inside that also evoke this design theme. So that is a clever idea. On the flip side, if I were a member of the party, I would have preferred to see more actual data -- about membership numbers, budget revenue and expenditures, and so on, with charts comparing 2006 with the last few years.

But what I really found disconcerting was some of the content. Granted, this "annual report" is really intended to generate revenue. It needs to stir up the emotions of those that read it, to dig as deep as they can, and send in money to the support the activities of the party for the coming year. So any organization or party is going to mention only the good things they did last year, the achievements, and spin the heck out of them, including referring to any negatives as challenges for growth, opportunities, or whatever.

But as I've seen with the LP for years now, they do this to the point of hysterics. On page one they say "Several times throughout 2006, our liberty was blatantly robbed in front of the world. Such was the case this past October when, as the cameras rolled, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act that suspended Habeas Corpus... our main protection against unlawful imprisonment."

Really? He did that? Funny I didn't hear about that. Now look, I betcha I'm against various things in that Act, since I disagree with the Republicans and Bush on a heck of a lot of things. But this is hysteria. The implication here is that "our" habeas corpus protection was taken away -- and "our" here can only mean US Citizens.

But this is just wrong. Even the libertarian legal scholar Robert Levy, at the libertarian Cato Institute, argues that it only applies to non-citizens. And the leftist organization Human Rights Watch, which was of course against the MCA, admits as much.

Oh, and they actually give several examples of actions that they argue one day might get your habeas corpus rights stripped away because of MCA, including organizing an anti-war rally or even simply donating to the LP. Come on now... what a crazy fear-mongering!

Or consider the LP's delusions of grandeur regarding their role and success in the November 2006 elections. Here is what they say:

Control of the U.S. Senate was decided by a single seat. Nationwide, third party candidates "beat the margins" in three Senate races. In two of the three races, LP candidates earned many more votes than the margin of victory, thereby deciding the outcome. ... Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrats owe their victory to Libertarian candidates."

This is pathetic. You don't have to be a PhD in political science (I'm not one) to see the basic flaw in reasoning here. The mistaken assumption here is that all those people who voted for the libertarian candiate would have voted for either the Republican or Democrat has the Libertarian Party's candidate not been in the running. But this is of course not true. Many would have voted for another third-party candidate, and many would have simply stayed home and not voted at all. It is one thing to say that Ross Perot had an impact on determining the 1992 Presidential Election -- he got a huge number of votes! But simply having the same or more votes than the difference between the Republican and the Democrat candidates is not enough to claim your candidate was key to determining the outcome.

Not to mention that a third party candidate could have reached that status with a very low vote total, e.g., a large-statewide race that is decided with the Democrat beating the Republican, or vice-versa, by say just 500 votes. If the LP candidate got 505 votes, well wippee-doo... that isn't very many votes! You need to tell us how many votes your guy or gal actually got, and how many above and beyond the difference between the two major party candidates that is, before we should begin to be impressed.

But the LP has been touting this increasing level of success and its "emerging as a force" in politics for years and years. And yet, the real results still fail to impress any objective observer. For instance, years ago the party had as a stated goal to be on the ballot in all 50 states for a presidential election. But now I notice that in 2008 their goal is to be on the ballot in at least 45 states. I do sympathize with them in that it is insanely difficult for third-parties -- even relatively strong ones like the LP -- to gain ballot status in many states. But it is worth noting this lowering of their sights for 2008.

Again, I don't fault them for focusing on the positive in their annual review and fundraising brochure, but I wish they'd stop exaggerating their success/influence, making hysterical claims, and obscuring their year-to-year goals. That said, even if they did alter their rhetoric in these ways, I still wouldn't re-join the party. While I naturally agree with a great many of the LP policy presciptions, at least on the surface, I have some important and fundamental disagreements with them, some of which lead to differences of political position and policy as well. So I don't see myself re-joining the LP anytime soon!

Library Is No Place for Government... Except Funding Apparently

I rarely comment on a local story, but since this one so easily speaks to philosophical principles, I will do so this time. Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks expressed her shock that downtown library patrons could view explicit porn over the Internet in plain sight of kids. She then took what is being characterized by many as the "grandstanding, heavy-handed" approach of threatening to pull the library's government funding (effectively threatening to shut the library down it seems) if they didn't tighten up their policy in this area.

A columnist in my town's local weekly paper, Benjamin Wachs, wrote a nice, sarcastic column on this issue. In it he defends free speech by noting that various individuals and groups will object to various items on the Internet as being profane, disgusting, against the will of their favored supernatural being, or otherwise not proper for children's eyes. He sites examples of controversial-in-some-quarters materials like websites that deny the holocaust, support groups for rape victims, abortion websites that have graphic depictions of medical procedures, sites that discuss birth-control or condoms, sites that show coffins of soldiers returning from Iraq, and sites that show cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. He ends by nicely upping the sarcasm even further:

The library says it's performing due diligence by making adults who want to override Web-content blockers use privacy screens on computers that are away from children's areas. But that's not good enough. It's the government's job to make sure that no one is offended, ever. If they can't do that, we shouldn't have libraries.

So kudos for Benjamin for a nice piece.

Except... I don't like the title of it at all: "Library is no place for government". This invites the obvious question, that Mr. Wachs doesn't address: isn't this entire problem -- of free speech, and what if any limits there should be on what people can view on the Internet using library equipment -- only a problem because we have government-funded libraries in the first place? It is quite odd to title a sarcastic column that implies that the government should get out of the library business (in that it should not be regulating the viewing of legal content in the libraries), but should stay in that business as a key source of library funding. Why not really argue for "no government in libraries" by noting the root cause of the problem, and by arguing for privately-funded, non-profit-run libraries in place of government-funded libraries?

Given the massive wealth in this country, I'm quite certain towns and cities across America would still have fine (better in some ways?) libraries, given the number of rich individuals who would love to have their names attached to the library building (e.g., "The Warren Buffet Library of Fairport" or whatnot). Or consider the increase in donations from the community that each library would undoubtedly get if we had much smaller government, with individuals keeping a much larger percentage of the money they have earned. Such a world would surely have far greater feelings of generosity, benevolence, and "charity" than the current one where people see that a service (libraries, post-office, welfare for the poor, you name it!) is a government service, so figure they are already paying for such things plenty through their taxes. In such a world, issues of free speech and censorship simply wouldn't arise: the libraries would be privately funded, and if people didn't like the policies of a library, they could frequent the next library over that had different policies. A "market" for libraries would of course arise, with competition for both the quality and quantity and of the materials provided as well as the policies in place for what is included, and what can be viewed by who and when.

I don't know for sure, but I assume Mr. Wachs is not in favor of cutting all government funding of public libraries. If so, then that is the obvious reason he wouldn't raise that issue in his column. But his column's title just begs for the question to be raised!

Project Perceptions

A friend of mine sent me this link to a series of images that humorous depict how various parties in the business world often perceive and execute on the creation of a product or project.