Homer Simpson's God Puzzle

I think I've seen just about every episode of The Simpsons -- possibly every single one. But I don't remember this line from Homer that I was introduced to today (paraphrasing): "Could God create a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?"

This is of course a humorous twist on the classic omnipotence paradox (see Wikipedia entry). Most commonly this is stated as the paradox of the stone, namely "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" But more generally, the key logic of it is to ask whether or not a being that is able to perform all actions can perform an action that would limit its own ability to perform actions.

A great many philosophers have tried to tackle this problem, from ancient and medieval folks like Augustine, Averroes, and Aquinas, to more recent folks like Rene Descartes, and then contemporary thinkers like Wittgenstein and various other 20th and 21st century philosophers.

Of course the easy way out of the paradox is to just state that any omnipotent being is restricted by the laws of logic, so this paradox is not a problem. Even if one takes this position, and defines omnipotent in this way, there are numerous, far more serious problems with the concept of God that still remain.

Besides The Simpsons there have been other references to this paradox in populat culture. I was able to recall the use of it in Star Trek The Next Generation episodes (in relation to Q, who claimed omnipotence but clearly was not). But some of the other items listed the Wikipedia entry (a good read) were news to me

Real Pope Story or from The Onion?

In the Saturday paper, on page 20A, I came to the following AP article's headline: "Pope: Unbaptized babies could go to heaven" (I can't find the article from my local paper online). The LA Times headline was "Vatican Panel Condemns Limbo to Eternal Dustbin", and another version of this story is here. As the mainstream media often gets subtle, complicated things very wrong (not to mention getting simple, obvious things wrong a lot of the time too!), you might also read this blog entry that criticizes the news coverage of this story and provides some details of Catholic belief to correct any misimpressions that the news media might be causing.

Be that as it may (and I'm not in a position to argue with the "Faithful Rebel" blogger on the details of Catholic belief), I must admit I found this entire story -- and especially some of the headlines -- to be quite comical. I would expect such headlines at The Onion, but as real news stories?

This raises the question that Dawkins has asked in his most recent book and elsewhere, which is essentially this: To what extent is theology a legitimate and serious endeavor or field of study? The "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin issue" arises here. Consider this passage from the AP story:

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

Where to begin? Leaving aside the huge elephants in the room from this paragraph (assumptions of "eternal", existence after death, and so on), on what grounds would theologians feel qualified to teach one side or another of the issue of limbo? I say "feel" on purpose, not think. Because that is what it in the end comes down to. One might say that theologians base their teachings and arguments on this or that written document. They then argue which documents are more blessed, have more mystical import, or whatever the case may be. But in the end they have no evidence for the claims they make -- they are relying on authority, a logical fallacy, and in this case not very good authorities since the authors of ancient documents were individual humans like you and me, except they lived during extremely ignorant times (relative to the knowledge we possess today). So theologians are not thinking, but rather feeling, when they take sides on issues such as this. So then Dawkins asks: Is this really a legitimate field of inquiry and study, or just people making emotional utterances?

Take this next example:

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,'' said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

Obviously the context for "we're left with only one option" remaining is the realm of Catholic doctrine and the attempt to have as many internal consistencies, and as few outright contradictions that then require blatant calls to faith in the face of logic and reason. But there are of course many other options on this question: grace is a meaningless concept in a metaphysical context, there is no limbo, and no heaven or hell either, there is no existence for living beings after death, there is no supernatural realm of any kind -- including ghosts, angels, and gods.

Or perhaps theologians and the like make decisions based on feelings, but feelings tempered by pragmatism:

Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing'' pastoral needs - primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.

Gotta love this... what does this have to do with questions that purport to be about the truth and falsity of a grand metaphysical question? Saying that innocent babies might make it into heaven (or even limbo, as opposed to hell) is just an emotional tool to make people feel better. Again, feelings rather than reason.

Or how about this:

In the document, the commission said such views are now out of date and there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.''

I'd like to know how two theologians decide when there are "serious" vs. "unserious" grounds for deciding anything! I know, I know... it would be based on the ancient texts involved, and for Catholics, the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and so on. But my point is... why those texts and not others that contradict them? That is a core epistemological problem with all such religious beliefs -- on all kinds of important questions they resort to written authority to play the role that legitimate evidence and reasoning should play instead. And on top of that the written authorities are not even really smart people alive today, but people from a long time ago, when mankind was laughably ignorant. Consider how much laughter someone from today would rightly receive, someone with only the knowledge that a man from 400 AD had, if he were to start making pronouncements about the nature of reality and so on. So why do millions of people continue to believe what these ancient and ignorant people felt and opined about the world? Again, note the key word felt used here, as opposed to "scientifically tested and reasoned using logic therefrom".

And this gave me a laugh, it really did:

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than
grounds for sure knowledge.''

Well, good. Perhaps they know their epistemological limitations afterall... though I doubt it.

Scarcity Amid Abundance

The April 14-20 issue of The Economist again has a good article about the situation in Venezuela, and the economic problems being caused by Chavez and his policies. I couldn't think of a better title for this than what they used: Scarcity Amid Abundance. As I've noted in earlier blog postings, such as in Let Them Eat Chicken Feet, the price controls imposed by the Chavez regime are leading to ridiculous shortages. This latest article also points out the very high inflation rates in Venezuela, which only makes the price-control-causing-shortages issue that much more pronounced and guaranteed to occur (since people will be much more careful with their goods and their money, knowing it will be worth far less in the coming months).

Maximize Absolute Rate of Growth, Not Relative Rate

The April 14-20 issue of The Economist had a good, brief editorial "Come in Number One, Your Time is Up" (subscription required, but also available here). It discusses the various ways that America is being pushed off its economic pedastal, whether by some European countries, China, or whoever. The last two paragraphs, subtitled "A Winnner in Second Place", are worth quoting:

There will be plenty of hand-wringing in the years ahead. But does being the biggest economy matter? It helps to ensure military superiority; it gives a country more say in fixing international rules; and as the issuer of the main reserve currency, America can borrow more cheaply. But being number one cannot be an end in itself. The goal of policy should be to maximise a country's absolute rate of growth, not its relative rate.

Losing top place in the economic league is different from being beaten in sport, where for every winner there is a loser. Economic competition is not a zero-sum game. China's economy will overtake America's not because the United States is in terminal decline, but because China is catching up. And faster growth in China and other emerging economies will benefit America's economy, not harm it. If an obsession with remaining number one foolishly caused America to adopt protectionist policies, that would reduce America's growth as much as China's. It is better to be number two in a fast-growing world than number one in a stagnant one.

Some Consumers Unable to Buy Caviar

Lately I've been reading numerous articles about the collapse of the "sub-prime" mortgage/loans/housing market, and the impact of this on the "alternative" loans market and even the broader market. Some articles or news items on TV covering this have been better than others, naturally. The ones that annoy me are the ones that lament the situation without asking the important questions of how we got into this situation in the first place. This seems to be yet another example of journalists becoming more and more lazy -- because I refuse to believe that news consumers (you and me) are not asking for this kind of information in news reports on issues like this.

The subprime loan situation seems to be at least in part another instance of government intervention in the economy producing unintended, negative side-effects. This is another Hardy-moment, "This is another fine mess you've gotten me into!" -- a quote that I have thought of more and more in recent years when considering well-intended government programs that end up doing far more harm than good (above and beyond the inherent violation of individual rights that they involve in the first place).

The banking/loan/housing industry is of course far from a laissez-faire capitalist system. On top of that, the government in the US has been promoting more and more home ownership for many, many years now. Well guess what? Not everyone has the financial ability to own a home. To do so, unless you can pay in cash upfront, you need a loan. To get a loan you pay interest and rate of interest must rationally be based on what kind of risk you represent to the bank giving you the loan. This is all very simple economics folks! The more the government promotes, subsidizes, encourages, etc., more and more people to own their own homes, the more risky loans are going to be made. As base interest rates rise, and if people do not have fixed rates, then the inevitable will occur -- people won't be able to pay for their loans, banks will foreclose on homes, and dreams will be shattered. This is a simplification of the current situation, but it captures the essence I think.

And this is entirely predictable of course -- again, it is basic economics.

As an example of the kind of news article I'm talking about, consider the one in last Sunday's Rochester Democract and Chronicle, titled "Not 'Sub', Not Prime" which ran on the front page of the business section. It is a story about those with "Alternative Loans", which are kind-of between "sub-prime" loans and regular mortgage loans. In particular, Matt Drouin is profiled -- a 23-year old who lived with his parents for a while (a brief while it seems) after college to save up some money to buy a home. Because has virtually no credit history -- since he is only 23 years old! -- he doesn't qualify for a regular loan, and can only buy a home with an "alternative loan" that has higher interest rates of course. (How many single 23-year olds own their own homes vs. rent apartments I wonder?)

So what annoys me here is... why is this news? Why does this warrant an article in the paper? I mean, some people are not in a financial position to buy XYZ -- so we report on it? Since when? I don't recall seeing articles with titles like "Some Consumers Unable to Buy Caviar", or "Some Local Residents Priced Out of the BMW Market", or "The Poor Find they are not able to Attend Football Games Every Weekend". Isn't this all obvious? If you are poor, you can't buy things that cost a lot. If you are young, you have no credit history -- and unless you have a really high-paying, secure job, you are therefore a major credit risk for banks. Ergo, you will not get a good interest rate on a major loan (like a mortgage loan).

The sub-title for this article was "Some home buyers must settle for 'alternative' loans". You can almost here the "sigh" being voiced in that subtitle -- as if, the world is unfair, and maybe, just maybe, something should be done about it.

Only buried on page four do we have the all-important point being made:

But the availability of subprime and alternative loans has boosted the nation's number of home owners, with 69 percent of households owning their own homes. "For the past two decades, the emphasis by our government has been home ownership," Nothnagle [local Realty giant] said.

Wow... 69% own homes? I knew the number was artificially high these days -- that is, not what the market would bear without government interference in various ways -- but I had no idea it had reached nearly 70%. We can all agree that owning a home is a good thing, generally speaking -- rather than throwing money away in rent, you are investing in property that you will one day own outright. But just because something is good in this general way doesn't mean that everyone, or even 70% of people, can just magically obtain it. Because the markets represent reality, government interference with them amounts to attempts to interfere with reality -- and that can only have consequences at some point down the road. The chickens come home to roost.

Making this same point recently was a brief Letter to Editor by David Holcberg from the Ayn Rand Institute from 3/30, titled Lenders are Damned if they Lend, and Damned if they Don't:

With 2 million homeowners defaulting on their mortgage payments, we are increasingly hearing denunciations of lenders for having loaned money to people who had no means of paying it back. But these denunciations reveal a disturbing double standard. For years, politicians pressured lenders to not discriminate against those with poor credit history and shaky finances. Now we have the despicable spectacle of politicians accusing lenders of not having discriminated enough and of having made too many risky loans.

Lenders are damned if they lend--and damned if they don't. Whatever lenders do, politicians seem to always find their practices objectionable, and will take advantage of any excuse to call for more regulations and increased political power over lending. Politicians should leave lenders alone, and instead of damning them, they should acknowledge their crucial role in making home ownership possible for so many people.

Everyone Talks Baseball

Most everyone talks in baseball-speak -- well, at least most people in the US where baseball is such an important part of our culture. I assume that only some of the dozens of common terms and phrases in American English that are derived from baseball are also commonplace in other English-speaking countries. That would make for an interesting survey actually -- list 50 or so baseball-derived phrases that are commonly used in America, and see how many are widely known and used in England, Ireland, or Australia, and then how many (presumably fewer) where English is spoken often, but is a second or third language. Anyone know of such a survey or even just anecdotal results on this?

The Washington Post recently had a nice item that shows just how common baseball-speak is American English. Here is the writing sample that makes the point:

Say you are about to take a big math test in school. The teacher could play hardball. Right off the bat, she might throw the class a curveball and ask a question that is out of left field. Even if you are caught off base, you have to step up to the plate and answer the question the best you can. Of course, the teacher might give you a softball question that you can knock out of the park.

But this is no bush league test, so you might want to cover your bases by studying the night before. Touch base with your friends in class to make sure you are studying the right problems. If they are real friends, they will go to bat for you and help you study.

Or maybe your teacher is a real screwball who will give you a rain check and let you take the test another day. More time to study would make it a whole new ball game.

If you do well on this math test, you might move up to algebra or even calculus. That's big league math. But whatever you do, play ball with your teacher. You don't want to drop the ball and flunk the test.

You get the idea. Baseball words and phrases pop up all the time. Even folks who aren't fans might be talking baseball.

There are laws in this country that say if you commit serious crimes three times, you might go to prison for a long time. The three-strikes laws come from the baseball rulebook: Three strikes and you're out.

Believe me, there must be hundreds of baseball phrases. Of course, that's just a ballpark figure.

Can you find all the baseball-related phrases in that passage? There are 21 of them.

And to really get into baseball jargon -- much of which is not used outside of the context of baseball discussions of course -- see the lengthy list of terms at this Wikipedia entry.

Of Bad Teams and Good Defense

Local sportswriter Bob Matthews has an interesting column today wherein he first ponders whether the 2007 Washington Nationals might end up being one of the worst baseball teams ever. They are currently 3-9, which is certainly a bad start. If they continue at that .250 pace, then yes, they would be one of the worst teams ever. He notes they don't have much in the way of talent, and I agree that 1B Nick Johnson (currently injured), 3B Ryan Zimmerman, and closer Chad Cordero the only three really interesting guys on the team at this point (the only three, at this time, that wouldn't be an embarassment as their rep for the all-star game).

Bob describes three other historically bad teams: 1904 Washington Senators 38-113 (.235) [he referred to them as "Nationals" rather than Senators], 1916 Philadelphia Athletics (36-117, .235), and the 1962 New York Mets (40-120, .250). It would be tough to argue that there have been worse teams than these, at least in the modern (1901- era). Of course, the 1899 Cleveland Spiders take the all-time prize, as they posted a 20-134 (.130) record. Their top two pitchers posted records of 4-30 and 4-22, respectively. Ouch.

On a more positive subject, the next part of his column gives his take on the Rawlings 50th Anniversary Gold Glove Team. This is a fan vote to select the best fielder as each of the nine positions. He notes that the fans so far are doing a pretty good job too. He agrees with the fans on Keith Hernandez at 1B, Ozzie Smith at SS, Brooks Robinson at 3B, and Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, and Ken Griffey Jr. in the OF. At 2B I think Bob rightly prefers Bill Mazeroski defensively over Joe Morgan, the current top vote-getter. He likes Ivan Rodriguez over Johnny Bench at Catcher -- something I consider a tough call for sure! And he likes Bob Gibson over Greg Maddux at Pitcher.

I was interested to see how the guys on the ballot stack up in Gold Glove awards, and fortunately you can see a handy list of mutliple GG winners at Baseball-Reference.com (scroll down). At 1B George Scott has 8 gold gloves, but isn't on the ballot in favor of Vic Power (7), Bill White (7), Wes Parker (6), and J.T. Snow (6). All good fielders to be sure, but Scott seems to have gotten a snub here. At 2B the six on the ballot are all and only the guys who have 5 or more gold gloves at the position. At 3B it is nearly the same, with Ken Boyer (5) being on the ballot over Robin Ventura (6), and Doug Rader and Ron Santo also having 5 apiece. At SS the top 5 trophy winnters are on the ballot. Derek Jeter (3) is included over Tony Fernandez (4) and Alan Trammell (4), but he is still going strong and could easily get a few more GGs before he is done.

The cutoff for OF seems to be 6 gold gloves, as everyone who has 6+ is on the ballot with two exceptions. Barry Bonds has 8, and his absence is rather odd to me (perhaps Rawlings didn't want to include him because of the negativity swirling around Barry these days?). The other omission is more understandable, as Dwayne Murphy had 6 but two others who have 6 are still active (Ichiro, Torii Hunter), and the other Kirby Puckett had his career shortened by injury.

For Catchers, the top five winners are the five on the ballot, so I have no dispute there. And ditto for Pitchers, as the three on the ballot (Greg Maddux, Jim Kaat, and Bob Gibson) are the top three award winners as well.

India's Growth and Low-Hanging Fruit

Stories of the fast growth of both China and India abound. There are of course many important differences in their growth stories, and one that is often mentioned is the generally abysmal state of India's infrastructure (roads, utilities, rural services, and so on). A recent BusinessWeek cover story, The Trouble with India, does a good job of describing this. There are many "online extras" linked from this page, that weren't in the print magazine too. But for me the most interesting bits of data were those in the chart "How the Global Giants Stack Up". Here we see Population, National Expressways, Major Airports, Electricity Production, Internet Penetration, and Port Shipments compared between India, China, and the US. I would have liked to have seen Europe and Russia included as two other "giants", but even just this three-way snapshot is interesting. India and China each have around 4 times the population of the US. The US has twice as many expressways as China, and more than 12 times as many as India. The US has more than three times as many airports as China, and 11 times as many as India. The US has 1.5 times as much electricity production as China, and 6 times as much as India. Internet penetration is nearly 7 times greater in the US than in China (and far less regulated!), and nearly 20 times greater than in India. China of course has far more port shipments -- two times as many as the US, who in turn as over three times as many as India. See the chart for the numbers.

These numbers are striking. I don't think India's growth can be accurately called a "bubble", in the way the Internet bubble was clearly a "bubble" several years ago -- and this article doesn't argue for such a label either. But the article, and these numbers, do lead me to think that India's growth is not sustainable at the 8-10% clip we have seen recently. I'm far from an expert on such matters, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we see less growth in India at some point. Stating the obvious? Perhaps. But my point is that the reason for such slower growth will be because the "low-hanging fruit" will have all been picked. That is, generally speaking, I would assume that the easiest and most profitable ventures occur first. This is a univeral rule, but generally speaking if two ventures are similar but one has far fewer government hurdles, requires few if any bribes, doesn't involve building facilities and infrastructure in the surrounding area (hospitals, schools, roads, etc.), well, that venture will be the one undertaken. This leaves other areas of the country, and other more difficult projects, for a later day -- if ever. Hopefully the bureaucracy in India will continue to change, and many of the bigger and harder problems the country faces will be increasingly addressed over time, but doing so is the steeper hill to climb, and so I assume progress will become slow.

This is not necessity of course, but it is what I'd predict right now. The country -- like any country -- could of course get its act together, and make wise decisions across the board: economically, politically, socially, culturally, and so on. They could promote rational individualism, free markets, entreprenuerialism, and so on (in a word, capitalism) in a consistent way -- and thereby really turn around their country fast, including helping the hundreds of millions of poor. But alas, that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

Snow in Spring and Weather Averages and Records

A severe storm current in Texas is making its way east, and will mix with colder air up here in the northern states to produce some more snow... or so the weather folks are predicting. As of now, it seems the worst of it will miss us here in Rochester, NY.

My increasing frustration with the cold weather we are still having in mid-April led me to wonder how abnormal this is. A quick Google search introduced me to the site WeatherBase, and then a search on Rochester, NY brings back this statistics page. From here I can say that so far we have definitely been below average for high temperatures this month (average high over the past 48 years in April in Rochester is 56 F, while we've been struggling to reach 40 F many days). The record in April is a whopping 93 F! Wow... I wouldn't have guessed that! We average 3.6 inches of snow in April, and that sounds about right. We even average 0.3 inches in May, a despairing thought.

Google on Going from New York City to Paris

A friend of mine pointed out this funny tidbit to me:
1. Go to Google.com.
2. Click on 'Maps,' then click on 'Get Directions.' (near top).
3. Type in 'New York, NY' as your starting point and 'Paris, France' as your destination.
4. Once it computes your directions scroll down to #23.

Pretty funny...

Pandora: Create Your Own Radio Station

I'm sure there are many sites like this one, so I'm not claiming this is the best. But I just discovered Pandora.com this evening and it is quite slick in my opinion. You type in a musical artist, and it does some searching, and then plays music by that artist or by other artists that are similar.

I didn't have success with the first two I tried: Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull. What I like about these bands is I think hard to abstract away from their particular songs, so I'm not surprised that a database and some algorithms couldn't do it very well. In both cases, the songs they suggested I might like -- other than the ones by PF and JT themselves -- are not songs I like.

But it did work well when I tried Enya. Now her music is very unique: her voice is stunning and they layer it many times for an incredible effect. But aside from that, her music is a combination of celtic and "new age" instrumentals. And I don't just like the unique aspects of it, I also like these fairly common characteristics as well: gentle, rich "new age/celtic" pieces that are nice as background music while I'm read email, doing some programming, or whatever. And I'm very much interested in finding more music of this type, so I'm glad to have found the Pandora service.

CD Spindle Bagel Tote

Now this is a brilliant/obvious idea! One of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments for sure. Wouldn't work well for bagel sandwiches that have "stuff" (meat, lettuce, whatever) that spans across the middle hole. But if you have just cream cheese spread on the bread, or something similar, then this would work fine.

WHS Homepage

Microsoft recently created a homepage for the forthcoming Windows Home Server (WHS) product. So in addition to the various blogs and other sites dedicated to this exciting technology, bookmark this site to stay on top of official information about it. I'm still as excited about it as I was a few months ago when I first blogged about it at great length. Read that posting, or browse around the Microsoft site to learn all about WHS.

Baseball Movies

The USA Weekend insert for the weekend of March 23-25 had a one-page piece "Best Baseball Movies Ever: Our Exclusive Panel Takes Its Turn At Bat". With the baseball season underway this past week, I thought I'd chime in on this fun topic as well.

The usual suspects are rated highly by this panel of course: Bull Durham, Major League, The Natural, Field of Dreams, Bad News Bears, and Pride of the Yankees amongst others. I definitely liked all of those, to be sure. But a few others that are rarely mentioned in such discussions deserve attention.

I have always liked Angels in the Outfield, not the 1994 or 2000 remakes mind you, but the original 1951 film that starred Paul Douglas and Janet Leigh. If you've never seen this one, then add it to your Netflix or Blockbuster queue and enjoy its charming story!

Another less-well known baseball movie is A Winner Never Quits (1986). This is a fact-based story of a young boy who lost his right arm in a childhood accident, but went on to fulfill his dreams of playing major-league baseball.

Although it often gets included in lists of great baseball movies, sometimes Eight Men Out is forgotten. This is easily one of my favorites, and is one of those movies that I have a hard time turning off the TV if I happen upon it (like another baseball film, The Natural, or a few films in other genres, such as The Princess Bride).

And I recently watched The Sandlot (1993) for the first time, and enjoyed it. This one is good for both kids and adults.

In Googling "best baseball movies", I discovered this great site: www.baseballmovies.com. Great info there, including the creator's own list of the top-25 baseball movies ever -- and I was delighted to see The Natural top the list. Another list is this one from epinions, posted in 2004. Also see this list of top 20 from ESPN's Page 2. To dig even deeper, I was amazed at this list of 20+ older films (1930-1969). And then there is also this annotated list of 100 baseball and baseball-related movies!

I plan to start a project to watch all the baseball movies I can over time... should be fun. If you know of any other good lists of them, please let me know.

As of now, my ranking of favorite baseball films (not including documentaries, like the Burns Baseball series), would be:

1. The Natural
2. Field of Dreams
3. Eight Men Out
4. Angels in the Outfield (1951 version)
5. A League of their Own
6. Pride of the Yankees
7. Bull Durham
8. Major League
9. The Sandlot
10. 61

The last few spots are tough ones, so I could easily change my mind in the future. There is the Babe Ruth Story, Cobb, Bad News Bears, A Winner Never Quits, and many others that are in contention for this top-10 listing.

Equal Rights vs. Egalitarianism

Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute has written a powerful Op-Ed on the issue of egalitarianism. In it he argues that income inequality is something good -- a position almost never argued for elsewhere. As Schwartz notes, the issue of egalitarianism is not the issue of poverty. Wanting to alleviate poverty is one thing, but wanting to equalize everyone's wealth is quite another. And assuming that in order to do the former one must do the latter indicates a misunderstanding of economic reality, as such people are usually operating with an at least implicit premise that the world is a zero-sum game: for poor people to be better off, then rich people must be made worse off. Only by reducing income or wealth inequality -- by redistributing from the haves to the have-nots -- can the poor be made better off. But this is incorrect, as all boats can rise at the same time -- with some rising faster than others, either in percentage-increase terms or real-terms, or both. I'll now quote at some length from Schwartz, as he makes several points very well:

... the alleged problem is not that some are becoming poor--but that others are too rich. The complaint is that while the bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The complaint is that over the past 25 years, the share of income of the top fifth of households climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%.

But this development represents an injustice only if we use a perverse standard of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure someone's economic status not by what he has, but by what others have--i.e., only if he benefits not by making more money, but by making his neighbor have less.

...

Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the valid tenet of political equality, under which we have equal rights. That is, we have the right to achieve whatever our ambition and talents allow, with no one permitted to forcibly stop us. Egalitarianism, however, is a denial of the individual's right to be left free. It is an abhorrent demand that some people be punished for achieving what others haven't. It is a brazen declaration that an equality of condition must be attained.

And how is it to be attained? By--as the Australians aptly phrase it--cutting down the tall poppies. No one is to be allowed to surpass his fellow-citizen. No one is to be allowed to rise. Which means that the most able must be brought down to the level of the least able. The equal spread of misery and privation is the only "equality" that egalitarians ultimately seek. This is why they extol socialist societies, where all suffer equal destitution, while vilifying capitalist societies, where all are free to advance according to their abilities and where the poorest enjoy greater luxuries than any citizen in a "worker's paradise."

Making others fall does not make you rise. While prohibiting a Thomas Edison or a Bill Gates from becoming fabulously wealthy does indeed reduce income inequality, it does not make the poor richer. Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire. Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire. They are motivated by what Ayn Rand called "hatred of the good": if they lack something of value, they want to make sure nobody else has it either.

Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production. Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more.

In a statist system, people advance through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving. But in a free, capitalist system, income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards. Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his fortune, the income disparity between top and bottom increases--but so does everyone's standard of living. If so, why shouldn't we welcome an inequality--including a widening inequality--in incomes? And, instead of apologizing for this phenomenon, why aren't our leaders denouncing the egalitarian enviers who want to level us all?

The key distinctions here are between equality of rights vs. equality of end results, cause and effect, wealth as created and produced, rather than distributed from a fixed amount.

And lastly, I'll note that the argument here is being made based on principles, so the fact that some people inherit wealth rather than produce it is not relevant. The wealth was originally produced by someone, who then had as his or her right the opportunity to distribute that wealth as they saw fit (e.g., to their children, to friends, to charity, or whatever). And keep in mind also that what is being talked about is a free, capitalist society. What we have in the US and other semi-capitalist countries today are not free, capitalist societies. So that is why it is easy to think of people who, like those in statist nations, achieve great wealth "through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving." But these, like those who achieve wealth through fraud or other criminal acts, are not counter-examples to the principles stated above.

On Radical Transparency in Business

The latest issue of Wired has an interesting cover story, The See-Through CEO (and the cover itself was, um, interesting too). The concept is that various technologies, most notably some of the Web 2.0 technologies like blogs, as well as the ubiquity of Google searching and so on, are changing the calculus that companies need to go through when determining what information to keep secret and what information they should share with the public, and most importantly with their customers. I won't try to retell it here... read the article for many fascinating and thought-provoking anecdotes and questions about both the present-day realities and what the future might be like in this area.

Then also check out the article about Microsoft's Channel 9 operation. I've watched several videos from both channel 9 and the newer channel 10, usually on upcoming products (e.g., Windows Home Server). This article is a nice example of how a company can introduce some measure of transparency in ways that are really effective and useful to people, and yet aren't completely zany and liable to get the legal or marketing department up in arms.

Some Background on Mr. Mugabe

The March 31 issue of The Economist (subscription only) continued to keep the focus on Zimbabwe's criminal ruler Robert Mugabe, by including both an editorial and a longer article. The latter was particularly interesting because it goes beyond noting the latest horrors and gives some background on Mugabe's childhood and development. This helps to give a fuller picture of this criminal in charge of a country that was once relatively well-off and now is a basketcase (see my earlier blog item).

And the April 7 issue gives a sad update regarding an African leaders summit that was held on March 29th, where it was hoped that Mugabe would finally be told, politely but firmly, that it was time for him to go. But alas, this is far from what happened.

Astonishingly, Mr. Mugabe got more bouquets than brickbats. The assembled heads of state called for sanctions to be lifted to take the pressure of their comrade, and declared the grubby presidential election of 2002 free and fair. With this sort of endorsement rining in his ears, Mr. Mugabe smartly returned to what he knows best: intimidating his opponents. He called the beating of the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, not only "deserved" by promised more of the same. To cap his perfect week, Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF party said Mr. Mugabe would be its presidential candidate in next year's election.

What is the #1 Cash Crop in the USA?

What is the #1 cash crop in the United States? Guesses might be corn, wheat, tabacco. With all the news of ethanol lately, one might assume this question being posed now is a lead-in to corn being the answer. But according to a report issued in December, in terms of market value, something else beats both corn and wheat combined. Marijuana.

The report in question is Marijuana Production in the United States 2006, by Jon Gettman, PhD. Gettman calculated the size and value of the U.S. marijuana crop based on reports from a variety of federal agencies, including the DEA, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the US State Dept. He deliberately chose conservative figures, rather than the sometimes higher ones commonly reported by enforcement agencies. The result is that Marijuana is America's #1 cash crop, with a value of $35.8 billion in 2006. Corn comes in at $23.3 billion, soybeans $17.6 billion, vegetables $11 billion, wheat $7.45 billion, and cotton $5.3 billion.

And while the government has spent a huge amount of tax-payer dollars on "eradication" programs, US marijuana production has incrased tenfold from 1981 to 2006, from 2.2 million pounds to 22 million pounds.

I learned of this from the Spring 2007 issue of the Marijuana Policy Report, which finishes its write-up on this report as follows: "The report concludes that 'marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of our national economy.' Instead of wasting further resources on doomed eradication campaigns, Gettman argues, marijuana should be placed into a system of legal regulation."

This spring issue of the MPR had a few other interesting bits as well. On pg. 5 there is a report about two studies on the "gateway theory" of marijuana, one published in the Dec. 2006 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, and another published in the journal Psychological Medicine. The conclusion drawn in the MPR is that "the data don’t show that marijuana causes use of other drugs, but instead indicate that the same factors that make people likely to try marijuana also make them likely to try other substances. The researchers added that any gateway effect that does exist is 'more likely to be social than pharmacological,” occurring because marijuana “introduces users to aprovider (peer or black marketer) who eventually becomes the source for other illicit drugs.” In other words, if there is a gateway, it isn’t marijuana; it’s the laws that put marijuana into the same criminal underground with speed and heroin."

And on the education front, the consistent misinformation compaign in our schools continues to lead teenagers to be misinformed about the relative dangers of various drugs. Considering the following from pg. 5 of the MPR:

The 2006 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of teen drug use revealed some disturbing attitudes about drug use among young people. Funded by the federal
government and conducted by researchers at theUniversity of Michigan, the latest MTF results were released in late December.

Federal officials touted the survey as good news: "It's great to have one-quarter fewerkids using drugs than there were in 2001," Drug Czar John Walters told USA Today. But Walters neglected to mention that teen drug use rates are actually higher than they were 15 years ago -- not only for marijuana, but also for cocaine, barbiturates, and tranquilizers, among other substances.

The survey results also showed how badly America has misinformed its young people about drugs. More eighth graders, for example, said there was "great risk" in smoking marijuana occasionally (48.9%) than in taking LSD regularly (40.0%) or in trying crack cocaine (47.6%). While attitudes became more realistic with increasing age, even twelfth graders were more likely to see great risk in smoking marijuana regularly (77.8%) than in having four or five drinks nearly every day (70.9%) or taking barbiturates regularly (70.2%).

Marijuana misinformation has gone on for decades -- remember the infamous Reefer Madness anyone?

On the Amazing Elon Musk

Is it just me, or does the name Elon Musk not get enough press? I read a one-page article about him ("Rocket Man") in the March 22 issue of The Economist, and I was floored that I haven't heard his name more often. I mean, you hear the names of creators of tech companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and so on... all the time. But I only vaguely remembered the name Elon Musk.

So what has this 35 year-old accomplished in his life so far? Well, he co-founded the company that became PayPal, the online payment service that was enventually sold in 2002 to eBay for $1.5 billion. Since I use PayPal all the time... thank you Mr. Musk!

Then in June 2002 he founded SpaceX (he is currently CEO), a company that develops and manufactures space launch vehicles, with an emphasis on low cost and high reliability. Their Falcon two-stage rocket recently launched and climbed to an altitute of 200 miles. As the article notes: "Although the second stage failed to reach its intended orbit, the Falcon can claim to be the first rocket designed, developed, and financed by private sector that is anywhere near carrying a payload into space. Mr. Musk founded SpaceX five years ago and designed much of the rocket himself."

What else? Well, Musk is the principal owner and Board Chairman of Tesla motors, an innovative company that produces electric cars. The article notes: "In July Tesla unveiled its first model: a sports car which is faster than a Ferrari, more environmentally friendly than a Toyota Prius, and can travel 250 miles after charging overnight through an ordinary household socket. The first few have been pre-sold, but the concept will be properly tested only when they start rolling off the production line in August."

For info about him, see the Elon Musk entry at Wikipedia.

The Future of Books

The March 24 issue of The Economist had an interesting article "Not Bound by Anything" (subscription required), which looks at the future of books. It begins by talking about how Google, after some early missteps, is working with libraries to digitize huge volumes of written materials, noting that conservative estimates have Google digitizing 10 million books a year. And other companies, like Amazon, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have been scanning books too. They then write:

As books go digital, new questions, both philosophical and commercial, arise. How, physically, will people read books in the future? Will technology "unbind" books, as it has unbundled other media, such as music albums? Will reading habits change as a result? What happens when books are interlinked? And what is a book anyway?

All of these are interesting questions. Additional questions arise when you consider other technologies, such as Wikis and other Web 2.0 technology. Can people collaboratively write books? If not all types (e.g., novels), then what about textbooks, where perhaps different experts right each chapter on different topics, with a few writers editing the entire thing for style consistency, etc.?

The article states that change in the physical medium of books (printed) is not likely. I wonder about that. Obviously early reports of the death of the book (and the magazine and newspaper) were greatly exaggerated. Electronic books and book reader devices have mostly been complete flops commercially, but the game has just begun. As technology improves, I think we'll have high-quality tablet-PC like devices, that provide text that is easy on the eyes and hence could replace physical, paper-based books. As I often do, I think of the later Star Trek series... where they had such devices, and it just seems natural that this will eventually become a reality.

The article opines that the "biggest changes are likely to be seen in what becomes a book in the first place." That is indeed an interesting suggestion. With more and more content available, will the traditional book-length (non-fiction) item (say, 200-400 pages) become less popular, in favor of shorter items? I don't know the numbers here, but surely this is already happening, with web content that tends to be far shorter than book-length. I know I struggle to read anything that is book-length, preferring to read short, concise, well-written articles on a subject. Maybe I'm in the minority? Or maybe the younger generation will grow up this way, and a few decades from now, book-length treatises will be far less popular. There will always be a place for them -- if you have a cogent, detailed case to make for some thesis, then you might need that much space to do so. But this article notes also that often an author really only as an idea worth about 50 pages, but in order to sell it as a book, they need to write another 150+ pages of material -- much of which is wasted, in the sense that it isn't of high-value to readers, and often goes unread if the reader can figure this out before spending too much time on it. But in the digital realm, there is no need to pad a 50-page idea or thesis with all that extra junk.

The article notes that things that people don't traditionally read in their entirety, like encyclopedias, cookbooks, and textbooks, are ideal candidates to be altered by the digital revolution. Obviously this is already happening with encyclopedias (with Wikipedia and others), and I can see how it could happen with cookbooks and textbooks very soon as well.

Other effects of digitizing books that the article mentions are obvious. By linking content together, research is made much easier. A link network amongst books can provide valuable information regarding quality, relatedness, and so on. But overall I found this article to be quite interesting.

The Debut of Dice-K

One of the more anticipated events of the first week of the MLB season was the debut of 26-year old starting pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka (pronounced "Dice-K"), the best player to come from Japan since Ichiro. He pitches with power, and also has a repertoire of pitches that includes a "gyro ball", which I understand to just be a failed slider -- that is, a ball that looks like it will be a slider, but then doesn't end up moving the way a slider would.

Perhaps no other player has been as hyped during the pre-season as Dice-K has, in part because he plays for a big market team, the Boston Red Sox, and in part because he really does have a lot of talent. And this was evident in his debut game in Kansas City (see boxscore), where he pitched seven strong innings, allowing six hits and one earned run, walking only one batter and striking-out an impressive ten. I saw clips of this performance on SportsCenter, and he really looks impressive. Granted it was against the poor-hitting Royals, but still...

His next game will be another fascinating spectacle, as it will be his home debut in Boston, and since it is against the Mariners, the first batter he will face will be... Ichiro. I have no particular interest in seeing him succeed, as I'm not a Red Sox fan, nor do I have him on either of my two fantasy teams, but I'm glad to see him start out well, and hope he'll be an interesting story to follow throughout the season.

Pink Floyd Cover Story

The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has a cover story about Pink Floyd (my all-time favorite music group), titled "Pink Floyd: How Madness and Excess Destroyed the Legendary Band." The online version of this article is only the first part, for the rest you'll have to get the print magazine it seems.

The article is pretty good I thought. While I am a big fan of their music, I'm not such a big fan that I'd be able to pinpoint inaccuracies in the presented historical information about the group -- so perhaps there are errors in the article. But to me it all seemed accurate and consistent with what I have read elsewhere. The article covers the early days of the band, their slow evolution, the massive success of Dark Side of the Moon, the "Waters" years of Animals, The Wall, and The Final Cut, and then briefly mentions the post-Waters years. Then it catches up to modern times, with a description of the unique reunion of Waters with the rest of the band in 2005 for a performance at Live-8, and then also the death last year of original band member Syd Barrett (see my brief blog entry on that).

One complaint I have about the article is the cover title/headline. Madness... yes, in the case of Barrett at least. But "Excess"? This makes it sound like they all abused drugs/alcohol/sex, like so many other rock bands have over the years.... and yet the article doesn't talk about this. I think more accurate, in the case of Pink Floyd, in addition to "Madness" would be something like "Professional Differences" or "Musical Differences" or even "Attitudes". That is certainly the sense one gets from the article, and that is in line with my understanding of their history prior to reading this article. I mean, Waters cared more about the lyrics -- telling the stories he wanted to tell in particular -- and Gilmour and others cared more about the instrumentals. That seemed to be a big issue for the band, not "excess", whatever that would mean for them exactly.

Also, I'll note that RollingStone has provided a cool mashup page of sorts, giving four examples from the famous Dark Side of the Moon and Wizard of Oz connection. For those who don't know, the idea (conspiracy theory?) is that if you watch the Wizard of Oz in sync with the Dark Side of the Moon album, there are some eerie coincidences (or... not just coincidences?). I'll admit three of these four are pretty odd... The first not so much, except she does balance on the fence and fall into the pen at just the right moment. Then the third one, the timing of "black" and "blue" are perfect, so that is neat. And the fourth one seems lame, until the very end with the heartbeat in the music. The second one I think is a stretch for sure: I see no obvious connection between the money sounds in the music and the fact that color is now appearing as she has landed in Oz... so what?! Overall, I still think what I always have on this matter -- that it is a very big stretch, that it is coincidence, and that it is easy to read things into something like this. I consider it much as I do the "prophecies" of Nostradamus -- which is to say I don't believe there is really anything to it at all. Until Roger, Nick, David, or Rick come out and SAY they timed the song to the movie on purpose, the evidence we have for any such claims is just not very strong at all.

The Citizendium Wiki Has Been Launched

After a beta period, a new -- and potentially significant -- public Wiki was launched last week, called this announcement, which was carried by AP and hence all over the place in the media.

This new Wiki project is being led by one of the founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. I won't try to rehearse the story as to why Larry became disinterested in Wikipedia -- suffice to say that he believes there is value in expertise, and that it would be great if expertise could be focused and harnessed in a collaborative environment the way Wikipedia has harnessed the efforts of anyone and everyone. With the launch of Citizendium, we are seeing the fruits of his thinking and labors in this regard.

I've been looking forward to the launch of this project for quite a while now, even before it had a name. I happen to be friends with Larry, from well before Wikipedia was even an idea being tossed around by anyone. I met him in the mid-90s, and he I were fellow graduate students in philosophy at Ohio State in 1996, my one year there. For that matter, I also know Jimbo, the driving force behind Wikipedia's phenomenal success. I met him at a philosophy conference in 1994, and then at some subsequent conferences since then. They are actually the only two "famous" people I know, if you want to call them famous. (I don't know any celebrities like actors, rock stars, or sports stars.)

Here is a writeup on the similarities and differences between CZ and Wikipedia -- an interesting read, not just for the issues with Wikipedia itself, but to get a sense of some issues that arise in hosting and developing Wikis more generally. And then if you really are interested in more info, here is an article "Why the Citizendium Will (Probably) Succeed". This includes a good list of objections and replies to the project.

I wish Larry (and the others involved in the CZ project) well in their endeavors. Of course, as Larry notes in the article above, many factors will come into play as to whether the project gains enough momentum to become a permanent Internet resource, not to mention rival Wikipedia in most people's minds on the various dimensions that might do so.

The Onion News Network

It seems The Onion has stepped it up notch, by launching the Onion News Network, or ONN. See this initial promo video, then see the other "recent videos" listed on that page -- it seems there are three short clips so far. My favorite is the one reporting, with a roundtable discussion, that Civil War Re-Enactors are the latest to get called up for duty in Iraq.

Baseball Season Begins, Roto Draft

I just watched the season opener, Cardinals vs. Mets. It is great to see the season get underway!

For those who are interested in Fantasy/Roto Baseball... Yesterday I participated in the draft for one of the two fantasy baseball leagues I'm in. This one is a traditional Roto league, with 11 teams, 5x5 categories (BA, OBP, HR, RBI, SB, W, S, K, ERA, WHIP), 23-man roster, with $260 salary cap.

Last year I came in last place in this league. I made several mistakes during the draft, including spending way too much for relief pitching. So this year I had a very different strategy in mind. I wanted to spend much more on hitting than pitching, and make sure to get some definite stud hitters. I read about the so-called "LIMA" strategy (Low Investment Mound Aces). I didn't actually follow this plan explicitly, but I did adopt its $60 budget for pitching.

I had some strong keepers from last year, as we are allowed to keep up to seven players at last year's salary +5. This means that if you can get a guy for $1 and he turns into an all-star, you can keep him for many more years, though not indefinitely -- typically when players get up over $30 they are no longer kept, though it has happened.

So here is my roster (keepers from last year marked with **)

$5 C Mike Piazza
$8 C Ronny Paulino
$2 1B Connor Jackson
$8 2B Ian Kinsler **
$25 3B Miguel Cabrera **
$17 SS Michael Young **
$6 3B Ryan Zimmerman **
$3 SS Khalil Greene
$27 OF Lance Berkman ** (also 1B eligible)
$33 OF Carlos Beltran
$33 OF Carl Crawford
$16 OF Adam Dunn
$13 OF Rocco Baldelli
$1 OF Chris Duncan
$27 SP Jake Peavy
$7 SP Ervin Santana **
$6 SP Dave Bush
$3 SP Javier Vazquez
$3 SP Adam Wainright
$1 SP Mark Prior
$1 SP Pedro Martinez
$9 RP JJ Putz
$1 RP Jason Isringhausen

Obviously my keepers were hitting-centric, so that lended it self well to my draft strategy. I went for Beltran and Crawford early on, giving me 4 legitimate stud hitters (along with Berkman and Cabrera). Then I added Dunn, who might hurt me in BA should provide 40+ HR. Then Zimmerman is arguably my best value hitter, and I have high hopes for production this year from Piazza (DH at-bats as a catcher), Baldelli, and Greene. And I hope Jackson, Duncan, Paulino and Kinsler will continue to progress as young players.

My pitching staff is not strong of course, but I am hopeful they can out-perform the money spent on them. Peavy is the only stud here, with vet Vazquez, and youngsters Bush, and Santana being pretty safe bets. Wainright is now a starter, and I think will be impressive this year. Obviously Prior was a flyer, and his starting the season in the minors is a bad sign. Pedro is on the DL for months, but this means I get two pickups from available players for him and Prior after the first week of the season. Only two closers won't be enough to compete in Saves, so I'll likely need to get a third source there -- and that is assuming Izzy stays healthy.

I only made a couple of mistakes I think. Spending $27 for Peavy is more than I would have liked, and it kept me from bidding on some quality players later in the draft. And of course $8 looks high for Paulino, but at that point in the draft there were really no other good catchers left, and I had some excess money to toss around, so when I got into a bidding war with one other team for Paulino, I went the distance.

As for my other Fantasy League... there I did quite well last year. It is a H2H league, points based, and allows up to 8 keepers from year to year. Not salary-based, must have 3 SP and 3 RP in lineup each day, and you are allowed any type of reserves you want (max of 8 SP on roster). Here is my roster:

C Mike Piazza
C Michael Barrett
1B Ryan Howard **
1B/3B/OF Aubrey Huff
2B Marcus Giles
2B Jorge Cantu
3B Aramis Ramirez **
SS Jimmy Rollins **
OF Bobby Abreu **
OF Vladimir Guerrero **
OF Alex Rios
DH Travis Hafner **
SP Matt Cain
SP Cole Hamels **
SP Jared Weaver
SP Dan Haren
SP Kelvim Escobar
SP Javier Vazquez
SP Anibal Sanchez
SP Anthony Reyes
SP Brandon McCarthy (also RP eligible)
RP Mariano Rivera
RP Bobby Jenks

Obviously this team is also loaded with hitting. My keepers were extremely good: Howard, Vlad, Hafner, Rollins, A. Ramirez, and Abreu. Then I added two good hitting catchers, breakout-candidate Rios, the position-versatile Huff, and two bounce-back candidates at 2B.

The pitching is youth-oriented other than Vazquez and Escobar. I am hoping that at least half of the young hurlers will continue to develop, with only a few of them being flops. McCarthy was a strategic pick, because he counts as one of my three relievers. Once I can determine which SPs are not working out, I'll drop one or two, and pick up a legitimate (surprise) closer -- there are always a few that are impossible to predict at the season's beginning. Rivera and Jenks should be solid as the other two RPs.

So we'll see what happens!