Political Videos from The Onion

There are some funny US Politics videos these days at The Onion, including:

• Latest Poll Reveals 430 New Demographics That Will Decide Election
• Bush Tours America to Survey Damage Caused by His Disastrous Presidency
• 'No Values Voters' Looking to Support Most Evil Candidate
• Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early
• McCain Vows to Replace Secret Service with His own Bare Fists
• Portrayal of Obama as Elitist Hailed as Step Forward for African Americans
• Poll: Bullshit is Most Important Issue for 2008 Voters
• How To Pretend You Give a Shit About the Election
• As Obese Population Rises, More Candidates Courting the Fat Vote

FIRE ad in US News and World Report

I was pleased to learn today of an ad that FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is running in the 2008 edition of U.S. News and World Report's America's Best Colleges issue. Here is the ad. And here is the FIRE press release about it. Good for them! I'll be interested to learn what if any response there is to this ad, from the five "red alert" schools (Brandeis, Colorado College, Johns Hopkins, Tufts, and Valdosta State) or otherwise.

Priest to hold Beauty Pageant for Nuns

I read this story in my local newspaper today. The headline sounds like a joke news story that would normally run The Onion. But apparently this is a real story. There are many versions of this news item today... see the short BBC article: Priest to hold nun beauty pageant.

On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

A month ago Paul Gigot wrote a great opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal: "The Fannie Mae Gang". If your only somewhat familiar with the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then I encourage you to read this article. I really liked the ending of the article, and I've bolded a key paragraph:

Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership.

Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie's left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing.

So here we are this week, with the House and Senate preparing to commit taxpayer money to save Fannie and Freddie. The implicit taxpayer guarantee that Messrs. Gray and Raines and so many others said didn't exist has become explicit. Taxpayers may end up having to inject capital into the companies, in addition to guaranteeing their debt.

The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested.

Ugh. Clearly these "institutions" need to end up being privatized somehow (if you need to first nationalize them, I'd be open to at least considering that, as long as the end goal was privatizing). Indeed, Fannie and Freddie should never have been created in the first place. The government should not be in the housing loan business, risky ones or otherwise. Why? The proper role of government is the protection of individual rights. There is no individual right to own a home, pure and simple. So the government shouldn't be involved, not directly and not through half-government proxies like Freddie and Fannie.

Social Security's Promises are a Fraud

Alex Epstein wrote a great post at the blog Principles in Practice titled Retire Social Security. He makes a strong case for the immorality of the Social Security system, something almost never argued in the mainstream media (or almost anywhere outside of Objectivist circles really.)

But I especially liked his debunking of the promises of the Social Security system as a fraud:

Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.

This is a fraud.

Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income—approximately 12 percent—for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries—with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.

Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes—it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants—observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of—witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything—except a massive drain on his income.

On Parental Rights and Homeschooling in California

Thomas Bowden at the blog Principles in Practice posted "California Children Still Considered State Property" in response to a recent legal decision on homeschooling and parental rights in California. He argues that the court decision didn't go nearly far enough to truly establish parental rights of child education. A good article, he concludes by rightly asking the bigger questions:

But what if parents stopped groveling and started asking whether the state has any right at all to be running schools, dictating educational standards for children, and “permitting” parents to homeschool their own kids? This would call into question the moral foundation of public education as such.

But I especially liked the following paragraph, which draws a great analogy:

Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child’s parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.

That is a great analogy. I especially like "outlaw home-cooked meals", which is a direct reductio ad absurdem of any attempt to outlaw homeschooling.

Spaghetti Cat

This clip from an episode of The Soup is pretty funny. If this did in fact really happen on that morning show -- what a strange thing!

On Miracles and the Amputee Question, Again

I read this story in today's newspaper: "Hawaii teacher's cure clears way for a new saint". This is yet another standard "If you pray to the name of the right dead person, then a supernatural event -- a miracle -- will occur and your wish will be granted. No lamp with a genie inside required." In this case, a woman in Hawaii was given really bad news about her cancer, and so she prayed to "Father Damien". Contrary to the dire prognosis, she has now gotten better, and she attributes this to a miracle. Doctors and Scientists rightly refer to such things as unexplained events since there is no good evidence or theory to explain what happened (I don't think the name given in the article, "complete spontaneous regression of cancer", actually explains anything from a scientific/causal standpoint).

Each time I hear a story of this kind, I think back to the "Question of Amputees". I blogged on this about a year ago: Why Don't Miracles Ever Grow New Limbs? The idea is, why do so-called miracles so often involve really complicated medical situations, that are internal to the body, where there are complex statistics going into the prognosis/survival chances? Its almost always diseases, such as cancer, that get "cured" from the miracle. Have you ever heard of someone getting a new arm from a miracle? No. And people don't even pray for such things, at least I assume they don't. Why is that? These are meant to be rhetorical questions of course, a sort of reductio ad absurdem of claims of miracles.

By the way, the last line of the AP article read "Audrey Toguchi [the cancer survivor] still prays often to Damien, asking him to help others."

Prediction: If she prays for specific people to get healed from diseases (or for anything else really), and the desired change doesn't occur -- the press won't cover it. And I doubt she'll even mention the failures to many people. I suspect that so-called "Saints" and other supposed miracle-workers actually have an extremely low "batting average", so to speak. But how often do you see headlines like these in the news:

• Prospective Saint fails again, is now 2 for 10,497 in answering miracle requests
• Accident left victim an amputee, prayers haven't produced a new leg after 50 years
• Saint apparently indifferent to the desperate pleas of entire village
• Image of Mary on rock seems to have stopped working, as no prayers answered in past decade

Or consider this other common annoyance: athletes who pray before a game and/or thank their favorite deity for help in their victory. Again, a rhetorical question: Why don't you ever read these kinds of headlines?

• Team prays before the game, but still loses 46-7
• Player doesn't thank god after loss, noting prayer was not answered
• Player blames the Almighty after a crushing defeat
• Both teams pray before game, supernatural forces clearly favored East Jersey squad

On Chinese Censorship and the Continuing Popularity of Mao

Here is an interesting post from someone visiting China: Shadow of Mao: There's no memory of democracy's brief bloom in China. And then here is another one, on a similar subject.

Granted, the average person on the street in the US isn't particularly knowledgeable of politics and world events -- Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" routines have demonstrated that time and again.

But you would think that people in China -- people standing in Tiananmen Square, mind you -- would know of the student protests and use of tanks by the government there in 1989. But apparently not. Just how powerful is the censorship machine in China? Surely it doesn't rival that of the completely closed off North Korea. But this article is enlightening, not only for the street interviews but also for the report on Google successes and failures: searches for democracy, free Tibet, and so on bring back zero results, while "Mao is great" bring back plenty.

And on the subject of Mao, how long will it be before the Chinese decide that he wasn't so great, that instead he was responsible for the murder of tens of millions of Chinese people? When will they stop gleefully getting their photos taken with Mao posters, stop selling Mao-merchanidize, and start understanding the true history of their country during the 20th century? Apparently it will take a while, given the many levels of censorship in place.

On Chinglish

The July issue of Wired had an interesting short article "Anyone Here Speak Chinglish?". Michael Erard describes how English is evolving into a global lingua franca, and how the living language is changing as a result. He notes that with current trends "By 2020, native English speakers will make up only 15 percent of the estimated 2 billion people who will be using or learning the language."

This raises many interesting questions, including what will the language sound and look like in 20 or 30 years. And what will be considered "good" or "acceptable" English usage in schools. Read his article for many examples of such changes likely because of the numbers of people who will be speaking "Chinglish" -- English as spoken by native Chinese people.

IJ Takes on Stupid Texas Computer Repair Law

The Institute for Justice is taking on a ridiculous law in Texas that is requiring that computer repair businesses obtain a private investigator's license to analyze their customers' data. I learned of this from the latest issue of "Liberty and Law", a newsletter I receive from IJ because I am a donor:

According to the government, the law covers any type of data analysis that looks
into the "conduct of persons" or the "causes of events". This definition encompasses everything from parents seeking to know whom their child has been chatting with online to a technician informing a business owner that her computer was infected by a virus when an employee visited prohibited websites.

I sincerely hope that IJ will be victorious in their lawsuit in this matter -- one of many in which they provide a defense of liberty and a righteous response to outrageous government regulations.

Yet Another Failure in the War on Marijuana

The horror stories continue unabated in the federal governments war against marijuana. See this story: Police Raid Maryland Mayor's Home and Kill His Dogs. How sad this story is, and how completely unnecessary. Notice this doesn't happen with regulated drug markets such as alcohol and nicotine. See Radley Balko's commentary on this story too.

And this is not an just isolated, never-happened-before-and-will-never-happen-again incident. Such commando-tactics are used all the time in the government's failed "war on drugs". See Cato's map of "Botched Paramilitary Police Raids: An Epidemic of Isolated Incidents".

Funny Videos on Stop Signs, Web Design, and Fonts

Here are some videos I've enjoyed recently:

• What if a major corporation designed a stop sign? (if you've worked in a creative role for a corporation, you'll like this one)
• The Web Design Rap (if you know HTML/web design, you'll like this)
• Font Conference (what if fonts gathered for a conference?)

Krauthammer on Pelosi on Drilling

Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post column this past week was pretty good: "Pelosi: Save the Planet, Let Someone Else Drill". He does a great job stating the unintended consequences of Pelosi's resistance to allowing for off-shore drilling and drilling in a very, very small amount of the ANWR. Here is snippet, but I encourage you to read his entire column:

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

Comments on Newsday's Top 100 Greats and Legends List

Newsday recently posted a piece titled: Newsday's 100: The Super Elite Hall of Fame. The idea was to grant that the MLB Hall of Fame's criteria for choosing players has not been consistent over the years (a case made by Bill James and many other writers before), so what would a list of only the truly cream of the crop look like? They decided to go for a list of just the very best 100 "greats and legends", with another 18 players listed who are not eligible for the Hall of Fame (Pete Rose and Joe Jackson plus players who have retired recently or are still active).

Since I love projects like this, I of course would like to comment on their selections. I don't have comments on the players included from the Negro Leagues, as I just don't know enough about them to have an opinion one way or the other. That said...

Players that I question being in the top 100:

• Lou Brock -- Borderline. Lots of steals, and performed great in three World Series, but also struck out a lot, had a low OBP, and was a rather poor fielder considering his speed.
• Buck Ewing -- A great 19th century catcher, but not one of the greats of all-time. In fact, he only played 100+ games in a season four times. A few years ago Bill James ranked him 17th amongst catchers.
• Bill Dickey, Carlton Fisk, Gabby Hartnett -- Borderline. They are three of the top-10 catchers of all time, so the question then becomes how many catchers do you want in your top-100 "greats" list? I say Cochrane and Campanella are in, and maybe Dickey, Fisk, and Hartnett are too, but I'm open to arguments against them here as well. And if these guys are in, why not Gary Carter? Where do you draw the line?
• Lary Doby -- A good player, but not a great one. His career numbers of .283, 253 HR, and 970 RBI don't merit being in this top 100 list. And no, he didn't lose much MLB time to the Negro Leagues early in his career, since he was only 24 when he played his first full season for the Indians.
• Jim Galvin -- No way. He lost almost as many games as he won. Although Gentile listed Galvin way to low in his top 1,000 listing, he doesn't deserve to be in a top-100 list either.
• Ozzie Smith -- Borderline. Not sure someone who was as two-dimensional as Ozzie should be in a top-100 list of "greats". Superior defense at SS, and lots of SB too, but is that enough?
• King Kelly -- One of the first 19th century stars who split time between OF and C, but I don't think he is a top-100 all-time great. He led the league in batting twice, and runs scored three times, adn was usually amongst the leaders in other categories, but that isnt' enough for me here.
• Bob Lemon -- Borderline. Yes, he had seven 20-win seasons in a span of 10 years. But he only won 207 in his career, so I question him being called a "great".
• Red Ruffing -- Definitely not a top-100 "great". He pitched for powerful Yankees clubs, so that helped him win 20 games twice and 21 games twice. But a lifetime 273-225 record, and a 3.80 ERA, doesn't qualify him for this list.
• George Sisler and Bill Terry -- Their career batting averages look worthy, but you have to consider the eras in which they played. Bill James has done that, and a few years ranked Sisler as only the 24th best 1B of all-time, and Terry as the 26th best. So that would keep them far outside of a top-100 "greats" list.
• Pie Traynor -- Definitely not. Similar to Sisler and Terry, you have to consider Traynor's .320 average relative to his era. Again, Bill James a few years ago ranked Traynor as the 15th best 3B of all time, behind the likes of Darrell Evans, Sal Bando, Ken Boyer, and Graig Nettles -- and none of these are all-time "greats".
• John Ward -- As with Galvin, I recently noted that Gentile ranked Ward a bit too low. But I also don't think he is a top-100 guy either.
• Dave Winfield -- Borderline. My main problem with including Winfield is that Newsday did also include Eddie Murray. I don't see how that makes sense.
• Early Wynn -- Definitely not. He held on a long time to get that 300th win. But a lifetime 300-244 record, and a 3.54 ERA (compared with a league ERA of 3.77) doesn't make him an all-time "great". I'd go with Jenkins, Niekro, Perry, and others before Wynn.

Here are ones Newsday considered close that I might prefer over some of the above:

• Eddie Murray -- See my comments on Winfield.
• Al Simmons -- He had 12 seasons of 100+ RBI, including his first 11 seasons. And some of those were really high totals: 151, 157, 165. True his .334 average is like Terry and Sisler and must be considered in light of his era, but I think Simmons did more than they did to earn a spot in a top 100 list.
• Paul Waner -- Similarly, I think Paul Waner probably belongs in the top 100 list. He had nine seasons of 100+ runs and while not a HR hitter, did hit 605 doubles and 191 triples. I much prefer Simmons and Waner to Sisler, Terry, and Traynor.
• Some pitchers from Newsday's "near-miss" list that I prefer over Galvin, Wynn, and Ruffing are Ed Walsh, Robin Roberts, Hoyt Wilhelm, and Fergie Jenkins.

Next, here is a list without commentary of some players who I think are at least as deserving, if not more so, of being included on the "near'miss" list, and perhaps a few of these would properly be considered top-100 "greats" (in alphabetical order):

• Frank Baker
• John Clarkson
• Sam Crawford
• Ed Delahanty
• Dennis Eckersley
• Rollie Fingers
• Johnny Mize
• Kid Nichols
• Phil Niekro
• Gaylord Perry
• Arky Vaughn

I particularly think that Nichols belongs in the top 100 way ahead of Galvin, and that Delahanty and Crawford likely should have been in the list of top-100 "greats". Bill James makes a pretty good case for Vaughn as the second-best SS of all-time, so perhaps he should be as well. The others I'm just suggesting were ommissions from the "near-miss" listing that Newsday provided.

As for current players, a few names that probably also should be mentioned in this discussion are Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, and Craig Biggio.

For more discussion like this, see my recent four posts on Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time -- the posts are here (comments on players 1-50), here (comments on players 51-100), here (comments on players 101-300), and here (comments on players 301-1000).

Of Onions and Oil

The July 8 WSJ had an interesting opinion piece titled "The Onion Ringer". It notes the effects from a ban on futures trading in onions, and argues that the same negative effects could occur if congress continues to demonize, and eventually bans, oil speculators.

On Why We Need a Market for Human Organs

Its been a while since I've blogged about the desperate need for a market solution to the issue of kidney donation. So I wanted to note this good opinion piece in the May 16 issue of the WSJ, by Sally Satel: "Why We need a Market for Human Organs". She makes many great points, and even responds to some critics by noting how such a regulated system could be put in place so that the poor would not be taken advantage of. In addition to the more fundamental philosphical arguments that one could give (e.g., we have a fundamental individual right to sell one of our kidney's if we want to), Satel's arguments and reasons are strong ones and hopefully will one day help to change policy on this issue.

As I've blogged on this subject a lot in the past, I've decided to gather the links to those postings in one place. So here they are, with the oldest ones last:

• The Need for an Organ Market (12/23/07)
• Repugnance Shouldn't Be a Standard (8/4/07)
• Market for Kidneys... Guess Where? (11/26/06)
• 10-person Domino Donation at Johns Hopkins (11/26/06)
• Sounds Good, But How About Really Helping? (10/29/06)
• Consequentialist Bioethicist is Proud of Efforts to Restrict Organ Donations (9/15/06)
• A Good Sign for Change to Organ Donation Policy (8/5/06)
• Equal Opportunity to Suffer and Die (6/18/06)
• Market for Organs (5/20/06)

Placido Polanco Chokes Up All The Way

A bit of baseball humor... see this doctored-photo and headline from the Onion: Placido Polanco Chokes Up All the Way.

On the Electoral College

I'm against retaining the Electoral College process in the US. On this issue I am open to debate though, so I was interested to read arguments in favor of the current system in the WSJ opinion piece titled "Don't Mess With the Electoral College". But I was very disappointed by the weak points made by its author, David Lewis Schaefer.

First, he focuses on the "National Popular Vote" scheme, which wouldn't get rid of the Electoral College system as such (as that would require a Constitutional amendment), but would rather have states designate their electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. For me then, he is arguing against a straw man.

But even his specific arguments seem weak to me. He seems to think it a good thing that the current system "favors the two party approach". Why not give third parties a chance? He writes:

Today voters have little incentive to vote for candidates nominated by minor parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens or Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party. Since winning even 30% of the vote nationwide is likely to yield very few (if any) electoral votes, most voters wind up choosing one of the two major-party candidates.

Those who think that fact a vice should consider the alternative. Under NPV, states commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how small a percentage of the overall vote that candidate wins. Thus a candidate whom a large majority of Americans finds highly unacceptable might become the next president. That's because the NPV would encourage more minor-party or "insurgent" candidates who'd been denied the nomination of one of the major parties.

At most, this is an argument against the NPV approach. Ditching the Electoral College could be done in various ways, including a system that demanded a first round followed by a run-off between the top two or three candidates. Also, it seems unlikely that many third-parties would find greast success overnight, as the Electoral College is only one part of the process that is rigged against them. Odds are, for the foreseeable future, the Dems and Reps would continue to dominate the scene.

He also asserts that "It also ensures that the winner will have geographically broad (rather than merely sectional) support, and will be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate." So what? Why does it matter that the winner have "geographically broad support"? If more people prefer another candidate, then that other candidate should be the winner. Period.

Another of his arguments:

Another problem: If vote totals are close, the losing candidate has a strong incentive to demand recounts or challenge voting procedures in every state, regardless of how badly he lost. After all, "every vote counts." Imagine the Florida debacle of 2000 spread across dozens of states, every four years.

This is exaggeration. "Every four years"? You prefaced this with "If vote totals are close...", and that doesn't happen every time. But besides that, if it took vote recounts, even across the entire nation, to get it right, then so be it. The alternative is the person who gets less votes winning the race. How is that better?

Then he adds this nonsensical closing:

Is there really any need to abolish the existing system, just because candidates who "lose" the popular vote by a small margin sometimes come out on top in the electoral vote? The true purpose of an electoral system is not to ensure that the presidential candidate preferred by 51% of the electorate is chosen. Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans. That's why leading-party candidates typically "run toward the middle" during the general election campaign. In a two-party race, you can't win an election without demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public.

Huh? "...just because candidates lose the popular vote by small margin"? Why are in favor of arbitrarily elevating the loser to the status of winner? His answer is ridiculous: "Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans." It would seem that, in the abstract, if the person who gets 49% of the vote is "tolerable" by your standards, then so would the person who got 51% of the vote. So by what reason do you still go for the one with 49%? And lastly, candidates "run to the middle", not because of the Electoral College, but because that is where the biggest votes are. The same would be true if we had a straight popularity majority vote system, or one with stages/runoff rounds.

I'm still not convinced that retaining the Electoral College is the right thing to do. I would argue we should not have it, and that we should have either a majority vote system or a plurality vote system with one or two runoff rounds if a certain threshold percentage of votes is not obtained. The benefits of this would be at least the following:

• Third parties might finally have a chance to be heard (at least this one hurdle would be removed for them.)
• It would mean we never have someone who loses the popular vote being elected president.
• It would mean every vote would count equally. Right now, I know my vote in NY doesn't matter because the Democrat will easily win the state and hence get all of NY's (rather sizeable) electoral votes.
• It would reduce or eliminate all of the silliness of the news coverage and debates on a state by state basis. Stop wasting time and money -- just count the votes.

The only semi-plausible argument I've heard against this approach is one of the original arguments in favor of the Electoral College -- that it helps preserve the importance of smaller states. That is, it encourages candidates to visit and campaign in more states, rather than just focus on the biggest states and cities. But the EC system actually has perverse effects in this regard, as it encourages candidates to relatively ignore very large states that are undoubtedly going to go their way (like NY for Democrats). How is that fair? And it also leads to candidates spending more time on issues of interest to just particular states that are "in play". Presidential candidates aren't running to be "President of the states that are up for grabs", they are running to be President of the entire country.

And even if this was a valid point in the early days of the country, when almost all campaign-relations were local, it has almost no weight today. Most people get most of their input on who to vote for from newspapers, magazines, TV, the Internet, etc. -- not from the silly hand-shaking, baby-kissing events if and when the candidate happens by our village square. Save all that money wasted criss-crossing the nation, and put it to better use on other aspects of campaigning. The inefficiencies due to unintended consequences of the EC system are astounding.

Oh, and while I'm on this general topic, can we also please get rid of the silly system of having some states hold political primaries significantly before others? How is that fair? What gives people in Iowa and New Hampshire the right to effectively rule out some party candidates before the rest of us have had our say? All states should hold political primaries on the same day, or at least the same week, so that this negative effect is eliminated. Again, if you are an egalitarian when it comes to political rights, then this is the only fair approach to take.

On Offshore Drilling

The July 12/13 WSJ had an interesting opinion piece titled "Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling". The part of the story supporting the provocative title was of some interest to me, but even better were the numbers reported that indicate the different sources of oil spillage into the oceans. Guess what? Offshore drilling is not a major source at all, and still wouldn't be even if US government restrictions were loosened. Here are the numbers from a joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institute (amounts are per year):

• 363 million gallons -- runoff from dry land (cities, roads, industrial sites, etc.)
• 137 million gallons -- routine ship maintenance
• 62 million gallons -- natural seepage from underwater oil deposits
• 40 million gallons -- tanker spills (approximate estimate -- this figure wasn't given directly in the article, but I think I did the math right based on what was said)
• 15 million gallons -- offshore drilling

Here are the three paragraphs where the above numbers come from:

A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.

The vast majority of the oil that finds its way into the sea comes from dry land, NASA found. Runoff from cities, roads, industrial sites and garages deposits 363 million gallons into the sea, making runoff by far the single largest source of oil pollution in the oceans. "Every year oily road runoff from a city of 5 million could contain as much oil as one large tanker spill," notes the Smithsonian exhibit, "Ocean Planet."

The second-largest source of ocean oil pollution was routine ship maintenance, accountable for 137 million gallons a year, NASA found -- more than 2.5 times the amount that comes from tanker spills and offshore drilling combined. But no one is proposing that we ban cargo and cruise ships.

The Hurdles to Kurzweil's AI Fantasies

In April Wired magazine had an article about Ray Kurzweil, AI/futurist/singulartarian, and his hopes for Artificial Intelligence to extend his life. Indeed, he takes a couple hundred pills a day in the hopes he will live long enough to see the day when computer technology will have advanced enough that his "personality" can be uploaded and hence, he claims, he'll achieve immortality.

While the main Wired article linked above was mildly interesting (i.e., as an update to what Kurzweil is doing these days), what I was really glad to see was the shorter sidebar: Never Mind the Singularity, Here's the Science. This was an excellent overview of five scientific hurdles that Kurzweil and others like him will need to solve -- and they won't be easy! I found the first four to be especially compelling. I highly recommend this sidebar to anyone interested in this topic.

NOTE: I have decided to remove the second paragraph of this posting, wherein I made some offhand remarks about my opinions on Strong AI vs. Searle's views on it (Chinese Room Argument and so on). This generated some interesting comments, but I just don't have time to get into a debate with anyone on this topic right now -- I'd need to do a lot of catching up from 15 years away from the subject to have an intelligent debate, and I just don't have the time/interest at present. So I've removed that part of this posting, and I've deleted the comments and my replies as well. (My apologies to those who spent time on composing those comments.)

Comments on Baseball's Best 1,000 (Part 4)

I recently picked up the 2008 edition of Derek Gentile's fun book Baseball's Best 1,000: Rankings of the Skills, the Achievements, and the Performance of the Greatest Players of All Time. I've enjoyed reading this book, and I'm doing a series of blog posts where I comment on his selections. The first post is here (comments on players 1-50), the second is here (comments on players 51-100), and the third is here (comments on players 101-300). I recommend you read these first.

In this final post, I'll give comments on some players that I think he ranks significantly too high or too low, covering players listed from 301-1000. In the last post in this series I noted that Gentile consistently ranks good pitchers (boths starters and relievers) in the 101-300 range too low. This continued for the rest of the listing. The other consistent pattern I noted that I disagree with his Gentile's relatively high ranking of poor-hitting, longtime catchers. I won't comment on these below, but there were a couple dozen catchers who are ranked higher than I would. It is one thing to rank Bob Boone 324th and Jim Sundberg 348th, as they won loads of Gold Glove awards. No, I am talking about players like Scioscia (410), Rick Dempsey (469), Jerry Grote (498), and many, many more who I think are ranked too high.

Now for my comments on players ranked 301-1000:

• 314. Rafael Palmeiro -- His numbers (.288, 585 HR, 3020 hits, 1835 RBI), even discounted a bit relative to his era, I think justify a higher ranking. I guess if you discount them further because of the cloud of steroid use, then that would lower his spot in the list.
• 322. Chipper Jones -- Even before his impressive 2008 season, I think Chipper should be rated higher than this! He's an MVP, he's close to 400 HR, and has a career average over .300.
• 323. Joe Carter -- Too low. Gentile notes that he is one of only nine players to have had 100+ RBI in ten seasons. His 396 HR, 1445 RBI, and 231 SB I think justify ranking him closer to the likes of Rice, Murphy, and Dawson than down here below 300.
• 326. Jim Bottomley -- One can certainly argue that he is not deserving of being in the HOF. His .310 average isnt' that impressive compared with a .293 league average over his career. But I think this ranking is a bit low for someone who had 120+ RBI in five consecutive seasons and is clearly better than many listed ahead of him.
• 330. Bruce Sutter -- As I said earlier, Gentile seems to rate all of the dominant closers lower than I would.
• 332. Chuck Klein -- See Jim Bottomley and magnify my comments. He won the MVP in 1932, was runner up the year before, and was runner-up in 1933, losing to Carl Hubbell even though he took home Triple Crown honors. A lifetime .320 hitter (though relative to league average of .293), he led the league in HR four out of five years from 1929-1933, missing only in 1930 when he came in second while hitting an amazing 59 doubles. True, his numbers need to be considered in light of his era, but even so... he shouldn't be this low.
• 336. John Montgomery Ward -- A pretty unique career, I think it warrants a higher ranking. A 19th century star, Ward started out as a pitcher going 164-102 from 1878-1884, including a 47-19 record in 1879. When not pitching he'd play other positions, most often the OF, as he could hit and run well. He continued until 1894 as a SS/2B, and stole 111 bases in 1887 and 88 in 1892.
• 349. Edgar Martinez -- Granted, he mostly was a DH. Lifetime numbers of .312, 309 HR, 1261 RBI, 1219 Runs, 7 times an all-star and two batting titles... make me think he should be higher than this.
• 356. Harold Baines -- Similar arguement to Martinez: granted a lot of time spent as a DH, but his .289, 384 HR, 1628 RBI, 2866 hits are hard to argue with.
• 357. Jose Canseco -- Yet another hitter who spent a lot of time as a DH (though Jose played more games in the OF). Steroid use (and his attitude about it!) doesn't earn him any popularity, but he did have 462 HR, 1407 RBI, 200 SB, and was the first ever 40/40 club member in his 1988 MVP season. Should he really be nearly 100 spots lower than Andre Thornton? Or 50 spots below Rick Monday? I don't think so.
• 360. Don Baylor -- Again, a DH. He had 338 HR, 1276 RBI, and even 285 SB (often forgotten). Should be higher than this.
• 386. Al Spalding -- Hard to rank him, because he pitched in the 1870s and had a short career. But considering where Koufax and Dean are ranked, I think Spalding should be higher. Afterall, he had an incredible 253-65 record for a .796 winning percentage. And of course that is from just 6 full seasons in which he led the league in wins every year with totals of 19, 38, 41, 52, 55, and 47. He won the ERA title twice, and was second three times.
• 396. Catfish Hunter -- A lifetime record of 224-166 and a 3.26 ERA, with five consecutive 20+ win seasons. One Cy Young Award and a 10-2 record in the postseason add to his resume, one that I think earns him a higher ranking than nearly 400th! I mean, is he really worse than Dave Cash (390) and only one better than Carney Lansford (397)?
• 402. Tom Glavine -- I think Glavine should be even higher than Catfish, given his two Cy Young Awards and six-times appearing in the top 3 in the voting. He now is a 300 game winner and a 10-time all-star. How is he ranked this low, a mere three spots ahead of Don Buford? Gimme a break!
• 406. Andres Gallaraga -- Kinda similar to the DHs I mentioned earlier, The Big Cat struck out a lot but also hit .288 with 399 HR, 1425 RBI over his career, and led his league in BA once, HR once, RBI twice, and took home two Gold Gloves. He is really only two spots better than Toby Harrah, and six ahead of Doug DeCinces?
• 419. Curt Schilling -- I'm not yet an advocate of him for the HOF, but I think this is a bit low.
• 458. Juan Gonzalez -- How is a two-time MVP, who led his league in HR in two *other* seasons, ranked this low? Career numbers include .295, 434 HR, 1404 RBI. I have one question for Mr. Gentile: How can you rank Gonzalez this low, but Albert Belle all the way up at 148? Shouldn't they be much closer to each other?
• 474. Bill Buckner -- Compare him with Mark Grace. Why is Grace ranked at 212, and Buckner all the way down at 474?
• 480. Tommy John -- I think 288 career wins deserves a higher spot than this.
• 486. Jim Kaat -- Ditto, as Kaat won 283 games. I agree John and Kaat should be near each other in an all-time ranking like this, but they should both be higher. Kaat has the added distinction of winning an amazing 16 Gold Glove awards.
• 500. Lee Smith -- I'm not sure where I'd rank Lee Smith, as I don't consider him in the class of Gossage, Fingers, Sutter and a few others. And he is no longer the all-time saves leader. But again, Gentile ranks too many great closers too low, so I'd likely have him higher than this.
• 501. Mariano Rivera -- And speaking of relievers, Mo must be higher than this! Mariano is arguably the greatest reliever of all time.
• 507. Larry Walker -- A great hitter (.313, 383 HR, 1311 RBI, 230 SB) and a great fielder (7 Gold Gloves), Walker should be much higher than this. He won an MVP in 1997.
• 513. Rollie Fingers -- I don't get this at all. How is Fingers this low? And how is he this far below Gossage and Sutter, and then ranked below even Lee Smith? Look at his numbers relative to the 70s and early 80s!
• Roy Smalley (525), Rick Burleseon (530), Bill Doran (532) -- There are lots of players I've been skipping over (most of all light-hitting catchers) that I could have commented on that I think are too high relative to others near them in the list. Here are three such middle-infielders -- are these guys really this close to Walker and Fingers? Are they better than fellow middle-infielder Jeff Kent (534)? No way.
• 539. Dan Quisenberry -- My favorite pitcher of all time should be higher than this, though I agree he should appear after the top guys (Gossage, Fingers, Rivera, and Sutter).
• 555. Frank McCormick -- an MVP and nine-time All-Star should be higher than Robby Thompson (551), whose .257, 119 HR, 458 RBI, 1187 Hits are not very impressive.
• 557. Jake Beckley -- He had 2,930 hits, batted .308, and stole 315 bases. Most of all, he had 234 triples (fourth all-time). He should be higher than this.
• 572. Tom Tresh -- Yes, he won a Gold Glove and ROY. But would he be this high if he hadn't been on the Yankees for most of his short career? I doubt it -- this is too high for a career.245 hitter with only 153 HR and 530 RBI. I mean, is he really better than Bob Meusel (598), another Yankee, who hit .309 with 156 HR, 1067 RBI, and 142 SB? No.
• 608. Omar Vizquel -- I'm not an advocate for Vizquel for the HOF. And I'm not sure where I'd put him in a top 1000 list like this. But wherever that is, he should be a good deal higher than Mark Belanger (600). Both are most known for being great defensive shortstops. But Omar has been an all-star 3 times and has 11 gold gloves, while Belanger was an all-star only once and won 8 gold gloves. Belanger had some speed, totaling 167 SB for his career, but that is far fewer than Vizquel's 384. But most of all, Belanger had a pitiful .228 lifetime average (plus an even worse .183 in 10 postseason series), and only had three seasons batting over .250. Vizquel is no slugger, but at least he has batted .273 over his career, and managed to come in sixth in the 1999 race with a .333 mark. Surely Omar should be way ahead of Belanger on an all-time list.
• 617. Ben Oglivie -- I'm not going to argue he should be higher. I just wanted to again note the insanity of ranking Andre Thornton at 260. Was Thornton really that much better than Oglivie?
• 672. Addie Joss -- Another dominating pitcher who had a short career (died of meningitis). He had a 1.89 ERA compared with a league ERA of 2.68, leading the league twice. He won 20+ games four times, and ended up with a 160-97 record which is a .623 winning percentage. And as Gentile notes, Joss completed an amazing 234 of his 260 starts. Its always hard to rank players whose careers were cut short, but I think Joss should be higer than this.
• 684. John Smoltz -- Definitely too low. He won the Cy Young Award in 1996 when he went 24-8 with 276 strikeouts. He has been an all-star 8 times. But like Eckersley, Smoltz has managed to be successful at the highest level as both a starter and a reliever. From 2002-04 he had SV totals fo 55, 45, and 44. And in the second of those seasons he had an incredible 1.12 ERA and 0.87 WHIP. He should be far higher than this.
• 737. Pud Galvin -- A Hall-of-Famer with a lifetime record of 364-310: not a great percentage (.540), but still, 364 wins is 364 wins. His ERA of 2.86 is also only a little better than the league average during his time period (3.07). Its not easy to rank someone who retired in 1892, but he completed a mind-boggling 646 of his 689 career starts -- so I'd rank him higher than this.
• 779. Steve Finley -- Gentile's writeup on Finley is confusing, as he says that he has had over 24 HR in a season three times. Leaving aside the odd "over 24" standard, he has actually had six such seasons, including totals of 30, 34, 35, and 36. In his career Finley had 304 HR and 320 SB, quietly joining the rare 300/300 club. Although only an All-Star twice, he did grab five gold-gloves in the outfield, so I think he should be ranked a lot higher than this.
• 803. Chief Bender -- A 212-127 record is a .625 win rate. Although a borderline HOFer, I think he clearly deserves to be ranked higher than this.
• 858. David Cone -- The success of his first full season (1988), in which he went 20-3 with a 2.22 ERA, was never repeated. He won the Cy Young Award in the strike-shortened 1994 season, going 16-5 with a 2.94 ERA (a year when the League ERA was 5.00). His career record of 194-126 equates to a .606 winning percentage. I think this five-time all-star should be ranked higher than this, especialy when you consider Bret Saberhagen was ranked 654th and Orel Hershiser was ranked 613th.
• 864. Matt Williams -- 378 HR, 1218 RBI, 5-time All-Star, and 4 Gold Gloves at 3B mean Williams should be a lot higher than this.
• 891. Jesse Tannehill -- He had a career 197-116 record, which is a .629 winning percentage. He won 20+ games six times. Not a HOFer, but should be higher ranked than this I think.
• 905. Mike Mussina -- Even through the 2006 season I'd argue Mussina should be higher than this. But given his strong 2008 thus far, he is building his HOF resume. As of this writing he is 263-150 lifetime, which is a .637 winning percentage. He's never won 20 games in a season, and has never won a Cy Young Award (he has been in the top six in voting 8 times). But he is a five-time all-star and has won six Gold Gloves too. He should be several hundred spots higher than this -- I mean, Schilling is 419th, and I consider Mussina to be a better HOF candidate than Schilling.
• 934. David Kingman -- Granted, he had a low .236 average and his massive swing led to many strikeouts. But 442 HR (twice led league, and four times runner-up) and 1210 RBI deserve a higher ranking than this.
• 947. Ichiro Suzuki -- For some reason Gentile didn't update this entry after the 2004 season, so presumably if he had Ichiro would be ranked higher. By now he has had 200+ hits in all seven of his seasons (though he might not in 2008). He has a .331 average and 306 SB. And in his first seven seasons in the majors he has been both an all-star and gold-glover. Even if he quit today, I would rank him in the top 500 at least.
• Jeff Reardon (964) and John Franco (973) are again instances of Gentile's low ranking of good relievers. And he doesn't include Trevor Hoffman in the top 1,000 at all, though presumably he would at this point since Hoffman is now the all-time saves leader.
• 1000. Rich Dauer -- In case you were curious, this is who Gentile chose to round out his massive project. As a .257 hitter, with 43 HR, 372 RBI, 984 H, and only 6 SB, I would think there are more deserving players to make the list even in this last spot.

I have very much enjoyed reading and critiquing Gentile's ranking. Even with all the criticisms I have made, I obviously respect the project he undertook and the amount of time he must have spent researching it. For baseball fans like myself, I recommend his book as a fun read... let the debates continue!

Beaker does Ode To Joy

The classic Muppets character Beaker here does Ode to Joy. There is a lot going on in this video, so you might want to watch it a couple of times. See also Habanera, and Classical Chicken.