Huge chimp shot dead after mauling woman in Connecticut

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Most people have the impression that chimpanzees are small and friendly, but most people have only seen young chimps on TV and in movies. Adult chimps are fairly large and terrifyingly strong.

A highly trained 200-pound chimpanzee who once starred in TV commercials for Old Navy and Coca-Cola was shot dead by police after a violent rampage that left a friend of its owner badly mauled:

Sandra Herold, who owned the 15-year-old chimp named Travis, wrestled with the animal after it inexplicably attacked her friend Charla Nash, 55.

Nash had gone to Herold’s home to help her coax the chimp back into the house after he got out, police said. After the animal lunged at Nash when she got out of her car, Herold ran inside to call 911 and returned armed.

“She retrieved a large butcher knife and stabbed her longtime pet numerous times in an effort to save her friend, who was really being brutally attacked,” said Stamford police Capt. Richard Conklin.

Nash was in critical condition Tuesday after suffering what Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy called “life-changing, if not life-threatening,” injuries to her face and hands.

“There was no provocation that we know of. One thing that we’re looking into is that we understand the chimpanzee has Lyme disease and has been ill from that, so maybe from the medications he was out of sorts. We really don’t know,” Conklin said.

After the initial attack, Travis ran away and started roaming Herold’s property until police arrived, setting up security so medics could reach the critically injured woman, Conklin said.

But the chimpanzee returned and went after several of the officers, who retreated into their cars, Conklin said. Travis knocked the mirror off a cruiser before opening its door and starting to get in, trapping the officer.

That officer shot the chimpanzee several times, Conklin said.

The wounded chimpanzee fled the scene, but Conklin said police were able to follow the trail of his blood: down the driveway, into the open door of the home, through the house and to his living quarters, where he had retreated and died of his wounds.

Herold and two officers also received minor injuries, police said.

Addendum: I’ve been admonished for leaving out the creepiest bits:

At the time of the 2003 incident, police said the Herolds told them the chimpanzee was toilet trained, dressed himself, took his own bath, ate at the table and drank wine from a stemmed glass. He also brushed his teeth using a Water Pik, logged onto the computer to look at pictures, and watched television using the remote control, police said.
[...]
“He’s been raised almost like a child by this family,” Conklin said Monday. “He rides in a car every day, he opens doors, he’s a very unique animal in that aspect. We have no indication of what provoked this behavior at all.”

(Admonition by Todd, who pointed out that acting human for years and then flipping out is… quite human.)

A plan to offshore

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

David Cook and Roger Green have a plan to offshore IT jobs — just 3 miles out — which might have made more sense a few years ago:

Roger Green is a software entrepreneur. David Cook was once a supertanker skipper who spent 15 years hauling crude oil through the world’s sea lanes. Now the two men have announced a remarkable venture called SeaCode, a company that plans to hire 600 superb software designers from every corner of the world and house them in a luxury cruise ship just out of reach of US immigration law — but close enough to bid on multimillion-dollar US software contracts.

Babies who gesture have bigger vocabularies

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Babies who gesture have bigger vocabularies:

The researchers filmed 50 Chicago-area children and parents from diverse economic backgrounds and counted the number of gestures, such as pointing at a picture.

The team found that 14-month-olds from high-income, well-educated families used gesture to convey an average of 24 different meanings during each 90-minute session, compared with 13 meanings conveyed by children from lower-income families.

When the same children entered school at age four and a half, those from higher-income families had better vocabulary scores on standardized tests.

“At 14 months, an age when there aren’t even socioeconomic differences in their talk yet, we see there are differences in their gestures,” Rowe said.
The videos revealed that parents from wealthier families gestured more with their children than the other parents.

Rowe said the findings suggest that gestures can at least partly explain vocabulary differences between the groups, and may prove useful as the basis for interventions.

“Can we manipulate how much parents and children gesture, and if so, will it increase their vocabulary?” Rowe said.

The obvious answer to Rowe’s question is, no; the causality doesn’t flow that way.

Democracy has genuine virtues

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Democracy has genuine virtues, Mencius Moldbug concedes:

Perhaps Froude wrote the best epitaph for the system:
Democracies are the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being ‘beautiful for ever,’ and in the midst of the discovery it dies.

In the arts of decadence — sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll — democracies excel. If only for these, the second half of the twentieth century will never be forgotten. We need not imagine the level of punitive austerity and reeducation that would need to be inflicted on Western society to make it forget the Rolling Stones and everything after. Possible, surely, but hard to recommend.

Another way to state Froude’s thesis is to describe democracies as obtaining their energy by breaking the strong molecular bonds of their authoritarian predecessors. Similarly, fire obtains its energy by breaking the strong molecular bonds of wood. You’ll note that the democracies do not seem to have much energy left, and indeed there is not much left of the wood.

How Not To Sort By Rating

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Even Miller explains how not to sort by rating:

Wrong Solution 1
Score = (Positive ratings) – (Negative ratings)

Why it is wrong: Suppose one item has 600 positive ratings and 400 negative ratings: 60% positive. Suppose item two has 5,500 positive ratings and 4,500 negative ratings: 55% positive. This algorithm puts item two (score = 1000, but only 55% positive) above item one (score = 200, and 60% positive). WRONG.

Sites that make this mistake: Urban Dictionary

Wrong Solution 2
Score = Average rating = (Positive ratings) / (Total ratings)

Why it is wrong: Average rating works fine if you always have a ton of ratings, but suppose item 1 has 2 positive ratings and 0 negative ratings. Suppose item 2 has 100 positive ratings and 1 negative rating. This algorithm puts item two (tons of positive ratings) below item one (very few positive ratings). WRONG.

Sites that make this mistake: Amazon.com

So, what’s the right way?

Correct Solution
Score = Lower bound of Wilson score confidence interval for a Bernoulli parameter

Say what: We need to balance the proportion of positive ratings with the uncertainty of a small number of observations. Fortunately, the math for this was worked out in 1927 by Edwin B. Wilson. What we want to ask is: Given the ratings I have, there is a 95% chance that the “real” fraction of positive ratings is at least what? Wilson gives the answer. Considering only positive and negative ratings (i.e. not a 5-star scale), the lower bound on the proportion of positive ratings is given by:


(For a lower bound use minus where it says plus/minus.) Here p is the observed fraction of positive ratings, z?/2 is the (1-?/2) quantile of the standard normal distribution, and n is the total number of ratings.

Google PowerMeter is far more strategic than Google is letting-on

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Cringely claims that Google PowerMeter is far more strategic than Google is letting-on:

So this is Google doing its bit for the environment in exchange for which they learn even more about our behavior, right?
Wrong. It’s much more than that.

Google’s PowerMeter is a Trojan horse — a way to become a de facto Internet Service Provider for potentially millions of homes.

Several years ago Google made a $100 million investment in a suburban Washington, DC company called Current Technologies, which is America’s leading provider of both smart electric metering services (that’s what the Google PowerMeter is supposed to be) and power line Internet service based in part on the HomePlug networking standard.

Current’s business model was simple. They’d give participating utilities a way to both measure and control local power consumption pretty much as described above. Oh and, by the way, the meter connection could also be used to provide Internet service, potentially to 100 percent of a neighborhood since pretty much everyone buys electric power. Throw Internet on the power bill, then maybe digital cable service, too. Eventually the power companies would take on the cable and telephone companies to fight for broadband hegemony.

Only it isn’t really happening that way. Current is doing deals with utilities, but most of those utilities aren’t going so far as to offer broadband Internet. They are just reading meters, thank you, which isn’t bad unless your profit is supposed to come from the Internet and cable competitor side. So Current Technologies is struggling somewhat and Google’s investment in that company hasn’t grown as much as either company would like.

Enter the Google PowerMeter, which is both an intelligent power meter and an Internet gateway, just like the original vision at Current Technologies.

Electric utilities are enthusiastically installing backbone capability to serve these smart meters. And contrary to popular belief, the network on the power company’s side of that medium-voltage transformer on your telephone pole is usually optical fiber,not Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) which amateur radio operators hate so much. The fact is that BPL has real distance limitations and it is just easier to string fiber alongside the medium and high-voltage lines.

So the utilities partner with Google to install these boxes, ideally in every home. They install enough fiber for gigabit service to the medium voltage transformer with HomePlug or WiFi into the home. And the whole thing interfaces to Google at the power company’s data center where Google will install proxy servers and routers and connect to the Internet backbone.
Eventually Google — not the electric utility — throws the switch on consumer Internet access, IP TV, and VoIP phones, which the electric companies could have done — should have done — on their own but generally couldn’t be bothered to.

Ideally Google lights the whole town with Internet with the utility happily picking-up most of the infrastructure costs yet with Google becoming the ISP.

Now that’s a heck of a deal.

The No-Stats All-Star

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Michael Lewis (Moneyball) calls Shane Battier the no-stats all-star:

It was, and is, far easier to spot what Battier doesn’t do than what he does. His conventional statistics are unremarkable: he doesn’t score many points, snag many rebounds, block many shots, steal many balls or dish out many assists. On top of that, it is easy to see what he can never do: what points he scores tend to come from jump shots taken immediately after receiving a pass. “That’s the telltale sign of someone who can’t ramp up his offense,” Morey says. “Because you can guard that shot with one player. And until you can’t guard someone with one player, you really haven’t created an offensive situation. Shane can’t create an offensive situation. He needs to be open.” For fun, Morey shows me video of a few rare instances of Battier scoring when he hasn’t ­exactly been open. Some large percentage of them came when he was being guarded by an inferior defender — whereupon Battier backed him down and tossed in a left jump-hook. “This is probably, to be honest with you, his only offensive move,” Morey says. “But look, see how he pump fakes.” Battier indeed pump faked, several times, before he shot over a defender. “He does that because he’s worried about his shot being blocked.” Battier’s weaknesses arise from physical limitations. Or, as Morey puts it, “He can’t dribble, he’s slow and hasn’t got much body control.”

Battier’s game is a weird combination of obvious weaknesses and nearly invisible strengths. When he is on the court, his teammates get better, often a lot better, and his opponents get worse — often a lot worse. He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers. On defense, although he routinely guards the N.B.A.’s most prolific scorers, he significantly reduces their shooting percentages. At the same time he somehow improves the defensive efficiency of his teammates — probably, Morey surmises, by helping them out in all sorts of subtle ways. “I call him Lego,” Morey says. “When he’s on the court, all the pieces start to fit together. And everything that leads to winning that you can get to through intellect instead of innate ability, Shane excels in. I’ll bet he’s in the hundredth percentile of every category.”

There are other things Morey has noticed too, but declines to discuss as there is right now in pro basketball real value to new information, and the Rockets feel they have some. What he will say, however, is that the big challenge on any basketball court is to measure the right things. The five players on any basketball team are far more than the sum of their parts; the Rockets devote a lot of energy to untangling subtle interactions among the team’s elements. To get at this they need something that basketball hasn’t historically supplied: meaningful statistics. For most of its history basketball has measured not so much what is important as what is easy to measure — points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocked shots — and these measurements have warped perceptions of the game. (“Someone created the box score,” Morey says, “and he should be shot.”) How many points a player scores, for example, is no true indication of how much he has helped his team. Another example: if you want to know a player’s value as a rebounder, you need to know not whether he got a rebound but the likelihood of the team getting the rebound when a missed shot enters that player’s zone.

There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group. On the baseball field, it would be hard for a player to sacrifice his team’s interest for his own. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team one: by doing what’s best for himself, the player nearly always also does what is best for his team. “There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy. Manny Ramirez can’t take at-bats away from David Ortiz. We had a point guard in Boston who refused to pass the ball to a certain guy.” In football the coach has so much control over who gets the ball that selfishness winds up being self-defeating. The players most famous for being selfish — the Dallas Cowboys’ wide receiver Terrell Owens, for instance — are usually not so much selfish as attention seeking. Their sins tend to occur off the field.

It is in basketball where the problems are most likely to be in the game — where the player, in his play, faces choices between maximizing his own perceived self-interest and winning. The choices are sufficiently complex that there is a fair chance he doesn’t fully grasp that he is making them.

Taking a bad shot when you don’t need to is only the most obvious example. A point guard might selfishly give up an open shot for an assist. You can see it happen every night, when he’s racing down court for an open layup, and instead of taking it, he passes it back to a trailing teammate. The teammate usually finishes with some sensational dunk, but the likelihood of scoring nevertheless declined. “The marginal assist is worth more money to the point guard than the marginal point,” Morey says. Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much. Players love the spectacle of a ball being swatted into the fifth row, and it becomes a matter of personal indifference that the other team still gets the ball back. Dikembe Mutombo, Houston’s 42-year-old backup center, famous for blocking shots, “has always been the best in the league in the recovery of the ball after his block,” says Morey, as he begins to make a case for Mutombo’s unselfishness before he stops and laughs. “But even to Dikembe there’s a selfish component. He made his name by doing the finger wag.” The finger wag: Mutombo swats the ball, grabs it, holds it against his hip and wags his finger at the opponent. Not in my house! “And if he doesn’t catch the ball,” Morey says, “he can’t do the finger wag. And he loves the finger wag.” His team of course would be better off if Mutombo didn’t hold onto the ball long enough to do his finger wag. “We’ve had to yell at him: start the break, start the break — then do your finger wag!”

Hockey has used a plus-minus stat for years. Now basketball is catching on:

One well-known statistic the Rockets’ front office pays attention to is plus-minus, which simply measures what happens to the score when any given player is on the court. In its crude form, plus-minus is hardly perfect: a player who finds himself on the same team with the world’s four best basketball players, and who plays only when they do, will have a plus-minus that looks pretty good, even if it says little about his play. Morey says that he and his staff can adjust for these potential distortions — though he is coy about how they do it — and render plus-minus a useful measure of a player’s effect on a basketball game. A good player might be a plus 3 — that is, his team averages 3 points more per game than its opponent when he is on the floor. In his best season, the superstar point guard Steve Nash was a plus 14.5. At the time of the Lakers game, Battier was a plus 10, which put him in the company of Dwight Howard and Kevin Garnett, both perennial All-Stars. For his career he’s a plus 6. “Plus 6 is enormous,” Morey says. “It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins.” He names a few other players who were a plus 6 last season: Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Tracy McGrady.

Battier’s strengths are subtle:

Before the Rockets traded for Battier, the front-office analysts obviously studied his value. They knew all sorts of details about his efficiency and his ability to reduce the efficiency of his opponents. They knew, for example, that stars guarded by Battier suddenly lose their shooting touch. What they didn’t know was why. Morey recognized Battier’s effects, but he didn’t know how he achieved them. Two hundred or so basketball games later, he’s the world’s expert on the subject — which he was studying all over again tonight. He pointed out how, instead of grabbing uncertainly for a rebound, for instance, Battier would tip the ball more certainly to a teammate. Guarding a lesser rebounder, Battier would, when the ball was in the air, leave his own man and block out the other team’s best rebounder. “Watch him,” a Houston front-office analyst told me before the game. “When the shot goes up, he’ll go sit on Gasol’s knee.” (Pau Gasol often plays center for the Lakers.) On defense, it was as if Battier had set out to maximize the misery Bryant experiences shooting a basketball, without having his presence recorded in any box score. He blocked the ball when Bryant was taking it from his waist to his chin, for instance, rather than when it was far higher and Bryant was in the act of shooting. “When you watch him,” Morey says, “you see that his whole thing is to stay in front of guys and try to block the player’s vision when he shoots. We didn’t even notice what he was doing until he got here. I wish we could say we did, but we didn’t.”

People often say that Kobe Bryant has no weaknesses to his game, but that’s not really true. Before the game, Battier was given his special package of information. “He’s the only player we give it to,” Morey says. “We can give him this fire hose of data and let him sift. Most players are like golfers. You don’t want them swinging while they’re thinking.” The data essentially broke down the floor into many discrete zones and calculated the odds of Bryant making shots from different places on the court, under different degrees of defensive pressure, in different relationships to other players — how well he scored off screens, off pick-and-rolls, off catch-and-shoots and so on. Battier learns a lot from studying the data on the superstars he is usually assigned to guard.

Acton was exactly wrong

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

Mencius Moldbug points out that the fish in the sea — he’s not really talking about fish, by the way — would be better off owned by a single King of the Fishermen than by no one in particular — but all the fishermen agree that fragmentation of authority is good:

Consider the incentives of the fishermen in an ocean under fractured authority. They are not friends. Each strives to strip the sea before his neighbor arrives. But there is one principle they can agree on: that fragmentation of authority is good.

Why? Because any consolidation of authority must involve stripping at least one player of the power to fish. Any consensus that this is undesirable is a basis for cooperation among all, and is likely to achieve social popularity, regardless of truth. Hominids have been living in tribal societies for the better part of ten million years. They are very good at cooperation games.

For example: if political power is split between Commons, Lords, and Crown, it is easy to construct a settlement in which each of Commons, Lords, and Crown acknowledges the division of authority and promises not to infringe it. While each party will of course struggle to evade this settlement and gain absolute power — note that we don’t hear much from the Lords or the Crown these days — the doctrine of benign fragmentation is one all can endorse, even though it is the converse of truth.

Acton was exactly wrong: it is not absolute, but partial power that corrupts. More precisely, it is partial authority not formally matched with partial responsibility.

Why diversifying does not earn you a big bonus

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

Paul Wilmott explains why diversifying does not earn you a big bonus:

Suppose that you have 100 colleagues, each trading with $10 million. Bearing in mind Einstein’s advice, we are going to keep things simple, so as to make the mathematics as transparent as possible, and assume that they are betting on a coin toss. And, crucially, they are all betting on heads on the same toss of the same unbiased coin — it doesn’t get more undiversified than that.

It’s 50-50 whether they win or lose. If the single toss comes up heads then they all win, and the bank makes 100 times $10 million, of which each trader perhaps gets a tidy $2 million bonus. That’s their down payment on a decent yacht. Everyone’s happy: traders, management, shareholders and depositors. But if it comes up tails, they lose, and the bank goes bust. But while the traders and management only have to find new jobs, the shareholders and the depositors potentially face losing their life savings.

You come along, and, thanks to your college education, you have found a much better trade than your colleagues. Let’s say that you are betting on another, independent coin — but one that is biased. This coin has a 75 percent chance of heads. And you’ve also got $10 million to invest.

Let’s look at two possibilities: first, that you do the responsible thing of betting the good odds on the biased coin, and second, that you bet on the heads on the 50-50 toss just like your colleagues. I say that the first case is “responsible” for two reasons: one because it’s a better bet than that of your colleagues and so will increase the bank’s expected return; and two because it also helps the bank diversify. That’s classic Modern Portfolio Theory, and is also common sense.

O.K., so you bet $10 million on your coin. What is the probability of your getting your $2 million bonus? Easy, it’s just the probability of getting heads, 75 percent, isn’t it? Well, no, it’s not. Yes, there’s a 75 percent chance of your making money for your bank, but if your colleagues have meanwhile tossed a tail, your bank is broke and no one’s getting a bonus, even you. They’ve cost the bank a billion dollars, and you’ve made it a mere $10 million. But what if you toss tails on the biased coin when the others toss heads? The others get their bonus, but you’ve just lost $10 million, what a terrible trader you must be, and are shown the door.

No, the only way to get that bonus is if both you and the others make winning trades — that is, if both coins land heads up. And the probability of that is 50 percent times 75 percent — that’s 37.5 percent. So, even though you have a biased coin working in your favor, the chance of you getting a bonus is still substantially less than half.

By now you can probably see where I’m going with this. Suppose that instead of betting on the biased coin you join in with all your colleagues and bet on the same toss of the first coin. Now you all win or lose together, the odds are even and the probability of getting your bonus is 50 percent. This is significantly higher than if you’d done the “responsible” thing of helping your bank to increase its expected return and decrease its risk.

This example makes it clear that your interests and those of the shareholders and depositors can be complete opposites. They probably didn’t teach you that at business school.

Actually, I’m pretty sure they do teach you that business school.

Owned by a King of Fishermen

Saturday, February 14th, 2009

Mencius Moldbug describes the fundamental engineering flaw in what he calls the modern structure of government:

This bug is so easy to see that even the New York Times can see it. Of course, our columnist is addressing the governance of fish, not hominids, but note that nothing in his logic depends on scales, gills, or fins:
Since the mid-’50s, economists who study fisheries have basically understood the fate that has befallen these waters. They call it the tragedy of the commons.

If a fish population is controlled by a single, perfectly rational agent — an idealized entity economists refer to as “the sole owner” — he or she will manage it to maximize its total value over time. For almost every population, that means leaving a lot of fish in the water, where they can continue to make young fish. The sole owner, then, will cautiously withdraw the biological equivalent of interest, without reducing the capital — the healthy population that remains in the sea.

But if the fish population is available to many independent parties, competition becomes a driving concern. If I don’t extract as much as I can today, there’s no guarantee you won’t take everything tomorrow. Sure, in a perfect world, you and I would trust each other, exercise restraint, and in the long run, grow wealthier for it, but I’d better just play it safe and get those fish before you do. The race for fish ensues, and soon, the tragedy of the commons has struck.

Ie: if you are a fish, you want all fish to be owned by a King of Fishermen. So long as our fisher king is rational, this “single owner” will govern his fisheries with a strong and kindly hand, maximizing returns over an infinite time horizon, bringing peace, freedom and prosperity to cod, pollock, and sea-bass alike.

But if we fracture this coherent authority into two competing authorities, each can gain by stealing fish from the other. The more authority is fractured, the more predatory it becomes. Thus, the infallible recipe for a sadistic and predatory state: internal competition for power. (Hominids, unlike fish, respond well to fences, so geographical fragmentation is not inconsistent with coherent authority —  the ocean partitioned, as it were, into artificial lakes.)

Why do we track the race of students taking standardized tests?

Saturday, February 14th, 2009

Why do we track the race of students taking standardized tests?, Philip Greenspun asks:

Yesterday’s New York Times article has an article entitled “Blacks Less Likely to Take A.P. Exam.” The article has two points. Blacks are less likely than other high school graduates to take the Advanced Placement tests. Blacks who take the test are much less likely to pass than non-black students (8 percent of those taking the exams checked the “I am black” box; only 4 percent of those passing the exams had checked the “I am black” box).

Does the utility of this information justify its collection? We’re not willing to do anything drastic to change the way that our schools are run. We will still have unionized teachers, teachers who jobs are guaranteed (tenured) after a few years, and all but the richest kids forced to attend their local public school. If schools are failing black students, we’re apparently more comfortable with that than we are in confronting the teachers and administrators who benefit from the status quo.

Medical doctors say that “Never order a test unless you know what you’re going to do with the result.” What are we going to do with this result? Fire teachers if most of their students fail the A.P. exam? That would violate the union contract and we’re not going to do it. Increase the budget for schools with a lot of black students? Many of these schools already spend close to $25,000 per student per year (much of that is spent on administration rather than classroom instruction). Absent an economic miracle there is no way that taxes or debt can be increased to enable an increase beyond 25,000 current dollars per student annually.

Is this what crypto-racism looks like?

Saturday, February 14th, 2009

Recently Arnold Kling spoke about the bailout, and his comments were twisted beyond recognition by one James Wolcott of Vanity Fair:

A few days ago notice was taken (I’m practicing my passive voice) of economist Arnold Kling’s contention that the Obama stimulus plan was actually “reparations” in disguise. Given the complexion of our new president, this was interpreted as injecting a needless bit of race-baiting into the economic debate, raising the specter of a million Jeremiah Wrights marching on the capital mall with outstretched hands, demanding their cut of the action. Oh dear me no, protested Kling. No coded race talk was intended. He was actually thinking of the Treaty of Versailles, as reflected in the sentence “To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I.” Idiotically hyperbolic and baseless as Kling’s caricaturing is (seriously, name me one frigging Democrat who invoked violations of Belgian neutrality in railing against the Bush tax cuts), it did open the door ajar to possible acquittal on the racebaiting charge. To cool things down, Kling (an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, which has been taking out all those big ads) closed off comments before the mosh pit got any gnarlier.

And there the matter might have rested had not Kling surrendered to heat of candor today at a Heritage Foundation/Club for Growth confab and decried, “Barack Obama is destroying my daughter’s future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs.”

Now if Kling can’t comprehend the implication of racial menace encoded in daughter-gang-thugs/home invasion, he’s either fatuously clueless — too innocent for this wicked world — or weaselly disingenuous, and a drama queen either way. Did he feel the sanctity of his home was being violated when the costs of the Iraq war shot into outer space? Did he picture marauders smashing cherished mementoes when Hank Paulson introduced TARP? Anytime Obama’s name and “thug” are thrown in close proximity, it’s a pretty sure bet that the speaker or author intends to fan the anxiety and animosity of those who think Obama’s presidency represents black grievance gloved with the iron fist of the state — and out to punish whitey. No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo — they’ve got ransackers running wild in their imaginations too. I urge these people to confront their racial fears, think of Scarlet Johansson and strawberry snowflakes and the musical numbers in Rent, and join the rest of us in Matisse’s dancing daisy-chain of eternal spring.

I was not familiar with Mr. Wolcott’s work — I don’t read Vanity Fair — but I now know not to.

Is this what crypto-racism looks like?

Here’s what Kling actually said in his intro:

Thank you. I’d like to thank the sponsors of this conference for inviting me to speak. I think about what’s going on, what’s happening today, as an economist, but I feel it as a father. My wife and I have three daughters, aged between 19 and 25, and when I see what’s being done to their future, I am really angry. Back in September, when they were talking about taking $700 billion to “unclog the financial system,” I wanted to take Henry Paulson and yank him out of the TV screen and say, “You keep your hands off my daughters’ future!” But he got away with it. And I had to — for me it was like sitting there watching my house being ransacked by a gang of thugs. And now we’ve got a new gang of thugs, and they’re going to do the same thing. So, anyway, that’s how I feel, we’ll go back to how I think.

So, comparing Henry Paulson spending $700 billion of our money to a gang of thugs ransacking his house is racist? Because Obama’s continuing the misplaced spending, and he‘s (half) black? And any reference to thugs is crypto-racist?

Anyway, don’t forget to watch the rest of the video for the substance of Kling’s argument:

  1. This is a big bill, but not a big stimulus.
  2. A better alternative would be to cut the employer portion of the payroll tax.
  3. These are dangerous times, and we should be trying to craft policies that reduce risks, not policies that increase risks.

Addendum: Here is what Kling had to say in his Stimulus Bill or Reparations Bill?:

I think that President Obama set the bar ridiculously low when he said that 75 percent of the stimulus should kick in within by the end of 2010, but the House bill did not even get over that bar. Why is the stimulus bill so filled with non-stimulus while it omits real stimulus measures, such as cutting payroll taxes?

I think the answer is that it is a reparations bill, not a stimulus bill. People who pay income taxes tend to vote Republican. People who live off taxes tend to vote Democratic. To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I. Now, they are demanding reparations, with hundreds of billions of dollars to be paid into teachers unions and other members of the coalition that won the election.

Most of the bill makes no sense from a stimulus perspective. But all of it makes sense from a reparations perspective.

Obviously an attack on Obama’s race.

Never Blow Your Nose When You Have a Cold

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Never blow your nose when you have a cold, because it sends mucus into the sinuses:

To test the notion, Dr. J. Owen Hendley and other pediatric infectious disease researchers at the University of Virginia conducted CT scans and other measurements as subjects coughed, sneezed and blew their noses. In some cases, the subjects had an opaque dye dripped into their rear nasal cavities.

Coughing and sneezing generated little if any pressure in the nasal cavities. But nose blowing generated enormous pressure — “equivalent to a person’s diastolic blood pressure reading,” Dr. Hendley said — and propelled mucus into the sinuses every time. Dr. Hendley said it was unclear whether this was harmful, but added that during sickness it could shoot viruses or bacteria into the sinuses, and possibly cause further infection.

The proper method is to blow one nostril at a time and to take decongestants, said Dr. Anil Kumar Lalwani, chairman of the department of otolaryngology at the New York University Langone Medical Center. This prevents a buildup of excess pressure.

OK, so do blow your nose, but blow one nostril at a time.

Either Superfluous or Deceptive

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Mencius Moldbug declares our written Constitution either superfluous or deceptive:

Britain, of course, is famous for its unwritten constitution — a phrase which strikes the worm-gnawed American brain as oxymoronic. In fact, unwritten constitution is a tautology. It is our written constitution — or large-C Constitution — which is a concept comical, impossible, and fundamentally fraudulent. Please allow me to explain.

England had a constitution well before America had a Constitution, and De Quincey (whose political journalism is remarkably underrated) defines the concept succinctly:

…the equilibrium of forces in a political system, as recognised and fixed by distinct political acts…

In other words, a government’s constitution (small c) is its actual structure of power. The constitution is the process by which the government formulates its decisions. When we ask why government G made decision D1 to take action A1, or decision D2 not to take action A2, we inquire as to its constitution.

Thus the trouble with these written constitutions. If the Constitution is identical to the constitution, it is superfluous. If the Constitution is not identical to theconstitution, it is deceptive. There are no other choices.

It’s easy to show that the latter is the case for [the United States government]. For example, the two-party system is clearly part of [the United States government]‘s constitution. But not only does the Constitutionnot mention political parties, the design notes indicate an intention to preclude them. Obviously this was not successful.

For another example, American law schools teach something called constitutional law, a body of judicial precedent which purports to be a mere elucidation of the text of the Constitution. Yet no one seriously believes that an alien, reading the Constitution, would produce anything like the same results. Moreover, the meta-rules on which constitutional law rests, such as stare decisis, are entirely unwritten, and have been violated in patterns not best explained by theories of textual interpretation. Thus the small ‘c’ in constitutional law is indeed correct.

In retrospect, the written-constitution design is another case of the pattern of wishful thinking that appears over and over again in the democratic mind.

A Colorado school district does away with grade levels

Friday, February 13th, 2009

A Colorado school district does away with grade levels — and, really, what’s shocking is that this is considered shocking, even radical:

Ultimately, there will be 10 multiage levels, rather than 12 grades, and students might be in different levels depending on the subject. They’ll move up only as they demonstrate mastery of the material.
[...]
And when children fall short of understanding the material, they keep working at it. The only “acceptable” score to move on to the next lesson is the equivalent of a “B” in normal grading – hopefully showing proficiency and giving kids a better foundation as they move on to more advanced concepts. Advocates sometimes describe it as flipping the traditional system around so that time, rather than mastery of material, is the variable.