Things to do before I die

I'm adding throw a good curve ball to that list. What can I say? I can't throw. But that doesn't mean I'll never be able.

Structural Issues

Ken Rogoff and Ed Phelps both commenting on the need to think about future growth prospects and "structual" supply-side problems.

I think they both are getting at something important, but we probably need more research (and commentary) in this area to pin things down. What are the real structural problems here? What policies would target them specifically? While Phelps suggests a few idea, it's an op-ed so they lack specifics. Even in sound-bite form, though, they don't sound like the answer to me, save the tax-credit for low-wage workers which is worth looking into.

Dogs

When people die in a story, people often cry. When Dumbledore died, a lot of people cried. When Snape died I'm sure some people bawled too.

Why?

I've never seen The Notebook but I'm sure someone dies and everyone cried then too. I might watch Schindler's List later today, which is what got me thinking about the topic.

The only time I ever cried during a movie was when I saw Air Bud. There's a scene when the boy who found Bud and taught him to play makes the dog run away and it him he hates it--because he knows if he doesn't he'll have to give the dog back to an abusive clown, its legal owner.

It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would rend your heart. But the thing was, Nash had recently killed my dog. He planted a heart worm in her and she died. It was like a warped parallel with the story on screen: in the movie, the boy loves the dog so much he sacrifices ownership of her; in reality, Nash loved the dog so much that he killed it instead of letting someone else own her.

"This is a sick world we live in."

Super Bowl XL

One of the refs from Super Bowl XL admitted that he blew some calls.

When will the other refs from Super Bowl XL, and the refs from Super Bowl XLIII, admit their errors?

Here's a list of a few from 43:

1. James Harrison should have been ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct
2. Ben Rothlesberger on intentional grounding (twice)
3. Block in the back on the last play of the 1st half (on Hightower at the 30)*
4. Kurt Warner throw an incomplete pass in the last 30 seconds, he didn't fumble

They also blew two calls against Arizona that were fixed on challenges.

* - I know the deal with blocks in the back on returns: most of the time the refs ignore them unless they are egregious. So this one, though a by-the-book foul, maybe shouldn't have been called.

Total Recall

Before Arnold became the governor of California in a "total recall" election he stared in an under-appreciated movie Total Recall.


Being an Arnold movie, it had a healthy dose of gratuitous violence. Being based on a Phillip K. Dick story it also included some angst about reality thrown in. The basic idea is that we meet Arnold's character in a futuristic world. He really wants to go to Mars, but he's a construction worker and can't afford it. He hears about "simulated vacations" and orders one where he goes to Mars as a secret agent. They put him under and next thing we see he wakes up, we're told the memory implantation failed, yethe does goes on a wild sci-fi shoot out just like the dream he ordered.

So was the vast majority of the movie us watching his implanted memories or watching his real life? I'm ambivalent about it and I think there is evidence on both sides, though I'm inclined to say it's real. As far as I know Arnold and the director haven't stated their beliefs (contra Blade Runner, is Harrison Ford an android?).

Most people think that this idea about doubting the existence of the external world is "deep" and "mind blowing." (What blows my mind is that people are willing to admit an Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie confused them.) But skepticism is a pretty banal old idea. Indeed, you've probably heard people ask, at least a dozen times, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" You've probably asked yourself how you know other people are real and how you know you that they experience "green" when they see grass the same way you do. You probably concluded that you don't and never can know with certainly that other people exist or whether the tree would make a sound. The solipsist and other radical skeptic positions are irrefutable, though uninteresting. So if Total Recall is all a dream then anything can happen. There's no way to "prove" it's real because anything that is consistent with it being real is also consistent with it being a dream. Indeed, if you were a contrarian you could argue, without contradicting anything in the story, that The Lord of the Rings is all just Aragorn's dream and that Star Wars is just R2D2's dream (droids don't expect to be the hero, they just want 15 minutes of fame). But no one thinks that claims are remotely interesting or "mind blowing" do they?

Where do blog posts come from?

Here, they start with an idea. I usually get them while I read the news or books.

Then I write a note like this:


richard iii w/ lady anne cf harvey and joker [eom]

Then, often within a few days, I consider if that idea was important and how long it would take to flesh it out. My oldest "draft," which is really just a series of notes about character strengths, is over a month old.

I got the idea for this blog when I read that garbage in my e-mail. But one day I hope to explain what I mean to remind myself of.

E. J. Dionne goes off the deep end

E. J. Dionne writes a decent column from time to time. But for the most part his job description might as well read "partisan hack."

A few days ago he wrote a column that . . . well it's not really clear. In part he takes offense to use the phrase "anchor baby," which is fair enough as the term is misleading. But he also takes a few pot shots at Republicans and, I think, is defending birthright citizenship, although he really just begs the question on it.

Besides being unclear and unimportant, the column suffers from:

1.  a big distortion

He quotes from the 14th amendment here:

the 14th Amendment's guarantee[s] citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States"

 But, as with any legal debate, the exact language is critical. The full text is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Why does he leave out the clause that is he basis for the entire debate? Is he afraid he might be wrong or just trying to manipulate readers?

To put this in context, it's like a conservative writing a column that says "the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to own guns." Of course, not everyone thinks that 2nd amendment does guarantee that right to own an assault rifle and it's worth including the clause about the necessity of a militia. You can see how Dionne would object to writing like that and how he applies a double-standard to himself.

The double-standard thing, however, is a habit. He opens his column by claiming that "rather than shout" he'll be civil, yet his entire column is mocking and offensive, employing epithets like "racial demagogues." Likewise, in his web chat with readers, a commentator notes that the author of the citizenship clause didn't intend for it to apply to foreigners. Dionne replies that "You can't just use a single quote from a single Senator and say that settles the question." He proceeds to quote one historian and leaves it at that.

2. he also suggests a disbelief in whether "anchor babies" exist

It would be shocking if Mexicans who lived close to the border didn't come here en masse to have children. If I were a parent I would. Most parents are demonstrably willing to suffer a great deal of hardship to give their kids a better life, like one with access to much higher paying jobs, better higher education, and a much more generous welfare.

It's well know that many Asians, who have a lot less to gain coming from comparable rich countries, spend a lot more to come to the U.S. for brief periods, often just so that their children will qualify for easier access to American universities and financial aid. (Male children of South Korean, Taiwanese, and Singaporean parents also get to avoid avoid serving in the military.)