Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
IU v Kentucky, RIP
Much to my chagrin, I discovered this week that the traditional IU-Kentucky match up is no longer. It hit the rocks because of $$$, According to this account, John Calipari, coach of Kentucky, wanted to only play IU in big venues, e.g. Lucas Oil Stadium. IU wanted contests on the two campuses.
Most people outside of the two states might not appreciate the kind of rivalry basketball generates between the two states. Each year, for example, the two high school all-star teams play each other for bragging rights. IU and Kentucky have played 56 times since 1924 and every year since 1969. To let the series die because of a disagreement over the venue is a shame.
Most people outside of the two states might not appreciate the kind of rivalry basketball generates between the two states. Each year, for example, the two high school all-star teams play each other for bragging rights. IU and Kentucky have played 56 times since 1924 and every year since 1969. To let the series die because of a disagreement over the venue is a shame.
Belly Up, Boys!
The USGA and the R&A have decided to prohibit the "belly" putter in the sense that no longer can one anchor a longish putter against one's body when one is performing the putting stroke. Most people don't care, except those who are committed golfers (and they should be committed...bump ching) But I agree with most commentators who argue that the belly putter has only become an issue since the last 3 of 4 majors have been won by golfers using it. It's been legal for 30+ years and hasn't really been a concern until now.
Conclusion: keep it safe, legal and rare, guys!
*by the way "R&A" stands for the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Saint Andrews, the official ruling body in Great Britain. Good luck trying to discover that fact---go to the R and A website and try to find where they define the name!
Conclusion: keep it safe, legal and rare, guys!
*by the way "R&A" stands for the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Saint Andrews, the official ruling body in Great Britain. Good luck trying to discover that fact---go to the R and A website and try to find where they define the name!
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Larry Hagman, RIP
Megan McCardle linked to this touching story about Larry Hagman by Mark Evanier. It's well worth the read.
Walmart v. Costco
A good post by Megan McCardle on the differences between the two. Surprising fact:
"One final thing that's worth pointing out is that Costco doesn't even make money selling the groceries and the six person hot-tubs. Their annual membership fee revenue exceeds their net profit--which is to say that the actual business of selling stuff is operating at a loss. They're charging you an annual fee to buy stuff at or near cost".
"One final thing that's worth pointing out is that Costco doesn't even make money selling the groceries and the six person hot-tubs. Their annual membership fee revenue exceeds their net profit--which is to say that the actual business of selling stuff is operating at a loss. They're charging you an annual fee to buy stuff at or near cost".
Monday, November 26, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
My Security is Secure
And I thought there was an issue. Robert Kuttner in The Huffington Post lays my fears to rest: " In fact, if we get can get back to full employment, there is no Social
Security crisis, because Social Security is financed by taxes on
payrolls."
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Good News, Bad News
Good news: Indiana University is ranked #1 in college basketball.
Bad news: Dick Vitale is doing color for college basketball on ESPN.
Bad news: Dick Vitale is doing color for college basketball on ESPN.
Neither Rube Nor Demon
The pyrrhonist isn't certain of much of anything, but he does know this: pretenses to the moral and intellectual high ground are usually false.
Suppose you're presented with 2 menus: Menu A consists of 2 appetizers (say Fried Calamari and Oysters on the Half Shell), 3 main entrees (Chicken Livers, Filet Mignon, and Fried Bologna), and 1 dessert (Fried Hostess Twinkies). Menu B consists of 2 appetizers (Tuna Tataki and Anchovy-Wrapped Olives), 3 main entrees (Tuna Casserole, Lobster, and Fried Tofu with Green Onions) and 1 dessert (Jello Pudding Cups). You are asked to pick one menu and live off of it for a year. You would evaluate each menu, consider the options, and pick the menu that would be easiest to live with for 365 days. An outside observer would be reluctant to criticize your choice, and in a sense, it would be silly to call you an idiot for choosing one over the other: they both have their benefits and detriments.
Choosing between political candidates and parties is much akin to the above exercise. Parties present voters with a list of choices: Party A might list climate change as a priority, Party B might elevate fiscal soundness. Each party has their defects: Party A might encourage state intrusion in personal choices, e.g. tobacco use, and Party B might be more bellicose. The two lists are a mixed bag. To recognize this is to recognize that attempts to demonize or dismiss the other side as intellectually backwards are wrong-headed and dare I say, morally bankrupt.
The disanalogy is this: one can present evidence why one policy choice might be better than another, whereas it's difficult to argue that Fried Bologna is less bad than Tuna Casserole. But wouldn't it be better to discuss the reasons themselves, than the character of the person making the choice?
Suppose you're presented with 2 menus: Menu A consists of 2 appetizers (say Fried Calamari and Oysters on the Half Shell), 3 main entrees (Chicken Livers, Filet Mignon, and Fried Bologna), and 1 dessert (Fried Hostess Twinkies). Menu B consists of 2 appetizers (Tuna Tataki and Anchovy-Wrapped Olives), 3 main entrees (Tuna Casserole, Lobster, and Fried Tofu with Green Onions) and 1 dessert (Jello Pudding Cups). You are asked to pick one menu and live off of it for a year. You would evaluate each menu, consider the options, and pick the menu that would be easiest to live with for 365 days. An outside observer would be reluctant to criticize your choice, and in a sense, it would be silly to call you an idiot for choosing one over the other: they both have their benefits and detriments.
Choosing between political candidates and parties is much akin to the above exercise. Parties present voters with a list of choices: Party A might list climate change as a priority, Party B might elevate fiscal soundness. Each party has their defects: Party A might encourage state intrusion in personal choices, e.g. tobacco use, and Party B might be more bellicose. The two lists are a mixed bag. To recognize this is to recognize that attempts to demonize or dismiss the other side as intellectually backwards are wrong-headed and dare I say, morally bankrupt.
The disanalogy is this: one can present evidence why one policy choice might be better than another, whereas it's difficult to argue that Fried Bologna is less bad than Tuna Casserole. But wouldn't it be better to discuss the reasons themselves, than the character of the person making the choice?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Love the Internet
This wonderful tool enabled me to discover in two minutes that the Indian politician who just died, Bal Thackeray, was the son of Keshav Thackeray. Keshav's surname was "Thakre" and because he admired William Makepeace Thackeray, who was born in Calcutta, anglicized it to Thackeray. Hah! Now I'm not sure what to do with this; I'll get back to you.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Grossly Offensive Acts
This story hit the blogosphere the other day. In sum, a man in Kent (England) was arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy. The poppy is used for in the Commonwealth for Remembrance Day, our version of Veterans Day, and comes ultimately from the poem, "In Flanders Fields:"
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Suffice it to say that burning a poppy is offensive, akin to the activities of Westboro Baptist Church in the United States.
Many who have commented on the arrest have used the occasion to deride the UK. Before we get too comfortable in our judgment, we might want to remember that it wasn't too long ago that many in this country were trying to get flag-burning outlawed. Also, the temptation to censor is ubiquitous; otherwise, why would we need the existence of groups like F.I.R.E? So while we should condemn the Brits' enthusiasm for this arrest, we should also use the occasion to take heed that it could just as easily be us.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Suffice it to say that burning a poppy is offensive, akin to the activities of Westboro Baptist Church in the United States.
Many who have commented on the arrest have used the occasion to deride the UK. Before we get too comfortable in our judgment, we might want to remember that it wasn't too long ago that many in this country were trying to get flag-burning outlawed. Also, the temptation to censor is ubiquitous; otherwise, why would we need the existence of groups like F.I.R.E? So while we should condemn the Brits' enthusiasm for this arrest, we should also use the occasion to take heed that it could just as easily be us.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Philosophy to the Rescue
Deadspin links to an editorial in the Caspar Star-Tribune, a limited defense by two philosophers for Coach Dave Christensen. Coach Christensen had been suspended for an outburst, caught on video and uploaded onto You Tube, in which he lambasts Coach Troy Calhoun of the Air Force Academy for allegedly having a player fake an injury to allow for more time in AFA's matchup with Wyoming, using quite colorful and incendiary language.
It's a good thing when the academy gets involved in these disputes; after all, football teams represent their institutions, so any potential ethical problems should be addressed by the faculty or some representative of the faculty. Philosophers are trained in arguing close ethical issues, so there's no reason why they shouldn't take the lead.
However, one has a responsibility to respond if one sees some problems in the argument. To paraphrase, Ulatowski and Lockwood find Chistensen's behavior wrong and hence he earned the suspension. But his actions are defensible insofar as he was seeking justice. Calhoun, in encouraging the alleged fake injury, deserved greater punishment since he countenanced cheating, a greater offense than letting loose with an f-bomb. The Mountain West Conference should take charge, and punish Calhoun for his behavior. This would correct the injustice of one coach being punished while the other gets a free pass.
In the ideal world, where everyone's intentions are clear, perhaps they have a case to make. But in the hurly burly of a football game, it doesn't make sense to question injuries. If a player claims to be hurt, the referees are not in the position to judge. Nor can the conference be held accountable for adjudicating claims of fakery. In our criminal justice system, the economics of judicial decisions imply that some outcomes will be unjust. Likewise, as decisions by the referees are done on the fly; one can suspect that the outcome is unjust, but one shouldn't expect that all injustices can be rectified. To attempt to do so would create more problems than it would solve.
It's a good thing when the academy gets involved in these disputes; after all, football teams represent their institutions, so any potential ethical problems should be addressed by the faculty or some representative of the faculty. Philosophers are trained in arguing close ethical issues, so there's no reason why they shouldn't take the lead.
However, one has a responsibility to respond if one sees some problems in the argument. To paraphrase, Ulatowski and Lockwood find Chistensen's behavior wrong and hence he earned the suspension. But his actions are defensible insofar as he was seeking justice. Calhoun, in encouraging the alleged fake injury, deserved greater punishment since he countenanced cheating, a greater offense than letting loose with an f-bomb. The Mountain West Conference should take charge, and punish Calhoun for his behavior. This would correct the injustice of one coach being punished while the other gets a free pass.
In the ideal world, where everyone's intentions are clear, perhaps they have a case to make. But in the hurly burly of a football game, it doesn't make sense to question injuries. If a player claims to be hurt, the referees are not in the position to judge. Nor can the conference be held accountable for adjudicating claims of fakery. In our criminal justice system, the economics of judicial decisions imply that some outcomes will be unjust. Likewise, as decisions by the referees are done on the fly; one can suspect that the outcome is unjust, but one shouldn't expect that all injustices can be rectified. To attempt to do so would create more problems than it would solve.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wabash v. Depauw
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Steven Hayne
Longtime blogger and journalist, Radley Balko, has an interesting update on Steven Hayne, whose testimony as a pathologist had been used to convict a number of Mississippians. It turns out he had perjured himself in some of these cases.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Election Day Thought
“Our federal government is like a train on the track....There
are people on the right and people on the left, they’re yelling at it.
The train has no choice; it’s on its track" Tom Wolfe
Monday, November 5, 2012
Post-election Dream
Dream: that the bile, snark, and sneer will disappear, that friends will not see their friends of opposite persuasion as seriously deluded, that the race for 2016 will hold off until late 2015, that the lion will lie down with the lamb.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Finally....
I never thought this day would come: if Indiana University wins out, it goes to the Rose Bowl!!!! (note of warning before you get too excited: it has to beat Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin and the representative from the Legends division to do so)
Freedom of Speech v Freedom of Association
Greg Lukianoff, president of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has an interesting guest blogpost on The Volokh Conspiracy discussing FIRE's policy on private colleges. In short, FIRE evaluates private colleges by their upfront commitment to freedom of speech. Hence institutions who are openly committed to religious values over freedom of speech do not have their feet held to the fire when they suppress free speech. Examples he gives are Brigham Young and Liberty University. Freedom of association, in short, has some weight when it comes to other commitments. This one could argue is as it should be, as it to is a constitutional right.
Those of us in academia should be familiar with this; at least when I was a new Ph.D. it was commonplace for some colleges to be explicit about what sort of commitments you were to uphold. I remember one institution that required as a condition of employment a testament that the Devil was an actual person. Similarly, my beloved Wabash is permitted to refuse admission to females based on freedom of association. Such freedom of association has limits, and rightfully so, but there's something aesthetically pleasing about a country that allows like-minded individuals to gather peacably together.
Those of us in academia should be familiar with this; at least when I was a new Ph.D. it was commonplace for some colleges to be explicit about what sort of commitments you were to uphold. I remember one institution that required as a condition of employment a testament that the Devil was an actual person. Similarly, my beloved Wabash is permitted to refuse admission to females based on freedom of association. Such freedom of association has limits, and rightfully so, but there's something aesthetically pleasing about a country that allows like-minded individuals to gather peacably together.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Problem With Government Omnipotence
The more the government knows about its citizens, the more dangerous that knowledge becomes. Traditionally amongst those of a libertarian persuasion, the worry was that if or when the government turns "evil," this knowledge would be used against the citizenry. While this is a nagging concern, the likelihood of this seems slim.
However, there is another issue. As recent events in South Carolina demonstrate, the government doesn't care enough about its possession of personal information as it should. Hence 3.6 million South Carolinians have had their tax records hacked.
While the Governor was quick to provide free credit protection to the victims, this lasts only for one year. Oh and by the way: State law limits the state's liability to $600,000 per hacking incident! Hence, if you, I, and 298 other SC residents lose $20, 000 each because of this hack, we would each get 50 Cents from the state! Isn't the coercive power of government a wonderful thing to behold?!!
However, there is another issue. As recent events in South Carolina demonstrate, the government doesn't care enough about its possession of personal information as it should. Hence 3.6 million South Carolinians have had their tax records hacked.
While the Governor was quick to provide free credit protection to the victims, this lasts only for one year. Oh and by the way: State law limits the state's liability to $600,000 per hacking incident! Hence, if you, I, and 298 other SC residents lose $20, 000 each because of this hack, we would each get 50 Cents from the state! Isn't the coercive power of government a wonderful thing to behold?!!
Is the Internet Self-Regulating?
To a certain extent. I offer to you Marc Randazza at The Legal Satyricon as supporting evidence. He is bringing to light an odious case where it is likely that one and the same person is posting nude pictures of women without their consent and then,through an alias and for a fee, offering legal services to take them down. Ken at Popehat is contributing his efforts. Kudos!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)