Two recent NY Times Editorials of interest

David Brooks writes about one possible cause of the American decline. 

"the U.S. has drifted away from the hardheaded practical mentality that built the nation’s wealth in the first place.

The shift is evident at all levels of society. First, the elites. America’s brightest minds have been abandoning industry and technical enterprise in favor of more prestigious but less productive fields like law, finance, consulting and nonprofit activism."

He's at least partially correct.  Since we are unlikely to stop buying foreign oil and cheap Chinese manufactures, we need to export something back.  If it's natural resources, we act like a colony, and our current strategy of producing and exporting treasury bonds is unsustainable.  We must continue to have sharp minds producing valuable technical manufactures for export to remain a strong and prosperous society.

Thomas Friedman writes a column with similar thoughts.  He largely cites a column by Robert Samuelson, which bemoans that students aren't motivated to do the hard work.

"Motivation comes from many sources: curiosity and ambition; parental expectations; the desire to get into a "good" college; inspiring or intimidating teachers; peer pressure."

to which Friedman adds

"We had a values breakdown — a national epidemic of get-rich-quickism and something-for-nothingism."

A good friend who teaches high-school says the same thing - the bailouts have been bad for student motivation.


I remember a recent TV ad for an on-line high school.  Some of the supposed benefits were that you got to take courses at your own pace and take tests at your own time.  For some students, this is a benefit.  But, the real lessons of high school are not that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, nor that Jane Austen wrote a bunch of good books.  The real lessons are the world does not exist for the benefit of the students, and sometimes you have to take tests on somebody else's schedule.

Thoughts on Koran Burning

As most people know, some obscure publicity seeking pastor is planning to burn Korans on 9/11.  I won't even dignify him with a link.  The act is clearly legal and protected First Amendment Speech.  It's also stupid.

In an ideal world, he'd get a little publicity, and some Muslims (and others) would protest and perhaps organize a non-violent response, such as burning bibles or declaring "National put a crucifix in a jar of urine day".  But they would realize that this is an isolated act by a small group.  And life would go on.

However, we live in a far from ideal world.  Radical Muslims will gain a propaganda boost, endangering our troops and out efforts in the Middle East.  The pastor should stop his plan.

I'm pleased that many prominent Americans have denounced the stunt.  But how about the most prominent American, President Obama?  Why hasn't he given a speech saying that he, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, disapproves of the stunt?  Actually, I just noticed, looks like he has started.  Good. He should also explain to foreigners that American is a free society where such stunts are Constitutionally protected.  I would like to see Bush joining in too.

My friend Ray has some different thoughts.  I really have to say that I disagree with his post on many points.

India is NOT Hindustan.  Maybe Pakistanis perceive it that way, but they are wrong.

If the natural assumption of those overseas is that the government should stop the stunt, that's exactly why Obama should explain that America is different, and the stunt is protected free speech.

"The local cops should arrest this guy, if he burns a Koran, and he should be prosecuted.  The reasons for doing this is that it is the only way for the US government to distance itself from Koran burning in the eyes of leaders of other states."

No.  Unless the pastor shouts fire in a crowded theatre or calls for the violent overthrow of the US government, what he's doing is clearly free speech.  Stupid free speech, but free speech.  People overseas should get used to it, and again, Obama should explain that. If Ray doesn't want to defend the free speech right of stupid idiots that he opposes, his concept of free speech is meaningless.

As for Bush declaring a "Crusade", yes, he used that word once and meant it in the meaning "this is a good thing, like Ike's Crusade in Europe".  It was a stupid mistake, historically tone-deaf.  Ray claims we acted remarkably like a Crusade - just how?  Very few Americans think we are on some Crusade to retake Jerusalem or protect pilgrim's rights in the Holy Land.

Frankly, for Ray to harp on the Crusade term incites angst amongst Muslims and offers recruiting benefits to our enemies.  Just like the stupid Koran burning.

My bad, Rob Neyer is O.K.

Seems like he agrees with me on the great year Felix Hernandez is having.  He just fears that the Cy Young voters will overvalue wins and choose CC instead.  I wish he'd do a little educating or cheerleading.

Here's the article Neyer refers to.  Jason Rosenberg makes this point:  "King Felix will be the AL’s best pitcher in 2010 but will not win the Cy Young."


I hope he's wrong on the second part, but we will see.

I hope Rob Neyer doesn't get a vote for the Cy Young Award

In a recent post (mainly about Trevor Cahill) ESPN's Rob Neyer says "With an 18-5 record, CC Sabathia's obviously the No. 1 candidate" (for the Cy Young Award).

BS.  CC is a good pitcher, but his stats for 2010 pale in comparison to King Felix Hernandez.

Innings Pitched: 194 vs. 211
HR Allowed: 17 vs. 14
Opponents Batting Average: .245 vs. .222
WHIP: 1.23 vs. 1.10
ERA: 3.14 vs. 2.38
Complete Games: 2 vs. 5

By every objective measure, Felix has pitched significantly better than CC in 2010.

Escape from White Rock BC

I just spent a couple of weeks on a road trip vacation, including a wonderful time in British Columbia.  Returning from Vancouver on 99 south, I still had a chunk of Canadian change (and nice job Canada having real $1 and $2 coins that work and save the government money instead of stupid paper bills) and wanted to make one last visit to a Tim Hortons.  For those unfamiliar with it, Tim Hortons is much like a Dunkin Donuts, starting with donuts and coffee, but has since added healthier fare like sandwiches and soups.  They are renowned for their Timbit donut holes.

"The biggest change in the chain's product focus took place in 1976 with the introduction of the phenomenally successful Timbit (bite-sized donut hole), today available in over 35 different varieties."

 IMO, they rank up there with Ice Hockey and Neil Young as one of Canada's great contributions to civilization.  If you eat in, real people serve you on real plates - no piles of paper waste either!  And frankly, I had a hankering for a donut.  So I turned off at on the King George Highway into White Rock, the last Canadian city before the US border.  Signs boasted "White Rock, next 4 exits".  Little did I know that this "short sidetrip"would turn into a small adventure.

I quickly found a sign saying "Tim Hortons", but it was just a gas station that just had a few of their sandwiches available.  No good.  The girl pointed me downtown for a "real" one.  I headed that way, and saw no Tim Hortons between there and the Strait of Georgia.  And there was some heavy traffic.  Crap.  Come on Tim Hortons, a little marketing advice, I can't be the first Yank wanting to spend their change before returning home, how about a big sign "Last Tim Hortons for 25000 miles"?  Actually, since Canada has joined the 19th century and is metric, that would be "Last Tim Hortons for 40000 km".

So, the primary mission, eating some fried dough, was a failure.  I ate at a Quiznos.  I then headed east, hoping to hook backup with 99 south.  Several roads crossed 99, but none had ramps leading south.  Only north.  Flustered, I backtracked north along King George Highway.  Again, there is no ramp leading south, only north!  By now loudly cursing stupid Canuck incompetence, I headed north, the wrong way.  And north.  And north.  Would I end up trapped in Canada?  Hotel California ("you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.") played through  my mind.  Along with thoughts of "54 40 or fight".  After several miles, and several more minutes of cursing, there was a turnaround, and I managed to get turned around in the right direction.

It turns out that 3 of those 4 exits to White Rock are exits only.  No return to 99 south.  I can't be the only Yank who will ever face this problem, so here's the trick: to escape White Rock, do not attempt to retrace your steps.  Instead, take the King George Highway south.  It hooks up with 99 south near the border.

An appeal for religious toleration

As most of you know, Cordoba House, which seems to be a moderate Muslim group, seeks to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City.  This has raised some outcry, either those who want to stop it, or, more reasonably, those who ask that Cordoba House reconsider and build somewhere else.

I think it would great for them to build there to prove America's religious toleration.

But, I have one request.  The mosque should have some space dedicated to the memories of the ten doctors from the International Assistance Mission who were recently murdered in cold blood by the Taliban for the crime of carrying bibles and "preaching Christianity".  To prove their religious toleration.

Krugman doubles down

On July 25th, Paul Krugman wrote a NY Times op-ed column in which he said that "Climategate" is "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."  James Taranto correctly rebutted this.

Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine. Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action" is flatly false.

This week, Paul Krugman doubles down with more accusations of "fraud", bashing the proposals of Representative Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin), and the media for following them.

One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.  ...

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce. ...

But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.

Hey, the "audacity of dopes" line is pretty good.  In a later blog, I may look in more detail at the numbers behind Ryan's plans.  It seems true that a Tax Policy Center analysis of his initial plan shows a shortfall.  So, technically, Krugman presented a true fact.  Part of the "shortfall" is because, under Ryan's plan, government revenues remain steady at around 16 - 17%, while, under the CBO baseline, they rise up to more like 18 to 20%.  However, a quick followup search shows that Ryan is willing to work on the numbers.

Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” (which is ~18%)

Looks like Krugman's "fact", though technically true, is intended to deceive.  Since Krugman falsely cried "fraud" just last week, why should we believe him this week?  Maybe it is Krugman who "makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future"?