Disclaimer: This post is a bunch of stuff I just thought up and is mostly about education. I did ok as a student, but know almost nothing about teaching. So the bullshit meter on this post is higher than usual. And I'm really just writing this as a way to put off doing taxes (as a side note, if Republicans wanted to destroy Democrats they'd move elections to mid April).
The build up to this post is the general concept of evaluating information, especially who to trust (school, scientists, religious leaders, parents, no one decide for self...). I'm going to try to skip past my giant set of rants on this topic, especially since I've touched on it in several posts. But the starting off point is that most of these sources often end up saying just trust me and then can't believe when people put their trust in an alternate source (school and science that includes you).
While school is not a perfect source of information, it is generally better than any of the others and is at least a good starting point. So I'd say that two things schools should aim for are showing why school should mostly (but not absolutely) be trusted and more generally teaching how to evaluate sources of information.
I think that science education is a logical starting point for teaching how to evaluate sources of information and demonstrating the validity of information from school. Especially since it is generally the only subject that has demonstrations of any kind (name another subject in which what is being taught is actually tested in any way, except maybe self consistency in mathematics but that's rather abstract). This means that science experiments are far more important as a piece of education as a whole than they might appear at first.
Problem is, I'd claim, that school science experiments are flawed. Let's say students are doing the time an object falling experiment. The hypothesis is something like "gravity accelerates objects near Earth's surface at approximately 9.81m/s^2" right? Wrong! Everyone knows that's correct and if the experiment proves it wrong the student doesn't get to publish an article in Nature, she/he gets to repeat the experiment again till the "hypothesis" is proved true. That's about as far from science as you can get. The real hypothesis is something along the lines of "what teachers tell me is generally correct and provides information about how the world works", and increasingly has the add on of "science/school is fun".
Well, if that's the hypothesis then doing the object drop experiment is still bad science. Why? Well, let's take another example. Someone on the street says the way to add two numbers is to just add 5 to the first number. Now to prove it try doing 6+5, ok how about 7+5. See the rule works, now trust me. The natural reaction should be, let me come up with a set of numbers to add to test this rule and it would quickly be proven false.
So doing a proscribed experiment doesn't go very far in answering the true hypothesis. The students need to design their own experiments. But the answer to any experiment most students would do is already well known and they'd still be expected to get the correct answer. It is a step in the right direction, but I'd claim that far better would be to ask a student to design something using the knowledge they've been given. When a student is able to use their knowledge to create something that works that is a powerful moment. It shows the knowledge they have works even when tested in the way the student chooses. It means that the student isn't just repeating whatever they do till they get a right answer. And I'd claim it is more fun (although that may just be my opinion).
Now there is a huge issue with building something. It very often won't work. If the project stops there then science is disproved, school is bullshit and it is time to start reading websites about how the moon landing was faked. However, if the student has to figure out why it didn't work and then redesign based on that info then the student is testing whatever science comes up rather than whatever was being taught that week. This becomes a much better test of the reliability of information taught in school. Additionally, many people don't consider science sufficiently "magical", and I think that finding unexpected issues and their causes can help demonstrate how mysterious and "magical" science can be.
Not to mention that if the design is sufficiently interesting the hypothesis can be adjusted to "what teachers tell me is generally correct and provides USEFUL information about how the world works".
In addition to increasing trust in school, now the student knows that some sources provide information that can be used in interactions with the world. Which means that other information sources can be tested for the same ability. Thus, giving the student a tool for evaluating sources of information in general.
Alright, I'll admit the argument doesn't hold together perfectly (not to mention being built on complete ignorance about teaching), but there it is. I guess I should also admit that it isn't surprising that I think the key to making people smarter (aka thinking more like me) is to get them to do more of what I do.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
It's All About Jobs
There's a meme floating around that this election is all about jobs and that the top item for voters is jobs.
First off, I'm sorry for for everyone who has lost their job in the economic downturn and in general for the unemployed. I in no way want to imply that I don't think it is important to increase the number of available jobs. Also this discussion could easily be seen as influenced by politics, but I'm really just trying to understand the above statement.
The question is if jobs is the top issue on the minds of voters and if so why?
The unemployment rate is about 10% (which is big). But that's only 10% of people who are looking for a job who don't have one, there are a lot of people who have just given up on looking given the poor economy. Not sure what that number is, but I'm thinking it is reasonably to bump the unemployment rate up to 15% to include those who have stopped looking.
So of the people who want a job 15% don't have one. As a matter of economics and ethics that's very bad, but is a small portion of the voters. Let's assume that everyone who doesn't want a job is dependent on someone in the general population of workers (both employed and unemployed) then 15% of the overall population would be unemployed or depend on someone unemployed. I think that's probably an overestimate (we're talking potential voters so kids under 18 don't count), but let's go with it. We've still got 85% of the population to explain.
Let's for the moment assume that voters represent the population as a whole. Obviously untrue, but I don't think adjusting this assumption would help answer the question (we'd have to consider all the retired people who consistently vote).
There is a decent portion of the population that is underemployed because of a lack of jobs at their skill level. Let's say this equals our adjusted unemployment number, of all my guesses I have the least idea about this one. So now we've accounted for 30% of the voters.
There are only a few other groups I can think of:
1. People who are employed at the right level, but feel they'd be making more money or would like to make a job shift if there were more jobs. Not sure, but doesn't seem this would make jobs their top issue. At this point it seems something like healthcare would be just as important (in either political direction).
2. People who know unemployed people and are sympathetic or even don't know any and are super-sympathetic. Maybe I'm being too jaded, but again doesn't seem like enough to push it to the top of the list.
3. I thought I had another group, but the Dogfish Head 90 Minute Imperial IPA I just drank is starting to kick in.
Maybe some portion of the above groups (including the one I forgot) makes jobs their top issue. Let's say a whole 20% of the population (which would require a fairly large portion of the above groups since they are only a portion of the total population) defies my jaded world view, that only bring us to 50% of voters. That's a lot but only on the edge of majority. I guess that if the rest of the issues have to split the other 50% then jobs would be the top issue. But not in the supermajority way that I think the meme represents.
This leaves me with only a few possibilities:
1. It's not true. Jobs aren't actually the top issue for voters.
2. The above analysis is correct (or close enough) and while jobs is bigger than any other issue, it isn't actually the top issue for more than half the voters.
3. I vastly misestimated the above numbers and/or left out some significant group that cares about jobs.
4. Jobs is the top issue of super-vocal voters, not voters as a whole.
5. Some group or groups have put the idea of jobs into the heads of voters who otherwise would have other top issues.
6. I'm just missing something completely. This seems very likely.
Again, I'm really asking. I'm not trying to make a point, I just don't understand, most likely due to a lack of knowledge. Although, now that I wrote all this out I'm thinking that something along the lines of #2 is correct, but this post took some time to write and I don't feel like deleting it.
First off, I'm sorry for for everyone who has lost their job in the economic downturn and in general for the unemployed. I in no way want to imply that I don't think it is important to increase the number of available jobs. Also this discussion could easily be seen as influenced by politics, but I'm really just trying to understand the above statement.
The question is if jobs is the top issue on the minds of voters and if so why?
The unemployment rate is about 10% (which is big). But that's only 10% of people who are looking for a job who don't have one, there are a lot of people who have just given up on looking given the poor economy. Not sure what that number is, but I'm thinking it is reasonably to bump the unemployment rate up to 15% to include those who have stopped looking.
So of the people who want a job 15% don't have one. As a matter of economics and ethics that's very bad, but is a small portion of the voters. Let's assume that everyone who doesn't want a job is dependent on someone in the general population of workers (both employed and unemployed) then 15% of the overall population would be unemployed or depend on someone unemployed. I think that's probably an overestimate (we're talking potential voters so kids under 18 don't count), but let's go with it. We've still got 85% of the population to explain.
Let's for the moment assume that voters represent the population as a whole. Obviously untrue, but I don't think adjusting this assumption would help answer the question (we'd have to consider all the retired people who consistently vote).
There is a decent portion of the population that is underemployed because of a lack of jobs at their skill level. Let's say this equals our adjusted unemployment number, of all my guesses I have the least idea about this one. So now we've accounted for 30% of the voters.
There are only a few other groups I can think of:
1. People who are employed at the right level, but feel they'd be making more money or would like to make a job shift if there were more jobs. Not sure, but doesn't seem this would make jobs their top issue. At this point it seems something like healthcare would be just as important (in either political direction).
2. People who know unemployed people and are sympathetic or even don't know any and are super-sympathetic. Maybe I'm being too jaded, but again doesn't seem like enough to push it to the top of the list.
3. I thought I had another group, but the Dogfish Head 90 Minute Imperial IPA I just drank is starting to kick in.
Maybe some portion of the above groups (including the one I forgot) makes jobs their top issue. Let's say a whole 20% of the population (which would require a fairly large portion of the above groups since they are only a portion of the total population) defies my jaded world view, that only bring us to 50% of voters. That's a lot but only on the edge of majority. I guess that if the rest of the issues have to split the other 50% then jobs would be the top issue. But not in the supermajority way that I think the meme represents.
This leaves me with only a few possibilities:
1. It's not true. Jobs aren't actually the top issue for voters.
2. The above analysis is correct (or close enough) and while jobs is bigger than any other issue, it isn't actually the top issue for more than half the voters.
3. I vastly misestimated the above numbers and/or left out some significant group that cares about jobs.
4. Jobs is the top issue of super-vocal voters, not voters as a whole.
5. Some group or groups have put the idea of jobs into the heads of voters who otherwise would have other top issues.
6. I'm just missing something completely. This seems very likely.
Again, I'm really asking. I'm not trying to make a point, I just don't understand, most likely due to a lack of knowledge. Although, now that I wrote all this out I'm thinking that something along the lines of #2 is correct, but this post took some time to write and I don't feel like deleting it.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Shop Class As Soulcraft
Today I finished Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into The Value Of Work by Matthew B. Crawford.
The book makes the argument that separating knowledge from being able to work with the physical world is bad for workers in many ways. It is push back on the knowledge economy. The story is based on his own experience working as a motorcycle repairman after getting his PhD and working some office jobs.
If the subject makes you think of Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are a few shared ideas, but this book isn't insane.
I have mix feelings about this book.
First some good:
Sections of the book are clear articulations of thoughts that have guided my career and education. If anyone wants to understand why I chose electrical engineering over computer science and engineering over other fields, this book would be a good place to start - the core idea being working within the constraints of the physical world and seeing ones efforts cause something to actually work both theoretically and practically. Even though he does makes some comments about repair being superior to design (I think most of those comments are based on ignoring several aspects of design).
He even made some comments on creativity that very nearly matched my own.
Some ok:
He makes some good points about the modern office. Especially about how when people work in teams on poorly defined tasks it is difficult to evaluate the success of both the group and individual, vs in repair where either the repairman gets the motorcycle to work or doesn't. And how this puts managers in a strange position. Also how the knowledge of success vs failure is key to satisfaction in work. He also gets into how demoralizing it can be when the goal is something monetarily based, such as number of pages written, instead of working towards quality.
He also discusses how advertising and marketing reveals people's desires to build and repair their own stuff. He discusses marketing campaigns such as the Scion where they have people purchase options to make them feel like they are working on their car, when they are really just buying more stuff.
Some bad:
He takes most of his points to extremes - such as I toned the comments about the office way down.
My biggest issue with the book is that he encourages people to consider vocational school over college, especially since for some people they can make more money if they are willing to accept blue collar jobs. First, I question if that's true, much of the recent discussion of the labor market I've seen is about how recently those with college degrees are pulling even further ahead of those without. Second, even if it was, there are other reasons to go to college, such as just being an education person. Also this is one of the most "academic" books (outside of science and textbooks) that I've ever read which seems somewhat ironic given its subject matter. It's also a bit odd that a book suggesting going to votech made me feel like I should have taken a philosophy class before reading it.
The author doesn't bother at all with balance. He's all about getting away from specialization of labor as well as other aspects of corporations, but doesn't address what would happen if there was actually a major shift back to engineers doing their own building and writing their own user manuals. It never comes up that products would be significantly more expensive and the economy would tank. Not to mention that he does not suggest how reasonably complex projects would be designed or built. A good example of the lack of balance is when I made comments about creativity on this blog several people made good counterpoints and that's my personal blog - this book did nothing to address that there is more than one side to it.
Finally the size:
I really like the size of the book - it isn't a little pocket book, but still fits in a pocket so as I read through the wheel of time at home, I've been reading this book while doing laundry and hanging out on castro st. All books should be this size and if they need to be longer they can be split into multiple volumes. Also makes me wish there was a mini-kindle that bends a little.
The book makes the argument that separating knowledge from being able to work with the physical world is bad for workers in many ways. It is push back on the knowledge economy. The story is based on his own experience working as a motorcycle repairman after getting his PhD and working some office jobs.
If the subject makes you think of Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are a few shared ideas, but this book isn't insane.
I have mix feelings about this book.
First some good:
Sections of the book are clear articulations of thoughts that have guided my career and education. If anyone wants to understand why I chose electrical engineering over computer science and engineering over other fields, this book would be a good place to start - the core idea being working within the constraints of the physical world and seeing ones efforts cause something to actually work both theoretically and practically. Even though he does makes some comments about repair being superior to design (I think most of those comments are based on ignoring several aspects of design).
He even made some comments on creativity that very nearly matched my own.
Some ok:
He makes some good points about the modern office. Especially about how when people work in teams on poorly defined tasks it is difficult to evaluate the success of both the group and individual, vs in repair where either the repairman gets the motorcycle to work or doesn't. And how this puts managers in a strange position. Also how the knowledge of success vs failure is key to satisfaction in work. He also gets into how demoralizing it can be when the goal is something monetarily based, such as number of pages written, instead of working towards quality.
He also discusses how advertising and marketing reveals people's desires to build and repair their own stuff. He discusses marketing campaigns such as the Scion where they have people purchase options to make them feel like they are working on their car, when they are really just buying more stuff.
Some bad:
He takes most of his points to extremes - such as I toned the comments about the office way down.
My biggest issue with the book is that he encourages people to consider vocational school over college, especially since for some people they can make more money if they are willing to accept blue collar jobs. First, I question if that's true, much of the recent discussion of the labor market I've seen is about how recently those with college degrees are pulling even further ahead of those without. Second, even if it was, there are other reasons to go to college, such as just being an education person. Also this is one of the most "academic" books (outside of science and textbooks) that I've ever read which seems somewhat ironic given its subject matter. It's also a bit odd that a book suggesting going to votech made me feel like I should have taken a philosophy class before reading it.
The author doesn't bother at all with balance. He's all about getting away from specialization of labor as well as other aspects of corporations, but doesn't address what would happen if there was actually a major shift back to engineers doing their own building and writing their own user manuals. It never comes up that products would be significantly more expensive and the economy would tank. Not to mention that he does not suggest how reasonably complex projects would be designed or built. A good example of the lack of balance is when I made comments about creativity on this blog several people made good counterpoints and that's my personal blog - this book did nothing to address that there is more than one side to it.
Finally the size:
I really like the size of the book - it isn't a little pocket book, but still fits in a pocket so as I read through the wheel of time at home, I've been reading this book while doing laundry and hanging out on castro st. All books should be this size and if they need to be longer they can be split into multiple volumes. Also makes me wish there was a mini-kindle that bends a little.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire and the Supreme Court
First - I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire. Did anyone else feel like they were watching a Forrest Gump remake? I liked the film (but I also liked Forest Gump), but for most of the movie I really had this sense that I've seen this before and then it finally hit me.
Second - It felt to me like there were a lot of supreme court nominations recently (3 in the last 4 years). If you want actual information you could look here or you could keep reading my speculation based on no research. The last nomination prior to 2005 was in 1994. So if you are around my age then it's likely the first time you paid attention to nominations wasn't till 2005 and even if it wasn't, your experience is an 11 year stretch without any. Based on that experience you might expect nominations to be very rare.
But (based on guessing) no one gets on the supreme court before the age of 40 and most probably finish up by 80. So a justice keeps the job at most 40 years and if there are 9 of them you'd expect a nomination around every 4 years and probably more often since 40 years is the upper end. So the last 4 years have seen a fairly reasonable rate, it's the 11 years prior to that were odd and screwed up my sense of the supreme court justice turn over rate.
Thanks Steve for the correction.
Second - It felt to me like there were a lot of supreme court nominations recently (3 in the last 4 years). If you want actual information you could look here or you could keep reading my speculation based on no research. The last nomination prior to 2005 was in 1994. So if you are around my age then it's likely the first time you paid attention to nominations wasn't till 2005 and even if it wasn't, your experience is an 11 year stretch without any. Based on that experience you might expect nominations to be very rare.
But (based on guessing) no one gets on the supreme court before the age of 40 and most probably finish up by 80. So a justice keeps the job at most 40 years and if there are 9 of them you'd expect a nomination around every 4 years and probably more often since 40 years is the upper end. So the last 4 years have seen a fairly reasonable rate, it's the 11 years prior to that were odd and screwed up my sense of the supreme court justice turn over rate.
Thanks Steve for the correction.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
CA special election
Here's the results of the California special election. All the budget measures failed. The one thing to pass was limiting raises for the legislature during bad budget years.
I was able to vote the exact opposite of the rest of CA. On one hand I feel like a contrarian, but on the other hand I was the one voting how the legislature asked me to. Maybe I'm the only sucker.
I was able to vote the exact opposite of the rest of CA. On one hand I feel like a contrarian, but on the other hand I was the one voting how the legislature asked me to. Maybe I'm the only sucker.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Perfect Villain
I bought The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of the Lobbyist Jack Abramoff by Gary S. Chafetz a while ago because a friend knows the author. I finally got around to reading it. It would have made a lot more sense to read it before the election, but at that point I didn't need any extra reasons to dislike McCain.
The book describes some of Abramoff's life and work as a lobbyist. The point of the book is to try to show that while he may not have been a great guy and may have cross a few lines, he was no where near the villain that McCain and the Washington Post made him out to be. And that McCain and the Post bent the truth and hid evidence to make Abramoff look worse. My spidey sense was kicking in as I read the book. Partially I'm just wary of any book that comes out against a presidential candidate not long before an election. And the other part is it suggests the truth is rather different from my impression of what is generally accepted (which doesn't mean it is wrong, but requires more supporting evidence). Neither of these is enough to make me think it is false, just enough to make me not sure. Normally with stuff like that I can look it up online and reasonably quickly get at least some sense about it. But I'm coming up with very little on this book. It almost seems like no one read it or no one cares. If anyone knows anything about it or can find any better info I'd appreciate it.
Anyway, even if you ignore the claims about McCain and the Washington Post it still has some interesting info since it details several examples of how lobbyists work. One good example was an Indian tribe that funneled money through charities Abramoff had some control over to a christian right leader so he could lead an anti-gambling movement in a neighboring state to prevent other tribes from starting casinos and creating competition. All of the stories also seemed to involve getting his clients to make large donations to key lawmakers' favorite charities and setting up fact finding missions for senators that happen to involve trips to famous golf courses.
If Chafetz is right about the whole thing then it's that much more to dislike about McCain. But I'm not sure I'd feel that different about Abramoff. Partially because he was doing a lot of questionable stuff. But even more than that, because he plead guilty so I don't feel any conflict about the possibility that he was wrongly convicted since he didn't go to trial.
The book describes some of Abramoff's life and work as a lobbyist. The point of the book is to try to show that while he may not have been a great guy and may have cross a few lines, he was no where near the villain that McCain and the Washington Post made him out to be. And that McCain and the Post bent the truth and hid evidence to make Abramoff look worse. My spidey sense was kicking in as I read the book. Partially I'm just wary of any book that comes out against a presidential candidate not long before an election. And the other part is it suggests the truth is rather different from my impression of what is generally accepted (which doesn't mean it is wrong, but requires more supporting evidence). Neither of these is enough to make me think it is false, just enough to make me not sure. Normally with stuff like that I can look it up online and reasonably quickly get at least some sense about it. But I'm coming up with very little on this book. It almost seems like no one read it or no one cares. If anyone knows anything about it or can find any better info I'd appreciate it.
Anyway, even if you ignore the claims about McCain and the Washington Post it still has some interesting info since it details several examples of how lobbyists work. One good example was an Indian tribe that funneled money through charities Abramoff had some control over to a christian right leader so he could lead an anti-gambling movement in a neighboring state to prevent other tribes from starting casinos and creating competition. All of the stories also seemed to involve getting his clients to make large donations to key lawmakers' favorite charities and setting up fact finding missions for senators that happen to involve trips to famous golf courses.
If Chafetz is right about the whole thing then it's that much more to dislike about McCain. But I'm not sure I'd feel that different about Abramoff. Partially because he was doing a lot of questionable stuff. But even more than that, because he plead guilty so I don't feel any conflict about the possibility that he was wrongly convicted since he didn't go to trial.
Friday, January 30, 2009
TV, TV, TV, Rent, Eating, President, Violent Music
Seems like Scrubs has come part way back. I'm very glad to see them do some scenes outside the hospital. I claim that's the key to making the show good again. Other than maybe at the very beginning I think all the funny and key moments of the show have either been outside the hospital or set up by something outside the hospital. Although I do feel like this entire season of scrubs is that episode of arrested development where they make a last ditch effort to save the family/show. And what is with coffeebucks? They had the cafeteria which they were able to use as a large space or zoom in to a table to make it small space. But now they just have the small area that makes me feel claustrophobic.
I think Pysch as a show on its own is ok, but not quite good enough to watch. But the fact it is a constant mockery of psychics just puts it over the worth watching bar for me. Plus it is set in Santa Barbara so I get to keep going - oh, I used to live near there. Whoa - they just had a victim with an ICD that they used to identify him. The reasons to watch keep adding up.
I keep wondering when they are going to finally post tonight's episode of BSG online, but I guess I should at least wait till the episode has finished playing on TV before getting impatient. I'm increasingly thinking that the music (especially the drums during action scenes, but also other selections) does a lot to make the show. Which I guess was really brought out by the whole All Along the Watchtower thing.
I just found out if I renew my lease for a year my rent is going up less than 1%! Hopefully raises this year won't match apartment prices.
I finally got to the grocery store so no more having a spoonful of peanut butter for breakfast any more (don't worry it is not from that company with the recall).
George Bush isn't acting as president any more (I still maintain he never won to begin with)! That finally started to sink in today. Someone should keep an eye on Dick Cheney - I feel like he could be even more dangerous now that the world isn't watching him than he was before (maybe I've watched The Usual Suspects too many times). I like the theory that Cheney was in a wheel chair so he wouldn't have to stand when Obama was sworn in (ok, I don't believe it, but I like it). I know I'm not really qualified to answer this, but I feel rather confident in saying that having a black president does not mean racism is over or that we can all forget about slavery - now all those talk show hosts can stop asking.
Music needs to get more violent. I feel like when I was growing up rap and alternative rock gave old people something to worry about (ok, mostly just rap, but I like to think I was listening to something edgy). The worrying old people sounded out of it, and didn't get it, but at least you could sort of see how they would worry that violent music might cause violence. But now it seems like social networking has taken its place. It is one thing to go on the radio and talk about the evils of violent music, it is quite another to talk about how facebook/twitter/yelp are ruining society (or to quote Emerson and Walden to prove facebook is ruining universities - seriously, that was on NPR this morning). I think every conversation about it can be boiled down to - "I'm old and this is new so it must be bad. I've only used it for a little bit and have not yet figured out how to use it intelligently so everyone must be wasting their life on it." In order to save these people some dignity, music needs to get more violent so they have something semi-reasonable to worry about again. I'm not saying music isn't violent now, it is just that we have gotten used to it (almost makes you think we'll get used to facebook/twitter/yelp in a couple years and wonder what everyone was worrying about...), but it needs to quickly get a lot more violent so people take notice again.
I think Pysch as a show on its own is ok, but not quite good enough to watch. But the fact it is a constant mockery of psychics just puts it over the worth watching bar for me. Plus it is set in Santa Barbara so I get to keep going - oh, I used to live near there. Whoa - they just had a victim with an ICD that they used to identify him. The reasons to watch keep adding up.
I keep wondering when they are going to finally post tonight's episode of BSG online, but I guess I should at least wait till the episode has finished playing on TV before getting impatient. I'm increasingly thinking that the music (especially the drums during action scenes, but also other selections) does a lot to make the show. Which I guess was really brought out by the whole All Along the Watchtower thing.
I just found out if I renew my lease for a year my rent is going up less than 1%! Hopefully raises this year won't match apartment prices.
I finally got to the grocery store so no more having a spoonful of peanut butter for breakfast any more (don't worry it is not from that company with the recall).
George Bush isn't acting as president any more (I still maintain he never won to begin with)! That finally started to sink in today. Someone should keep an eye on Dick Cheney - I feel like he could be even more dangerous now that the world isn't watching him than he was before (maybe I've watched The Usual Suspects too many times). I like the theory that Cheney was in a wheel chair so he wouldn't have to stand when Obama was sworn in (ok, I don't believe it, but I like it). I know I'm not really qualified to answer this, but I feel rather confident in saying that having a black president does not mean racism is over or that we can all forget about slavery - now all those talk show hosts can stop asking.
Music needs to get more violent. I feel like when I was growing up rap and alternative rock gave old people something to worry about (ok, mostly just rap, but I like to think I was listening to something edgy). The worrying old people sounded out of it, and didn't get it, but at least you could sort of see how they would worry that violent music might cause violence. But now it seems like social networking has taken its place. It is one thing to go on the radio and talk about the evils of violent music, it is quite another to talk about how facebook/twitter/yelp are ruining society (or to quote Emerson and Walden to prove facebook is ruining universities - seriously, that was on NPR this morning). I think every conversation about it can be boiled down to - "I'm old and this is new so it must be bad. I've only used it for a little bit and have not yet figured out how to use it intelligently so everyone must be wasting their life on it." In order to save these people some dignity, music needs to get more violent so they have something semi-reasonable to worry about again. I'm not saying music isn't violent now, it is just that we have gotten used to it (almost makes you think we'll get used to facebook/twitter/yelp in a couple years and wonder what everyone was worrying about...), but it needs to quickly get a lot more violent so people take notice again.
Friday, November 14, 2008
So close
From this NYT article:
Chief Justice Roberts took issue with both restrictions. The Navy had agreed to shut down its sonar if marine mammals were sighted within 200 yards. The appeals court’s requirement that it increase the zone to 2,200 yards, Chief Justice Roberts said, would “expand the surface area of the shutdown zone by a factor of over 100,” given “the exponential relationship between radius length and surface area.”
So close to sounding smart and yet so far. Well, at least he got the numbers right.
(x^2 is a polynomial, 2^x is an exponential function, the area of a circle would get really big really fast if it was an exponential function of the radius)
Am I being really petty? Yes.
Chief Justice Roberts took issue with both restrictions. The Navy had agreed to shut down its sonar if marine mammals were sighted within 200 yards. The appeals court’s requirement that it increase the zone to 2,200 yards, Chief Justice Roberts said, would “expand the surface area of the shutdown zone by a factor of over 100,” given “the exponential relationship between radius length and surface area.”
So close to sounding smart and yet so far. Well, at least he got the numbers right.
(x^2 is a polynomial, 2^x is an exponential function, the area of a circle would get really big really fast if it was an exponential function of the radius)
Am I being really petty? Yes.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Election
Yay Obama!!!
I want to be super excited about Obama, but being happy about that win was dampened a bit by prop 8 passing (making same sex marriage unconstitutional in California). While same sex marriage is far from my top voting issue, it does amaze me that at the same time the first non-white president was elected that the California constitution was changed to specifically deny a group of people a right. Of the group I hang out with at work, the one other person who can vote in the US felt the same way so the mood wasn't a cheery as it could have been otherwise. Although last night it was interesting as people gathered in each other's cubes to watch the map change colors (favorite map moment was when NYT had colored Texas blue). Favorite (paraphrased) line of the night was when two Americans and two Iranians were in my cube:
American: "Do you think they'll re-elect Ahmadinejad next year"
Iranian: "Not sure, they might"
American: "But don't they think he's crazy"
Iranian: "Well, some do... but Bush got re-elected"
The CA ballot measures (other than 8) lined up basically how I was hoping - including funding for a fast train from SF to LA (I don't know if it is good for the state or not, but I voted for it because I want one!) And the abortion bill was defeated (although just barely).
Both of the crazy San Francisco measures were defeated (unfortunately I'm in a different county so I didn't get to vote on them). One was to legalize prostitution. Not in a controlled way like in Amsterdam, but cops would just stop arresting them. And the San Francisco sewage treatment plant was not named after George W Bush (largely because the workers did not want to work at a place named after him), but I think it is awesome that they tried.
I thought this Joy of Tech comic was only ok, until I got to the bottom left - HA!
And just in case you want to know how to say hello and thank you in Egypt (at least according to the tour book):
Hello: sa-lam'a-lay-kum
Thank you: shu-kran
I want to be super excited about Obama, but being happy about that win was dampened a bit by prop 8 passing (making same sex marriage unconstitutional in California). While same sex marriage is far from my top voting issue, it does amaze me that at the same time the first non-white president was elected that the California constitution was changed to specifically deny a group of people a right. Of the group I hang out with at work, the one other person who can vote in the US felt the same way so the mood wasn't a cheery as it could have been otherwise. Although last night it was interesting as people gathered in each other's cubes to watch the map change colors (favorite map moment was when NYT had colored Texas blue). Favorite (paraphrased) line of the night was when two Americans and two Iranians were in my cube:
American: "Do you think they'll re-elect Ahmadinejad next year"
Iranian: "Not sure, they might"
American: "But don't they think he's crazy"
Iranian: "Well, some do... but Bush got re-elected"
The CA ballot measures (other than 8) lined up basically how I was hoping - including funding for a fast train from SF to LA (I don't know if it is good for the state or not, but I voted for it because I want one!) And the abortion bill was defeated (although just barely).
Both of the crazy San Francisco measures were defeated (unfortunately I'm in a different county so I didn't get to vote on them). One was to legalize prostitution. Not in a controlled way like in Amsterdam, but cops would just stop arresting them. And the San Francisco sewage treatment plant was not named after George W Bush (largely because the workers did not want to work at a place named after him), but I think it is awesome that they tried.
I thought this Joy of Tech comic was only ok, until I got to the bottom left - HA!
And just in case you want to know how to say hello and thank you in Egypt (at least according to the tour book):
Hello: sa-lam'a-lay-kum
Thank you: shu-kran
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Grab Bag of Half Formed Thoughts
Apartment rent rates in California should have two different daily values, the insanely high one we pay now for when it doesn't rain and a midwestern rate for when it does rain. Charging normal apartment rates in California on days when it rains is like an ISP charging for days when internet access goes down. I'm cool with paying the mortgage on a 4 bedroom house and getting a 600 sq ft apartment with an outdoor walk to the washer/drier, but only if it comes with sun shine.
If cops can fine me for driving too fast on a sunny dry day with few other cars on the road, why can't I fine them for tail gating when it is raining?
Gas is $3.05! That's like free here. I'm going to start pouring a bit on the sidewalk for Elijah. If it gets under $3/gal I'm going to have a gas fire party at my apartment. Come to see the gasoline in a barrel burn and stay to see if the wooden apartment complex goes up in flames. Drill Baby Drill! Not to toot my own horn, but this is why I've been saying environmentalists shouldn't combine forces with other causes (oil independence, price of gas...) - if you say save the earth and save money on gas and then gas gets cheap it is easy to forget the core message. And if you push oil independence then more drilling starts to sound like a good idea (well, it still isn't, but it sounds like it). Of course on the other hand I don't like the new environmental commercials that show kids and scary music. I mean sure, it is all about the kids and you should be scared, but I think we can do better than scare tactics. And why do environmental groups send letters asking for money? Isn't that what they are campaigning against?
Why is it that when I spend $22 on organic chips and salsa at whole foods I worry about getting the $0.05 discount for bringing my own bag?
Am I a Palin certified real American? Almost all indicators point to no (such as my last comment). But I did grow up in the suburbs in Kansas and Ohio. Sure I'm skipping over the time in Paris and being raised Jewish and that since I turned 18 I've lived in Boston and California. But I really feel like where I grew up gives me a running chance of at least having been a real American even if I'm not now. Although is Overland Park real America? Or is it an island of fake America in a sea of real America? Seriously if you're from Overland Park I'm curious if you think it counts as Palin certified real America or not? I'd also throw in that while I did not do a lot of manual labor while I was growing up, I would count myself as hardworking when it came to school. Kind of ironic that being a hard working real American is what led to me becoming a costal elitist.
So a real American is someone in a small town working hard, especially someone working a salt of the earth job like farming, just to scrape by and putting in those long hours so their kids can have a better life and don't want the government getting too involved in their life. Hm, apparently the realest Americans are illegal immigrants.
If you are looking for new podcasts the first on my list would be the Bugle (Eric gets credit for introducing me to it). I think the first half is often funnier than the daily show. John Oliver definitely comes across funnier in the podcast than on the daily show. A podcast I picked up recently is The Moth. It is a bit more hit and miss, but if you're looking for podcasts it is worth checking out. It is real people telling real stories and some of them are amusing.
Why doesn't anyone specify that fivethirtyeight.com has to be spelled out? I've spent so long wondering why the hell 538.com is such a big deal!
If cops can fine me for driving too fast on a sunny dry day with few other cars on the road, why can't I fine them for tail gating when it is raining?
Gas is $3.05! That's like free here. I'm going to start pouring a bit on the sidewalk for Elijah. If it gets under $3/gal I'm going to have a gas fire party at my apartment. Come to see the gasoline in a barrel burn and stay to see if the wooden apartment complex goes up in flames. Drill Baby Drill! Not to toot my own horn, but this is why I've been saying environmentalists shouldn't combine forces with other causes (oil independence, price of gas...) - if you say save the earth and save money on gas and then gas gets cheap it is easy to forget the core message. And if you push oil independence then more drilling starts to sound like a good idea (well, it still isn't, but it sounds like it). Of course on the other hand I don't like the new environmental commercials that show kids and scary music. I mean sure, it is all about the kids and you should be scared, but I think we can do better than scare tactics. And why do environmental groups send letters asking for money? Isn't that what they are campaigning against?
Why is it that when I spend $22 on organic chips and salsa at whole foods I worry about getting the $0.05 discount for bringing my own bag?
Am I a Palin certified real American? Almost all indicators point to no (such as my last comment). But I did grow up in the suburbs in Kansas and Ohio. Sure I'm skipping over the time in Paris and being raised Jewish and that since I turned 18 I've lived in Boston and California. But I really feel like where I grew up gives me a running chance of at least having been a real American even if I'm not now. Although is Overland Park real America? Or is it an island of fake America in a sea of real America? Seriously if you're from Overland Park I'm curious if you think it counts as Palin certified real America or not? I'd also throw in that while I did not do a lot of manual labor while I was growing up, I would count myself as hardworking when it came to school. Kind of ironic that being a hard working real American is what led to me becoming a costal elitist.
So a real American is someone in a small town working hard, especially someone working a salt of the earth job like farming, just to scrape by and putting in those long hours so their kids can have a better life and don't want the government getting too involved in their life. Hm, apparently the realest Americans are illegal immigrants.
If you are looking for new podcasts the first on my list would be the Bugle (Eric gets credit for introducing me to it). I think the first half is often funnier than the daily show. John Oliver definitely comes across funnier in the podcast than on the daily show. A podcast I picked up recently is The Moth. It is a bit more hit and miss, but if you're looking for podcasts it is worth checking out. It is real people telling real stories and some of them are amusing.
Why doesn't anyone specify that fivethirtyeight.com has to be spelled out? I've spent so long wondering why the hell 538.com is such a big deal!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Euphemism
It seems like socialism is a bad word in the US (well, at least in parts of the US or for people pandering to parts of the US).
The word czar though is totally ok. It is ok to have a bailout czar, just as long as he doesn't do anything too socialist. Even though the word czar basically means king, which is definitely not an ok word in the US. Obviously the positions wouldn't get very far if they were called: Drug King, Copyright King, Bailout King, Terrorism King... Ok, czar is really closer to the word emperor, but same idea.
So isn't it time to just find a foreign word for socialism? I'm not saying the US should become socialist, but it would be nice to be able to discuss ideas that seem socialist. Maybe another good Russian word just to make it extra ironic.
The word czar though is totally ok. It is ok to have a bailout czar, just as long as he doesn't do anything too socialist. Even though the word czar basically means king, which is definitely not an ok word in the US. Obviously the positions wouldn't get very far if they were called: Drug King, Copyright King, Bailout King, Terrorism King... Ok, czar is really closer to the word emperor, but same idea.
So isn't it time to just find a foreign word for socialism? I'm not saying the US should become socialist, but it would be nice to be able to discuss ideas that seem socialist. Maybe another good Russian word just to make it extra ironic.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Uhhh - WTF?
I try not to do this many posts in a row, but WTF!
You gotta watch this.
After seeing this I wish I hadn't already voted so I could make the line next to Obama's name a little thicker (although the instructions said to make a thin line so maybe it is best that I already sent in my ballot).
Well, I used "WTF" so I feel compelled to link to this classic.
You gotta watch this.
After seeing this I wish I hadn't already voted so I could make the line next to Obama's name a little thicker (although the instructions said to make a thin line so maybe it is best that I already sent in my ballot).
Well, I used "WTF" so I feel compelled to link to this classic.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Voting in CA
This post is just for CA voters.
Here are the Sierra Club's endorsements. Even if you're not that interested in who they endorse, it is worth checking their opinions on props 7 and 10. These claim to be pro-environmental, but the Sierra Club claims they would actually do more harm than good.
Oh and Democrats oppose 7 and are neutral on 10 and Republicans oppose both 7 and 10.
In this post I'm not trying to push people to vote a certain way, but I was surprised by this so I thought others would want to know.
Here are the Sierra Club's endorsements. Even if you're not that interested in who they endorse, it is worth checking their opinions on props 7 and 10. These claim to be pro-environmental, but the Sierra Club claims they would actually do more harm than good.
Oh and Democrats oppose 7 and are neutral on 10 and Republicans oppose both 7 and 10.
In this post I'm not trying to push people to vote a certain way, but I was surprised by this so I thought others would want to know.
Fight Club
Is anyone else reminded of Fight Club? At the end they literally implode the major financial institutions. While not as dramatic, it sort of seems like we're finding out what would have happened if they did it a bit more figuratively.
Here's the latest Despair poster which seems appropriate:
Here's the latest Despair poster which seems appropriate:
Friday, October 03, 2008
Debate
I just watched the VP debate (it is up on hulu.com if you missed it). I did ok through most of it, but at a certain point I got that head about to explode feeling coming on. So I saved all but one of you from some of my rambling by using email instead of this blog to vent.
Although I do have to ask - what's with all the winking? Did anyone else find that a little uncomfortable?
And I know it is classic politics to answer a question without actually saying anything. But Palin has taken it to a new level where she can put together over a minute's worth of words that don't even mean anything! It's like the Chomskybot if it left out a few parts of speech. Whoa - I just figured out how to beat the Turing test! The turing test is if you ask questions of a computer and of a person and cannot tell which is which then the computer passes the test. As long as the person the computer is being compared against is Palin the computer could easily pass.
Oh and as everyone clearly knows - I'm a cowboy. I will continue to remind you that I am a cowboy until you start to believe it. As a cowboy and so speaking as a cowboy does, I will repeat my main point that everyone knows I am a cowboy. Sure, that may be the most absurd thing you've ever heard, us cowboys understand that, but nevertheless I have a proven track record of being a cowboy. It is so intuitively obvious that I am a cowboy, or should I say "cowboy obvious" *wink*, and everyone knows my record of being a cowboy so well that there is no point in bringing up a single example or fact indicating that I am a cowboy.
Finally (or it was finally the first time I wrote this post) - Biden is from Scranton - why isn't he bringing up The Office and, more seriously, why isn't the The Office incorporating him (or at least discussion of him) into the show?
Well to end this post *inappropriately timed wink* written by this cowboy I will simply ask you to remember that I am a cowboy. Now to say thank you over and over again as fast as possible while giggling, which is how cowboys act at the end of debates.
Although I do have to ask - what's with all the winking? Did anyone else find that a little uncomfortable?
And I know it is classic politics to answer a question without actually saying anything. But Palin has taken it to a new level where she can put together over a minute's worth of words that don't even mean anything! It's like the Chomskybot if it left out a few parts of speech. Whoa - I just figured out how to beat the Turing test! The turing test is if you ask questions of a computer and of a person and cannot tell which is which then the computer passes the test. As long as the person the computer is being compared against is Palin the computer could easily pass.
Oh and as everyone clearly knows - I'm a cowboy. I will continue to remind you that I am a cowboy until you start to believe it. As a cowboy and so speaking as a cowboy does, I will repeat my main point that everyone knows I am a cowboy. Sure, that may be the most absurd thing you've ever heard, us cowboys understand that, but nevertheless I have a proven track record of being a cowboy. It is so intuitively obvious that I am a cowboy, or should I say "cowboy obvious" *wink*, and everyone knows my record of being a cowboy so well that there is no point in bringing up a single example or fact indicating that I am a cowboy.
Finally (or it was finally the first time I wrote this post) - Biden is from Scranton - why isn't he bringing up The Office and, more seriously, why isn't the The Office incorporating him (or at least discussion of him) into the show?
Well to end this post *inappropriately timed wink* written by this cowboy I will simply ask you to remember that I am a cowboy. Now to say thank you over and over again as fast as possible while giggling, which is how cowboys act at the end of debates.
Preconditions
Ok, one more article. This one is describing a meeting of 5 former secretaries of state where they all agreed the next president should meet with Iran without preconditions.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Support The Earth
Another idea that won't go anywhere and probably wouldn't work even if it did:
Why not tie in the bailout with improving the energy efficiency of homes and buildings? Make it easier to renegotiate a foreclosure if the person commits to improving the energy efficiency of the home (even just simple stuff like adding insulation or upgrading appliances). Or give people more financial incentives to improve energy efficiency and install solar panels or small wind turbines - won't be a direct impact but more energy efficient homes are worth more so this would generally help keep housing prices from dropping as much. Or if a bank is going to take bailout money they should have to improve the efficiency of their buildings or commit to investing a certain amount in alternative energy companies.
I know my ideas are not that workable, but why isn't congress being at least a little creative? It seems like it might lead to better ways to improve the economy and it might help with negotiations - such as helping veterans would make it much harder to vote against and helping the Earth might convince some on the liberal side.
Why not tie in the bailout with improving the energy efficiency of homes and buildings? Make it easier to renegotiate a foreclosure if the person commits to improving the energy efficiency of the home (even just simple stuff like adding insulation or upgrading appliances). Or give people more financial incentives to improve energy efficiency and install solar panels or small wind turbines - won't be a direct impact but more energy efficient homes are worth more so this would generally help keep housing prices from dropping as much. Or if a bank is going to take bailout money they should have to improve the efficiency of their buildings or commit to investing a certain amount in alternative energy companies.
I know my ideas are not that workable, but why isn't congress being at least a little creative? It seems like it might lead to better ways to improve the economy and it might help with negotiations - such as helping veterans would make it much harder to vote against and helping the Earth might convince some on the liberal side.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Is America The Greatest Country On Earth?
Clearly a presidential candidate has to strongly assert that America is the greatest country on Earth if he/she wants a shot at winning.
But, is America the greatest country on Earth? I'm not saying I think it is not, I just don't know if it is. I feel confident it is high on the list. Of course to take the question seriously you'd have to define what you mean by greatest. Do most people in America think America is the greatest country on Earth? Do all leaders of countries claim theirs is the greatest country on Earth (seems like there would be some countries where that would be too absurd for even a politician to say)? Do most people in other countries think their country is the greatest on Earth? What portion of people in other countries think America is the greatest country on Earth? What portion of people in other countries thought America was the greatest country on Earth 9 years ago? I'm not asking any of these questions to be rhetorical - I really have no idea what the answer is to any of them.
I realize a leader calling America the greatest country on Earth is in there with flag pins as a necessary but meaningless gesture (not that some leaders don't mean it, but since they all have to say it, you don't know what they really think). But I think it would be interesting to know what they really think. Because it seems like it would lead to very different foreign policies. If America is definitively the greatest country on Earth it would probably approach other countries differently than if it was a great country by reasonable measures, but not definitively the best.
But, is America the greatest country on Earth? I'm not saying I think it is not, I just don't know if it is. I feel confident it is high on the list. Of course to take the question seriously you'd have to define what you mean by greatest. Do most people in America think America is the greatest country on Earth? Do all leaders of countries claim theirs is the greatest country on Earth (seems like there would be some countries where that would be too absurd for even a politician to say)? Do most people in other countries think their country is the greatest on Earth? What portion of people in other countries think America is the greatest country on Earth? What portion of people in other countries thought America was the greatest country on Earth 9 years ago? I'm not asking any of these questions to be rhetorical - I really have no idea what the answer is to any of them.
I realize a leader calling America the greatest country on Earth is in there with flag pins as a necessary but meaningless gesture (not that some leaders don't mean it, but since they all have to say it, you don't know what they really think). But I think it would be interesting to know what they really think. Because it seems like it would lead to very different foreign policies. If America is definitively the greatest country on Earth it would probably approach other countries differently than if it was a great country by reasonable measures, but not definitively the best.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The Debate
I would blog about watching the debate, but I've suspended this blog until I find a way to fix the economy.
If only I had John Oliver asking me if I'm proud of that joke it would go from a bad joke to a funny bad joke (that's a reference for fans of The Bugle).
I was a bit disappointed by the debate. Ok, really I was just watching in case there was a "you forgot Poland" moment. But it felt a little like they were both phoning it in - watch Kerry and Bush and it feels like they were a bit more into it. Although I guess two people speaking intelligently and staying reasonably calm is a good sign. I also learned that McCain takes notes with a marker and writes really really big (what was up with that? and why can't I find a picture of it online?). Oh, and I did enjoy hanging out with the people I was watching it with.
I do have to say that it drives me crazy when old people tell young people that they don't understand with the implication that it is because they are too young. Experience is good and all, but young people are perfectly capable of understanding things. Major leaps in science often come from the young (look at the two most famous scientists: Newton was 25 when he published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Einstein was 42 when he won the Nobel prize and most of his work was well before that). Major leaders can be young (Martin Luther King was 26 when he lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott). And there's the common idea that people have their young kids fix their computers. Heck here's a national security question: The Air Force is setting up a center for handling cyber warfare because it is likely to be a major issue in the future (there was actually a cyber attack on Georgia during the real one) - McCain do you understand what cyber warfare is, do you even understand how to connect your computer to the internet? I know that telling Obama he doesn't understand because he's a whipper snapper isn't exactly what McCain was going after, but as you can probably tell it is the nerve it struck for me.
Of course, walking 5 miles on a hot day to get to and from Target in flip flops even thought I almost immediately realized there was a blister starting makes me question the value of my opinion.
If only I had John Oliver asking me if I'm proud of that joke it would go from a bad joke to a funny bad joke (that's a reference for fans of The Bugle).
I was a bit disappointed by the debate. Ok, really I was just watching in case there was a "you forgot Poland" moment. But it felt a little like they were both phoning it in - watch Kerry and Bush and it feels like they were a bit more into it. Although I guess two people speaking intelligently and staying reasonably calm is a good sign. I also learned that McCain takes notes with a marker and writes really really big (what was up with that? and why can't I find a picture of it online?). Oh, and I did enjoy hanging out with the people I was watching it with.
I do have to say that it drives me crazy when old people tell young people that they don't understand with the implication that it is because they are too young. Experience is good and all, but young people are perfectly capable of understanding things. Major leaps in science often come from the young (look at the two most famous scientists: Newton was 25 when he published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Einstein was 42 when he won the Nobel prize and most of his work was well before that). Major leaders can be young (Martin Luther King was 26 when he lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott). And there's the common idea that people have their young kids fix their computers. Heck here's a national security question: The Air Force is setting up a center for handling cyber warfare because it is likely to be a major issue in the future (there was actually a cyber attack on Georgia during the real one) - McCain do you understand what cyber warfare is, do you even understand how to connect your computer to the internet? I know that telling Obama he doesn't understand because he's a whipper snapper isn't exactly what McCain was going after, but as you can probably tell it is the nerve it struck for me.
Of course, walking 5 miles on a hot day to get to and from Target in flip flops even thought I almost immediately realized there was a blister starting makes me question the value of my opinion.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Support The Troops
I have no idea if this would work at all or what the exact details would be. But here it goes:
The government is about to spend a bunch of money trying to stabilize the economy and the housing market in particular. One approach is to deal directly with the banks, but that's questionable since they are the ones that took the risk. Another is to deal with the people who took on loans they cannot pay, but that again gets in the world of rewarding people who took risks (bit fuzzier in this case). Also it is probably harder to know where to target payments in order to maximize the impact on the economy. But there is a group that everyone agrees should be supported - as I'm told over and over by bumper stickers.
So here's the crazy idea - setup a program to help veterans buy homes. Probably couldn't be the whole fix, but helping a large group of people purchase homes might do a lot to stabilize prices and keep those mortgages owned by banks from dropping too far in value. I know hospitals and education and other stuff is really what veterans need to help with returning from combat, but I bet being able to buy a house wouldn't hurt. Plus, for once I would understand what the heck those bumper stickers are telling me to do.
The government is about to spend a bunch of money trying to stabilize the economy and the housing market in particular. One approach is to deal directly with the banks, but that's questionable since they are the ones that took the risk. Another is to deal with the people who took on loans they cannot pay, but that again gets in the world of rewarding people who took risks (bit fuzzier in this case). Also it is probably harder to know where to target payments in order to maximize the impact on the economy. But there is a group that everyone agrees should be supported - as I'm told over and over by bumper stickers.
So here's the crazy idea - setup a program to help veterans buy homes. Probably couldn't be the whole fix, but helping a large group of people purchase homes might do a lot to stabilize prices and keep those mortgages owned by banks from dropping too far in value. I know hospitals and education and other stuff is really what veterans need to help with returning from combat, but I bet being able to buy a house wouldn't hurt. Plus, for once I would understand what the heck those bumper stickers are telling me to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)