Main

November 1, 2007

8.6 million more Americans uninsured in 2006 than in 2000

A report released to today by the Economic Policy Institute, "a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank," shows that the percentage of uninsured Americans rose 2.1% from 2000 to 2006. According to the report, employer-provided health coverage, which is the predominant form of health coverage in the United States, fell 4.5% in the same period.

Lest you think that you're safe in your white-collar job, be warned! The report emphasizes that loss of coverage occurred "across the socio-economic spectrum. [...] Even the most highly educated and highest wage workers had lower rates of insurance coverage in 2006 than in 2000." In 2006, only 61.4% of "white-collar" workers were covered by an employer's health insurance.

At the same time, the number of uninsured workers rose 2.8%. "Uninsured workers" are workers who in jobs where employer-provided heath coverage was never an option. The ethnic composition of uninsured workers is, of course, skewed. People identified as "hispanic" make up 40% of the uninsured workers category.

The point of this report is to show that private healthcare is not a viable option. Even as people are remain employed, they lose healthcare coverage. While Republicans and other proponents of private healthcare view healthcare as a commodity, the report suggests that that model is flawed. Moreover, non-employer-provided private healthcare is very expensive for just basic care, even discounting co-pays and deductibles.

Also, observe an interesting footnote that contradicts what President Bush and others have said about SCHIP expansion:

Opponents of SCHIP expansion argue that the availability of a public insurance option leads parents to voluntarily drop private coverage and shift their children's coverage to the public sector. As shown in an EPI Economic Snapshot, research shows very little of such "crowding out" actually occurs. The large majority of SCHIP recipients—86%—were either not covered six months before entering SCHIP or had lost private coverage within six months prior to enrolling.

Republicans, who profess to believe in a free market (except where it hinders the ability of a firm to make a lot of money, in which case, Republicans believe that the government should assist those firms, while at the same time insisting that government should not assist individuals), argue that the government's sheer size and scope is an unfair advantage, and government's entry into a given industry will cause firms to leave that industry because they cannot effectively compete with the government. This is called "crowding out." It's the number one reason why President Bush and others oppose a government-run healthcare system. This justification is based on the assumption that healthcare is and ought to be a commodity available for sale in the open market, like a car, refrigerator, or toothpaste.

The above blockquote shows that the "crowding out" effect is negligible, since 86% of the people who would be covered by SCHIP weren't even buying private insurance, anyway! It's not that the government pushed consumers toward private healthcare; quite the opposite, since, in losing coverage, the consumers were pushed out by private healthcare providers.

The "invisible hand" metaphor articulated by Adam Smith (in doing something good for yourself, you will necessary do good for society) works only when the motives of both the individual and society are the same. When it comes to healthcare, the motives of the health insurance company and the customer are actually in opposition. The interest of the insurance company is in making profit, and to do that, it must pay out as little as possible to customers. The interest of the customer is in getting well, and to do that, the customer must receive an unknown amount of care, which equates to an unknown amount of money. In order to get well, a customer may need only to see a doctor and receive some pills; insurance companies like doing this because it minimizes the amount of money it has to spend. On the other hand, the stories from Michael Moore's Sicko were about customers who needed a tremendous amount of expensive care: diagnosis with expensive equipment, multiple expensive surgeries, treatment with expensive drugs, and possibly expensive aftercare. Insurance companies, if they're rational, hate these customers, since it is these customers that decrease their profits. And, it turns out, they often refuse to pay for treatment, or they direct their doctors not to provide expensive treatments, even while the doctors themselves may know that it is exactly that expensive treatment that could cure them. (There might be a possibility that the treatment may not cure them, but ethically, a doctor is obligated to try to cure a patient even if that cure might be expensive; in the trade-off between cost and human life, human life should always win.)

Ironically, the customers who need healthcare most are those customers for whom insurance companies want to provide healthcare the least. This is why private health insurance doesn't make practical sense. The needs of both parties are diametrically opposed, as compared to, say, a consumer who is in need of a toothbrush.

The government, on the other hand, is not in the business of making profit. It is in the business of ensuring that its citizens live. (If you disagree with this statement as one of government's objectives, then you also necessarily disagree with the existence of public police departments, fire departments, and emergency rooms, since these are all services that could be provided by private companies based on fees or subscriptions.) The government's incentive in a business is not profit, so it can afford to engage in functions that private industry may not, such as providing healthcare at cost or even taking a loss, all in the name of, again, not profit, but the continued survival of its citizens. It is for this reason that healthcare should not be controlled by the government, not by private firms.

December 29, 2006

Comments disabled

Comments and trackbacks will be disabled until further notice. Twice in two days, comment spam robots maxed out my running processes and took down my web site. I thought that the TypeKey system would prevent that, but apparently it doesn't work; or, the spam robots have figured out a way around TypeKey. I will need to look into other measures to prevent comment spam attacks.

And what are these attacks for? Kids having fun? No; advertising. Marketing. These comment spam robots want to sell things, increase Google PageRanks, and make some money for their owners.

November 24, 2006

Consider me published!

While doing my semi-regular checking of server logs to see who's coming to my site, I found an interesting URL. It links to Professor Tom Rosengarth's syllabus for BUS 201, a liberal arts class offered at Bridgewater University, a liberal-arts college in Virginia.

One of my blog entries, "Liberal vs. Conservative: What Does It Mean?" was selected as the class's reading for Nov. 6, under the title "Conservative vs. liberal views - one description." The reading was scheduled, aptly, for the Election Day class and placed in Unit Five, "Ethical and Spiritual Growth," along with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail," an excerpt from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and Bible passages from the book of Isaiah, Paul's letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, and the Gospel of Matthew. These readings all dealt with various approaches to ethics, but I think my article's being there just happened to be because Election Day occurred within this particular unit. Still, though, it's good company to be in.

I wrote the class's instructor to see what he thought of the entry, why he selected it (there are certainly better summaries of what it means to be a liberal or a conservative out there), and what his students thought of it. We'll wait and see.

July 19, 2006

AOL dirty tricks manual, and more

Consumerist was anonymously sent a plain manilla envelope one day. Inside was an eighty-page booklet entitled AOL Member Retention Manual. The manual is the guide AOL sales reps use to try and lure you back in if you call up AOL and say that you want to cancel your service. There are a hundred thousand tactics located within the manual's pages, different ways of wearing a customer down to the point where it's easier just to agree to stay with AOL than try to cancel. (Via Boing Boing.)

Conservatives cannot govern

This according to an interesting paper by Alan Wolfe, who teaches political science at Boston College. Wolfe doesn't say that conservatives can't govern because they're incompetent; he says that they can't govern because they don't believe in government. At its heart, conservatism, says Wolfe, is the belief in tiny, tiny government. The problem is that (1) the United States is not an inherently conservative country ("In Europe, a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, justified the privileges of the nobility, and welcomed the intervention of a state-affiliated clergy into politics") and (2) whatever "conservatism" used to be, the G.W. Bush fellows are not conservative.

The paper is liberally biased and does contain some unjustified generalizations and questionable opinions, but its thesis is good: "Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well." This part of the paper is very good: Wolfe suggests that the Bush administration, which abhors government, has gone out of its way to fill high positions with people who will gut their own departments.

Joe Albaugh was the head of FEMA before Michael Brown, and Allbaugh's credentials to run the organization were that he was one of Bush's Texas gubernatorial aides. (By contrast, Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt, wrote the book -- literally, the only college textbook -- on emergency management.) The problem with Allbaugh was that he was the head of an organization that he believed should never have existed, and consequently, instead of trying to make it better, he tried to make it worse:

[Allbaugh and Brown] did not fail merely out of ignorance and inexperience. Their ineptness, rather, was active rather than passive, the end result of a deliberate determination to prove that the federal government simply should not be in the business of disaster management. "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to state and local risk management," Allbaugh had testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee in May, 2001. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." There was the conservative dilemma in a nutshell: a man put in charge of a mission in which he did not believe.

Why, then, has government become so big? Wolfe's suggestion is that conservatives now understand that government is here to stay, and there's nothing they can do about it. Americans expect entitlement programs, federal assistance, and federal money. Wolfe says that conservatives have two reasons for wanting to be in government: "One is to prevent liberals from [using government to solve problems]; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors: business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign contributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy)."

Wolfe's paper is filled with such incendiary statements (the thrust of which is "liberals good, conservatives bad") that are either poorly justified or not justified at all. But he's got a good idea. Too bad it wasn't executed better.

June 14, 2006

It's a small corporate world, after all

I was alerted to the website theyrule.net by an FCB employee. The website uses Flash and the 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listings to show who sits on the boards of directors of some of the world's largest companies. It will then show you what other boards those people sit on, allowing you to view intricate maps of the interrelationships between directors of companies. It's interesting to see how incestuous the corporate world is, and it's also interesting to see what the connections are. (I viewed a web of the directors of the chemical company 3M and learned that four of the directors of 3M also sit on the boards of Boeing, Northrup, and Lockheed-Martin, the nation's largest aircraft companies.)

The website allows you to view popular searches (for example, the business interrelationships of the members of various presidential cabinets, or the relationships between the directors of Apple and Microsoft) and save the directories you create.

In addition to being a good time-waster, it's also very entertaining and informative.

January 23, 2006

Weekend bag o'stuff

Friends is returning to television in four two-hour specials this season. Wait a second. They canceled Malcolm in the Middle and The West Wing, but Friends is coming back? Further proof that either (1) there is no God; or (2) He hates all of us.

The broadcast flag is back. Under the Digital Content Protection Act of 2006, the FCC would have the authority to mandate that all devices capable of receiving a digital signal must respect broadcast flags in the signal. (A broadcast flag is a little piece of data encoded in the signal that tells the receiving device how the signal can be used. For example, a broadcast flag might say "don't allow a TiVo to record me" or "don't allow any downstream devices to intercept me," and the device would have to respect that.)

President Bush's State of the Union address is Jan. 31 at 9 PM EST. Please review the rules for the State of the Union Address Drinking Game 2006.

BATS Improv provides hilarious improv comedy in San Francisco for only twelve dollars! And since their theater is in Fort Mason Center, parking is free! Holy crap! Jared and I actually saved money by not taking public transportation! BATS is currently engaged in its "Rock 'n' Roll Theatresports," a multi-week contest among teams of all the BATS improv artists. Teams compete to win the Rock 'n' Roll Theatresports Finals on Feb. 25. Be there!

December 27, 2005

Need to fly somewhere? Just go to Wendy's!

Scott clued me in to an amazing offer between hamburger franchise Wendy's and discount airline AirTran Airways.

Every time you buy a combo meal, a 20 oz. drink, or a 32 oz. drink, you get 1/4 of a credit toward either a one-way or round-trip coach ticket on AirTran Airways. 8 credits (32 purchases) will get one a one-way ticket; 16 credits (64 purchases) earns you a round-trip ticket.

Taxes of $28 (not including $3.30 per takeoff and landing) are not included. And there are blackout dates. And you have to be a member of AirTran's A+ Rewards frequent flyer program, but that's free to join.

Also, AirTran flies only to select cities. In Ohio, for example, AirTran flies to Dayton International Airport and Akron/Canton Regional Airport. If you want to come visit me in San Francisco, then you're in luck! AirTran does fly to San Francisco International Airport.

Oh, and hurry! The promotion ends Dec. 31!

November 22, 2005

A Very Arnold Christmas

A lot of people think that I have a good Arnold Schwarzenegger impression. Most of these people are my dad, who dared me to make a CD of Christmas carols as sung by Arnold. He wanted this as his Christmas present. Slightly daunted, I set out in October to figure out how the heck I would do this.

Fortunately, I had a PowerBook. Macintosh computers are 100% super-perfect for making homemade anything: CDs, movies, whatever. It's a multimedia powerhouse. I obtained a copy of Apple Soundtrack Pro, a Griffin iMic, and one of those skinny computer microphones. I already had a bunch of symphonic Christmas music, fortunately. Over the course of a few days, I recorded voice tracks. I think they sound really good, even though I was using just a regular old computer microphone.

The recordings were made and composited in Apple Soundtrack Pro. I designed the cover art in Adobe Illustrator. The album is licensed under an attribution, non-commercial, share-alike Creative Commons license. This means that you can share this stuff all you want, provided you (1) don't sell it for money, (2) cite me (Mark Wilson) as the author, and (3) provide the same license to all subsequent reproductions or remixes.

Download all 15 tracks of A Very Arnold Christmas as MP3s in a zip file (65 MB) in a torrent file. The MP3s have been encoded at 192 Kbps. Included are JPGs of the cover art.

Merry Christmas!

UPDATE: Thanks to Scott for creating a torrent of this file so that my bandwidth doesn't get shot. See, Hollywood? Watch as we use the BitTorrent network to legally distribute files!

November 10, 2005

'Just the Facts, Ma'am'

Drug companies often justify the high prices of prescription drugs by referring to the high costs of research and development -- after all, they're just trying to get back the money they've invested in research. And for every successful prescription drug, there are a dozen unsuccessful prescription drugs, and the research cost of those must be recouped, somehow.

But exactly how much does research cost? And how much is recouped? Tonight, in a SEDHE "Just the Facts, Ma'am" special, we're going to find out.

According to Forbes magazine, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck are the world's three largest drug/biotech companies by revenue. (Pfizer is 24th on its list of largest companies worldwide, Johnson & Johnson is 46th, and Merck is 63rd.)

According to Pfizer's 2004 Financial Report [PDF], Pfizer made $52.5 billion in revenue worldwide in 2004, $10.8 billion of which came from the drug Lipitor alone. In fact, total revenue from its five best-selling drugs -- Lipitor, Norvasc, Zoloft, Celebrex, and Neurontin -- amounted to $24.7 billion. Its profits (revenue minus expenses, including income taxes) in 2004 were $11.4 billion. Pfizer spent $7.68 billion on all research and development in 2004, and when all the bills were paid, Pfizer had 148% of that amount left over.

According to Johnson & Johnson's 2004 Annual Report [PDF], the company made $47.35 billion worldwide in revenue. It spent $5.2 billion on research and still managed to take home $8.51 billion in profit, or 164% of its research costs. Johnson & Johnson's biggest seller is Procrit ($3.59 billion), a drug that helps relieve anemia associated with treatment of HIV, cancer, and kidney disease. It also owns the Band-Aid, Tylenol, Splenda, and Neutrogena brands.

According to the Financial Section of Merck's 2004 Annual Report [PDF], Merck made $22.9 billion in revenue worldwide in 2004. It spent $4.01 billion on research in development and ultimately made a profit of $5.81 billion, or 145% of its R&D expenses. You might remember Merck for Vioxx, Singulair, and Zocor. Vioxx is used for arthritis and was voluntarily recalled last year after the company found that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack. Singulair is used to treat seasonal allergies. Zocor reduces the risk of heart disease by reducing cholesterol.

The three largest drug companies in the world spent an average of $5.63 billion on research and development in 2004. Their average profits were $8.57 billion. The three largest drug companies in the world, then, made an average of 152% of their research costs in profit in 2004.

November 8, 2005

Thank you, Jesus!

Cory Doctrow of Boing Boing validates what I've been saying all along: using the phrase "Wi-Fi" to mean "wireless network access" is stupid:

30,000 or so people have written in to quibble over whether WiFi stands for wireless fidelity, pointing to the fact that the WiFi Consortium has decided to claim it does. It doesn't. WiFi is a pun, based on the contraction, "Hi-Fi," which stands for "High fidelity." WiFi "means" wireless fidelity the same way that "foo" and "bar" mean "f*cked up" and "beyond all recognition" -- e.g., not at all. WiFi is derived from high fidelity, but if WiFi *means* "wireless fidelity" then it means precisely nothing, because "wireless fidelity" is a nonsense phrase whose only meaning comes from the fact that you get a pun on "HiFi" when you shorten it.

"High Fidelity" is an old audio term describing the quality of the data; therefore, "Wireless Fidelity" should also describe the quality of the data, but it doesn't. "Wi-Fi" refers to the transmission medium; i.e., "wireless." His "foo" and "bar" example refers (1) to the military acronym FUBAR, meaning "f*ucked up beyond all recognition" and (2) to the way in which programmers show how variables are assigned in tutorials or lessons. In PHP, for example, a tutorial showing how a variable is assigned a value would show this

$foo="bar"

to mean that the variable $foo has the value "bar." (This is a standard programming tutorial just as the "Hello World!" tutorial is standard for Web markup [HTML, CSS] tutorials.)

It's a similar pun in that the words sound similar, but they don't mean the same thing.

Today, Cory posts something from Phil Belanger, a founding member of the Wi-Fi Alliance who presided over the selection of the name "Wi-Fi." Belanger suggests that the phrase Wi-Fi "is not an acronym. There is no meaning." Much like "SAT" no longer stands for anything (it used to stand for "Scholastic Aptitude Test," then it stood for "Scholastic Assessment Test"; now, there is technically no acronym; it's just "SAT"), "Wi-Fi" is not short for "wireless fidelity."

I don't agree with this assessment. If you're going to have a word like "Wi-Fi," which is clearly designed to look like "Hi-Fi," then the phrases should be related somehow. Otherwise, you're diluting the meaning of the word "fidelity."

Then again, I've always been the Grammar Nazi.

November 5, 2005

That's a lot of coffee!

If you're like me, you drink a lot of coffee. And if you drink a lot of coffee, then you probably wonder, "How much coffee would it take to kill me?" In medieval times, man had to make due with tea leaves, the arrangement of the planets, and pieces of the True Cross to come up with answers to this question. The answers were inaccurate and usually ended up in the killing of Jews and Muslims for no good reason. But, hey, that's medieval times for you.

Thanks to Joseph Lister and the Internet, we no longer have to worry about mysticism when it comes to answering this age-old question of caffeine poison. A blog called "Energy Fiend" has written a script for determining how much of any caffeine drink it would take to kill you. Just select your drink of choice from the drop-down menu and input your weight. The computer does the rest. For example, a 110 lb. person like myself would have to drink 259 cans of A&W Creme Soda before it killed him. That's a lot of soda! And I don't have to worry about drinking too much coffee; I would need to drink 70 cups of brewed coffee before it killed me.

The LD50 (the lethal dose that would kill 50% of the population) of caffeine is about 10 grams (10,000 mg) when administered orally. This varies by the weight of the individual, of course (source). The LD50 for all weight levels seems to be 150 mg of caffeine per kg of person (so, if you weigh 50 kg, the lethal dose of caffeine for you is 7500 mg). Brewed coffee contains between 4 and 20 mg of caffeine per ounce of coffee, meaning 32-160 mg in a typical 8 oz. cup of coffee. This translates into 62.5 8-oz. cups of coffee as being a lethal dose at the highest threshold of caffeine concentration. A caffeinated soft drink, by contrast, contains only 3-8 mg of caffeine per ounce, or 36-96 mg per 12-oz. can (source). The Energy Fiend blog also has a database of caffeine content, which is presumably where the script's "lethal" measurements come from.

Interestingly, Red Bull -- that favorite solvent of amateur, underage partygoers everywhere -- has only 9.64 mg of caffeine per ounce. If you want to party well into the night, better stick with Irish coffee, which contains 53.8 mg of caffeine per ounce of whiskey, as opposed to the Red Bull and vodka, which contains 25.7 mg of caffeine per ounce of vodka.

Also keep in mind that, not only does the same amount of coffee contain 1.4 times as much caffeine as Red Bull, but Red Bull's MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) is $1.99 for an 8.3-oz. can, or $0.24 per ounce of Red Bull, while a 32.5-oz. can of Maxwell House ground coffee will produce 270 6-oz. cups of coffee (1,620 fl. oz. of liquid coffee) at normal strength for $7, or $0.0043 per fluid ounce of coffee. A can of Red Bull with the same caffeine content as the 1,620 oz. of coffee which that $7 can would produce (21,772.8 mg) would cost $643. So, maybe Red Bull is a little overpriced.

[Link to "Death by Caffeine" via Boing Boing.]

October 31, 2005

We apologize for the convenience

My installation of Movable Type 3.2 was, finally, a success. Curiously, when I installed it on my own local computer, it worked just fine.

I've switched from Movable Type's BerkeleyDB to the more recommended (and apparently more stable) MySQL backend. For some reason, my hosting company, ICDSoft, upgraded me to two MySQL databases. So, now I have one for Movable Type and one for everything else.

I'll alter the styles so that everything looks approximately like it used to.

October 30, 2005

One pumpkin to rule them all ...

Last week, Elizabeth and I bought pumpkins at the corn maze in Fremont. Yesterday, we carved them. I decided on a simple jolly roger design. But Elizabeth went crazy and wanted to carve all the Elvish letters from the One Ring into her pumpkin. (This is the One Ring The Lord of the Rings, by the way.) According to Gandalf, the letters written on the outside of the One Ring are in the Elvish alphabet, but the language of Mordor ("Which I will not repeat here," he says). Translated into the Common Tongue (i.e., English) this is what the inscription reads on the One Ring:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Well, all of this won't fit on a pumpkin. So, Elizabeth settled on the first phrase: "One Ring to rule them all." Halfway through the carving, I suggested that we should have looked up how to write "pumpkin" in Elvish, so that it would read "One Pumpkin to rule them all." But, she was halfway through carving her pumpkin, and besides, we may be giant dorks, but we're not that giant of dorks. It took Elizabeth about four hours, using a pen-knife, to carve out the letters.

Pictures of pumpkins

The Jolly Roger
The One Pumpkin
Both pumpkins together

Man, I love Halloween!

August 29, 2005

Assorted things

I have a few points to make.

First, I have found the difference between whiskey and bourbon. After many people asking me, and being forced to answer, "I don't know," I know the answer. It is contained in a restaurant in Boulder called the West End Pub. Brian and I visited the West End Pub because I chose it. I chose it because it said "pub" and I figured, "Oh, 'pub' means Guinness." But, sadly, I was wrong. The West End Pub contained generic food at high prices. Its only saving grace was a full page of bourbon in the drink menu. I have never before seen a restaurant so exclusively devoted to bourbon.

So, what's the difference? Well, bourbon is a type of whiskey. Most whiskey is made of 50% corn and 50% other grains. Bourbon, to be called bourbon, has to contain from 65% to 75% corn and 35% to 25% other grains. That's it. It has nothing to do with where it's made (although most of the country's bourbon is made in Kentucky), like champagne. It has to do only with the proportion of corn it contains relative to other grains: bourbon contains more corn than whiskey.

Second, Blue Moon Pumpkin Ale comes out the first week of October, and I plan to be there. Doesn't that sound delicious? I think I've had pumpkin cider before; Matt, didn't we have pumpkin cider last Halloween? I seem to remember drinking some while watching Wild Zero.

Third, I've been downloading and watching episodes of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! and I like it. Each episode of the show de-bunks some commonly held political or social belief. In one episode, they de-bunk the validity of the Bible. In another, they call the efficacy of circumcision into question. In another show, they even suggest that recycling is a bad idea. I encourage those of you with Showtime to watch, and those without Showtime to ... ah, obtain the show via other means. It's a good show.

Fourth, teaching for The Princeton Review has proven to be a good job. High school students aren't as bad as we thought they were. They're usually tired, because (1) they had to get up early on Sunday to come to my class, or (2) they had to be at my class late on Wednesday. Here's my plan: make money with The Princeton Review for the next year. I'll take the LSAT in October, get a 170, and apply to Stanford Law School. After I'm accepted to Stanford Law School, I'll move to the Silicon Valley/San Francisco Bay area. Stanford has a deal with local renters to supply apartments in the area to Stanford students at a discount, so that will be good. During the summer after my first year, I'll intern at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I'm at Stanford for three years, during which time I get involved with the law review there, as well as the Center for Internet & Society, where I'll help work on technology-related briefs. My specialties will be intellectual property and constitutional law. Hopefully I'll get to be taught by Larry Lessig, Stanford's celebrity intellectual property lawyer. I'll graduate and go to work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, or maybe even the ACLU, where I'll fight for your civil liberties in both the digital and analog spheres. Take that, The Man!

Fifth, Scott, if you're reading this, we've been worried sick about you. Where are you? No one has heard from you in a long time!

August 23, 2005

Beer, glorious beer

As an Official Coors Beer Taster, I feel that I am qualified to tell you which beers are the best. Here are the top five:


1. Coors

Not the sissy Coors Light that you bought by the case for your jerky fraternity's jerky party, but Adolph Coors' original-recipe 1874 lager. Lighter than many beers, but delicious, nonetheless.


2. Guinness

What list would be complete without the dense, meaty taste of Guinness? The darkest of all beers, Guinness is also one of the tastiest. Again, this is not for mass-consumption at your sorority's "get drunk as fast as you can so you can do the first fratboy you see" party. Guinness is meant to be enjoyed in a gentleman's atmosphere, like the study or in a hotel room before a night on the town. Best if not served frozen.


3. Moosehead

Moosehead is lighter than Coors, but it has just as much flavor. Brought to you by Canada's oldest independent brewery, Moosehead is good to top off your evening. It's a great just-before-bed beer or a beer for those times when you're just after a beer.


4. J.W. Dundee's Honey Brown Ale

Made with the power of real honey, Honey Brown is a great beer for any occasion. Dark and tasty. But not in bulk. Too many or too much too soon can prove nauseating, since it does have a little more sweetness than other beers.

5. Barman

Guess what, kids? You can't get Barman anywhere! Coors brews Barman for only about a dozen bars and restaurants in Golden, Co., so you'd have to come here to get it. It's a dark beer and it's very good.

Well, we've seen the top five; now, let's look at the bottom five.


1. Miller High Life

The champagne of beers? More like the bathtub gin of beers. Like all the Miller products, this one was designed to be consumed by the truckload by jerky fratboys. Avoid at all costs.

2. Eliot Ness

This beer is made by Cleveland's Great Lakes Brewing Company to honor Eliot Ness, who, after he was an Untouchable in Chicago (and helped put Al Capone in the slammer), was Cleveland's Director of Public Safety (police chief). Unfortunately, they went the extra step of filtering the beer through Eliot Ness's corpse. This beer is abominable.


3. Aspen Edge

Introduced in 2004 as Coors' "low-carb" beer, Aspen Edge tastes like nothing. Seriously, it tastes like water that's turned. Good thing I got some for free instead of buying a case and finding out it sucks.


4. Milwaukee's Best

Derided by most as "Beast" and by myself as "Milwaukee's Worst," this is truly the worst of all beers. I can handle Natural (Natty) Light and Keystone, but Milwaukee's Worst makes me blind for a short amount of time.


5. Natural Light

Usually called "Natty Light," it's one of the cheapest beers you can buy. Every major beer company has its low-end, crappy brand. For Coors, it's Keystone. For Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser), it's Natty Light. The boon of, yes, fratboys, Natty Light costs about 25 cents per can. And when you need seven thousand cans for Fall Rush, your choice will be the cheap, crappy beer. (Note: Keystone, however, is cheaper than Natty Light but tastes better.)

And those are your beers. I find that Coors beers are better in general than other companies' beers. Did you know that Coors makes Blue Moon and Killian's Irish Red? And that it owns the trademark on Grolsch? I'd set my watch by a frosty glass of Coors [not Coors Light]. Man, that stuff's good!

April 22, 2005

Sounds of Disneyland

I have a confession to make. I love Disneyland. Sure, the corporation is a large, nameless, faceless ogre that destroys everything in its path. Sure, it has worked tirelessly to restrict copyright laws (no kidding; Disney lobbied the hardest for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act because Mickey Mouse was close to coming into the public domain), and Michael Eisner is pure evil.

But I love Disneyland. I'm a sucker for good art direction, and Disney has by far the world's best design team. They're called Imagineers and they're half production designer and half engineer. They work tirelessly to make Disneyland seem more real than real -- what Baudrillard calls "hyperreality" in his work Simulations and Simulacra, in which he uses Disneyland as an analogy for the rest of the United States: a reality filled with signifiers with no signifieds behind them.

So even if Disneyland is filled with mere illusion, I still like it. Its New Orleans Square seems more real than the real New Orelans (and it's certainly cleaner and less filled with homeless people and drunken fratboys). Walking into Frontierland is like stepping into a 1950s romanticization of the Old West. Adventureland is like walking into a 1950s idea of what the "East" must have been like: green, mysterious, full of adventure. Edward Said would have a heart attack. But then he would go on the Jungle River Adventure and everything would be okay.

No one does theming (the creation of an illusory reality based on particular architectural or historical styles) better than Disney. This is why I gasped for joy when I read at Boing Boing that someone had made thirteen CDs' worth of Disney sounds and music. A lot of these are general park soundtracks, but some of them are actual ride tracks. The older, the better. Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion are the best of these tracks, and it's probably no coincidence that these attractions are both located at New Orleans Square. (Here's a fun story about New Orleans Square: Club 33, the posh dining area in New Orleans Square which is invitation-only -- and the only place in the park that serves liquor -- is filled with authentic New Orleans antiques wrangled by Imagineers on Walt Disney's orders. Disney wanted Club 33 to resemble an authentic New Orleans mansion and had the Imagineers obtain real artifacts from New Orleans to populate Club 33.)

These audio tracks are great, but they open in pop-up windows, so downloading all thirteen CDs of music and sounds will be a pain in your behind.

March 19, 2005

Hotels.com is deplorable

My spring break trip to New Orleans would have been much better had hotels.com not screwed things up. I went there with Matt, so look for a similar story on his blog.

First of all, we booked a hotel that was five miles and a ten minute drive from anything we would ever want to see, in scenic Gretna, Louisiana. This was our fault for not researching the hotel's location (although the hotel claims to be in "New Orleans," Gretna is a different city altogether).

The Econo-Lodge in Gretna is immediately next door to a freeway and in a neighborhood that has seen better days. Much better days. Windows in two separate rooms had bullet holes in them. Additionally, this was a motel-style hotel, with rooms that opened immediately to the outside. I hate these kinds of hotels.

The Indian man at the counter (that's Gandhi, not Sitting Bull) spoke little English and, I think, couldn't read English. He told me to find my name on the check-in roster and point it out. He asked if I had booked my reservation through hotels.com or expedia.com. Certainly no one in his right mind would book that hotel after having seen it, so his only hope now is to rely on poor schmucks like Matt and me who haven't seen the hotel before.

My room was okay. A little smokey, though. I had forgotten to request a non-smoking room. I asked the Indian man at the counter, and he told me that all the rooms were full. He said he had 59 guests booked in 51 rooms and that he couldn't help me. He told me to come back tomorrow. The funny thing is, I took a walk around the hotel and there were probably at least a dozen empty rooms in various parts of the hotel.

Matt arrived several hours later and showed me his room. He was somewhat jolly about the fact that his room's lights didn't work. He was less jolly about smell in there. It smelled like someone had been cleaning fish in there. When he finally did get one of the lights working, he found . . . termites! Yes, folks, there were termites in the room. Matt went down to the Indian man and explained to him that there were bugs in the room, but he again reiterated that he had no room. Matt's girlfriend Nicole was with us, and she emphasized that she wasn't going to stay there. We agreed and fled the hotel just like the last scene of Poltergeist, except the hotel didn't implode in a ball of light.

The next day, safe within the arms of a Best Western, we called hotels.com to get some sort of restitution. Hotels.com advertises that there are no refunds, but they can't seriously consider that in the wake of the following facts:

  • The bugs, of course.
  • Matt reports that the hotel owner told him that "the property changed hands in December" and since then, it's been hard to keep things up to code, "but what can you do?" Some facts suggest that this place is not an Econo-Lodge. The gold-painted "Econo-Lodge" sign behind the check-in counter was just "Lodge," as the "Econo" had been removed. The listing for this hotel at hotels.com says it is called "Economy Inn," and the keycards said "Best Value Inn." Clearly, we had been lied to.
  • And speaking of lies, the hotels.com listing says that "the hotel features an outdoor swimming pool and a full service restaurant." It features neither of these things.

We registered our complaints with hotels.com, but they maintained that they had to give the owner of the alleged Econo-Lodge 72 hours to decide to refund our money or not.

My message for cyberspace is this: Stay away from hotels.com!

February 27, 2005

Quick HTML primer

Ned complained of being unable to italicize in his comments. I have set up Movable Type to respect HTML tags wherever it finds them in comments, but you must know how to put the HTML in.

To make something bold, put the bold tag before it: <b> (b is for bold). Then put another bold tag after it, with a slash before the b to tell the browser that it's the end of the item that should be bolded: </b>. Thus, if I wanted to bold a word, it would look like this: <b>word</b>. The result looks like this: word. Do the same for italicizing, except replace b with i (for italic). <i>The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain</i> yields: The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. Underlining is u.

To make something a blockquote (that is, to offset a paragraph by about half an inch), surround the text you want with a <blockquote> tag in the same way you would surround text you wanted italicized with an <i> tag. And don't forget the slash at the end, or else the rest of your comment will be italicized (the browser won't know where to stop italicizing).

I hope this was helpful, as Movable Type does not have convenient tag buttons like other software.

December 23, 2004

The BBAT/SPIN

What are the minimum qualifications for dating anyone? That's a question that has been left up to philosophers, theologians, and game-show hosts since the beginning of known civilization.

Until now.

One of Jess's friends, known to posterity only as Buddy Butler, invented the BBAT/SPIN while describing a girl to one of his friends as "smart, pretty, interesting, and nice." Gary, the other friend, replied that those are vague adjectives that could be applied -- and should be applied -- to any friend. Anyone who can't meet these most basic of requirements is not friend material, says Gary. And thus the BBAT/SPIN was born.

BBAT stands for "Buddy Butler Aptitude Test"; SPIN stands for "Smart, Pretty, Interesting, Nice": the minimum qualifications for anyone to be a friend. Buddy gets sick of hearing about the BBAT/SPIN every time he and Gary are together with people. Gary wants only to introduce the world to the BBAT/SPIN. I would suggest that the BBAT/SPIN should be applied to people one would want to date, not necessarily to all friends. Gary demands that his friends be aesthetically pleasing. I don't know if I require the same qualifications. At least when I'm checking out the ladies, I demand that they meet the qualifications for the BBAT/SPIN. I'm all about the holistic approach.

December 9, 2004

Look, a new graphic!

Matt decided he wanted a blog on his website the other day, so he enlisted my help in installing Movable Type. He spent all day playing with the templates and it looks really good. In return, he advised me to make the width of my content section smaller and also made the super-sweet graphic you see up there. I think the blog looks better.

December 3, 2004

The Katie controversy

It's something of an urban legend here at Miami University in Scenic Oxford, Ohio that there are more students named "Katie" here than there are minority students. This legend 1) emphasizes the popularity of the name "Katie" in a pejorative way ("everyone is named Katie; you're un-original") and 2) simultaneously emphasizes how few minority students there are here (if a single name can have more representatives than an entire marginalized group of people, what does that say about us?).

University Communications maintains that this is untrue. So, with some help from my friends at the Support Desk, I set out to find the answers to this enigma.

I started by finding out how many "minority" students there were at Miami. The word Miami uses is "multicultural" students, and it reports that "[m]ulticultural students comprise[d] 8.7 percent of students in 2003-2004 on all three campuses." We then discovered that there were 15,300 undergraduate students and 1,400 graduate students on the Oxford campus, and 2,200 students on the Hamilton and Middletown campuses, for a grand total of 18,900 students. After dredging the abacus out from the sub-basement, we discovered that 8.7% of 18,900 is 1,644. Using Miami's numbers, then, there are 1,644 multicultural students on all three campuses.

Next comes the magical command-line voodoo that resulted in the following numbers for people with the following names:

  • Katherine - 269
  • Katie - 57
  • Kate - 56
  • Katy - 6

All variations that could lead to "Katie" add up to a paltry 388 students, only 23.6% the amount of multicultural students. Furthermore, due to limitations to our commands, "388" is the number of any person with a university account who has any of those expressions in her name. 388 isn't even the number of students; it's padded by faculty, staff, and emeriti.

It appears that University Communications was right, after all; there aren't more Katies than there are multicultural students. The only name that comes close, actually, is "Michael," which returned 1,239 results. How many people do you know named Mike? How many do you know named Katie? How many do you know that are getting married to each other? Trippy, isn't it? Here are some other fun numbers to tide you over until dinner:

  • Catherine - 151
  • John - 868 [may include last name with "John," i.e., "Johnson"]
  • Jon - 390
  • Mark - 268
  • Matthew - 588
  • Luke - 25

November 26, 2004

Mmm, comment spam

One of my favorite parts of having a blog is dealing with the comment spam. Robots search the Internet for blogs and then post comments to them with links to places where you can play online poker or make your penis larger. The sky is the limit! Sometimes the body of the comment just contains a URL; other times, it contains a fun message generated at random from a database of comments. I love looking at the different kinds of comments these robots leave behind. Here's an example from my good friend "partypoker":

The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. by internet poker

Here's another comment from "texas hold'em poker":

Ours is a culture of premature ejaculation.... by poker tables

Sometimes, the comment spam gets philosophical. "casino" writes:

When he to whom one speaks does not understand, and he who speaks himself does not understand, that is metaphysics. by casino games

Didn't think a robot could talk like Shakespeare? Think again. "vinnie" says:

No legacy is so rich as honesty. vinnie How poor are they who have not patience! What wound did ever heal but by degrees.

How true, vinnie. How true. Do you know what else is true? I can save on shoes!

The above links don't work, of course, because I don't want to give these slimeballs too much credit. It pains me to think that this business model works because people actually click on those links! It's the same reason that email phishing works: because people are gullible enough to fall for it.

Thankfully, for comment spam, I use MT-Blacklist, which blocks or moderates comment spam. It's a terrific plug-in for Movable Type and it does a superior job of preventing robots from posting links to their dopey products.

November 25, 2004

Happy Thanksgiving-time

On this Thanksgiving, I give thanks for Scott, who has provided a plethora of interesting stories and from whom I have learned what are the best websites for finding interesting news bits.

Last night, he pointed me to an excellent piece about what the Founding Fathers thought about religion ... and from Ms magazine, nonetheless! Whereas people like John Ashcroft assert that the Founding Fathers were very Christian people, that this was a Christian country, and that God is mentioned in the Constitution, Robin Morgan tells us that that's not really the case. A great majority of founders opposed religious language in the Constitution (and nowhere in that document is any deity mentioned; power is assumed to come from the people themselves by virtue of their being reasoning human beings). From the portrait of Benjamin Franklin as a rationalist who rejected his Calvinist upbringing to George Washington, a Deist who didn't believe in the practice of communion, this article demonstrates that the Founding Fathers were not fundamentalists.

The bottom line is that the Founding Fathers, however religious they may or may not have been, were skeptical of religion. As students of the 18th-century Englightenment, they held reason to be the best epistemology for operating a state. Religion, since it is based in faith, runs counter to reason: whereas reason requires the existence of empirical data, faith does not require it at all.

This Thanksgiving, we should be thankful that we live in a country where our laws are not based on our religious beliefs. Religion is a deeply personal affair and it is also a unifying one, but it can also be divisive. The Founding Fathers understood this and were wise enough to craft a government in which religion was not an issue; indeed, where religion was left outside the sphere of control or relevance so as to include as many people as possible in the new government.

November 20, 2004

We're number one!

When Shannon invented the word "SEDHE," it seemed like a completely made-up thing. Turns out it wasn't. "SEDHE" also stands for "Sociedad Español de la Historia de la Educación," the Spanish Society for the History of Education. Many other webpages, in referring to SEDHE, made reference to the Spanish society. Probably because it's more important.

Once I showed up, though, my blog and web page were the number one Google search English-language result for "SEDHE." Today, at 4:30 PM EST, I did a search for "SEDHE" just on a lark. And what do you know! This blog is the number one search result -- period! Thanks to all the visitors here who have made such a phenomenon possible (both of you) and the people that linked back to this page. I hope I don't get una carta enojada from the Spanish Society for the History of Education.

October 26, 2004

Blog? What blog?

Hey, this is still here! Just kidding. No, seriously, I haven't written here for a while. Let's begin with the interesting bits.

Intelligent Design

This month's Wired magazine includes a story on how "intelligent design" proponents are still trying to get ID into state curricula. The story -- which is biased, since Wired is pretty science-oriented -- deals with something I never thought of regarding intelligent design. Whereas Darwinism is science, ID is more politics than anything else. ID people do not have a theory to advance; their theory is the negation of another theory. Their tactic is rhetorical, not scientific: they get out in public, appeal to people, exploit misunderstandings about evolution. "The intelligent design movement is using scientific rhetoric to bypass scientific scrutiny. And when science education is decided by charm and stage presence, the Discovery Institute [an ID think-tank] wins," writes Evan Ratliff.

Liberal biases

Next up: a review of a book whose subject has always interested me: high school education. Paula Cohen reviews The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Dianne Ravitch, a book that deals with the ways in which minority groups (that's groups whose ideas are in the minority, not groups composed of people who are in the minority) manipulate textbook authoring to suit their own whims. Ravitch provides some interesting justifications for the problem with textbooks: 1) there are only four parents companies in the world that make textbooks, and 2) whatever standards for textbooks are adopted in California or Texas -- the largest textbook markets -- are usually the de facto standards for the rest of the country. Education has taken a back seat to the form of the teaching of education; facts have been altered or removed lest they be seen as "offensive." Grog smash political correctness!

Stealing the past

University of Georgia historian Peter Charles Hoffer offers up a scandalizing indictment of the state of history scholarship in his new book Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud -- American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin. The standards of history scholarship, says Hoffer, have declined severely, rendering it "okay" for people like Ambrose to plagiarize occasionally. Hopefully, Hoffer's book also discusses the "biography-a-month" phenomenon, in which some historian somewhere writes a biography of a guy who's already had a million biographies written. Remember that book about Benjamin Franklin from last year? What did we learn that we didn't already know? Also, be wary of "popular" historians like Stephen Ambrose, who are merely journalists with a book deal. They are not held up to the rigorous standards of scholarly historians, academics who aren't writing a book merely to sell copies.

That's all from this weekend. Do go see I Heart Huckabees. Do not go see The Grudge.

September 22, 2004

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong!

While I was watching Garden State, what was going through my mind was, "Man, Zach Braff looks a lot like Ray Romano. He could play young Ray Romano in the movie about his life!" Some people I know -- socialists, mostly -- disagreed. Well, take a look at this:

 

Isn't it eerie? Come on, tell me they don't look alike! It's like Zach Braff is Ray Romano's illegitimate son!

June 16, 2004

Back in business -- serious, this time!

The last reinstall of Movable Type didn't work so much since I had set it up for mySQL support, not remembering that the old installation used MT's built-in BerkleyDB support. Whoops! Fortunately, I was able to reinstall from the ground up. All the URLs have returned to normal, and everything should be working. Email me if there are problems.

June 15, 2004

Back in business

Visitors to the site between 1:30 PM and 3:00 PM may not have been able to access it. I was upgrading to Movable Type 3.0. That is complete and everything is fine now.

April 18, 2004

The Curse of Rocky Colavito

So ESPN has released its Misery Index, a ranking of how miserable fans of each of the 30 major-league baseball teams ought to be.

The surprise second-place team (to me, anyway) is none other than your Tribe and mine, the Cleveland Indians. I'm not sure I agree with this.

First of all, let me say right now that Jim Caple, of whose work I've been a fan for many years, nailed the #1 team right on the head -- les Expos de Montreal, who seem to have led a truly cursed existence since, oh, 1994. Say what you will about some other teams with longer records of futility, but at least in 29 other baseball markets, there is the chance that someday the team could rise again. Further proof that Bud "Lite" Selig has no business being commissioner, but let's not get into that.

The "bottom 4" (i.e. least miserable) teams also seemed perfectly chosen, to me: No. 30, the Yankees, whose die-hard fans should have nothing at all to complain about; No. 29, the Diamondbacks, who may or may not actually have "die-hard fans," but when such fans come along, they'll at least have a World Series to look back on; the Braves, who absolutely dominated the NL East with the best pitching staff anywhere for 10 years; and the Marlins, who did not deserve 2003 and certainly didn't deserve 1997. Not even Wayne Huizenga's fire sale can overshadow their lack of misery.

What concerns me is the 2-3-4-5-6 slots, however. Caple ranks the misery runners-up as Cleveland, Chicago (N.L.), Chicago (A.L.), Milwaukee and Boston. I'm having a hard time believing that the Indians should rank that high; and a hard time believing that the White Sox should rank that low.

Full disclosure: I grew up in Chicago, a Cubs fan, although for my 10th birthday my friends and I took a trip to Comiskey Park. I have remained a Cubs fan despite transplantations to Cleveland, where I resisted Tribe-ification in the aftermath of the 1997 World Series debacle, and to New England, where I have embraced the Red Sox as a worthy "second favorite team," mostly because Red Sox fans hate the Yankees so much.

Nonetheless, and though it pains me to do so, I must champion the White Sox in this case.

Let's first dispense of the notion that Boston should have ranked any higher than sixth. Sure, there's that Curse of the Bambino thing, and Buckner and Bucky F. Dent and Aaron Boone and the whole rest of the laundry list. But on the other side of the coin, Boston fans are very loud about how crappy has been their lot in life, and tend to exaggerate. Furthermore, our nation's mythmakers work, mostly, in New York (or Bristol, Conn.), where the home team has a long history of beating up on the Olde Towne Team. So I think the Red Sox' misery is greatly overestimated. After all, this is a team that has been to the playoffs more than a few times in recent memory; and one that always competes. Yes, they've pulled a short straw in being assigned to the Yankees' division, but then so have the Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. To be honest, which is worse -- being a fan of the team that tries, and often comes close, to upset the Yankees? Or being a fan of the teams that still share a division, but have no hope at all?

Similarly, I don't think the case for the Cubs is as watertight as it could be. Cub fans are, by and large, a mellow bunch who seem to have the right outlook on life -- winning isn't everything. Cub fans have the most beautiful baseball park ever built. Cub fans have a team owner with deep pockets and a farm system that has finally begun to produce. Cub fans have the satisfaction of knowing that there are no dominant teams in their division.

Now, Cub fans also own the fourth-worst winning percentage since 1979. They've been shut out of a pennant since 1945. They haven't had consecutive winning seasons since I forget when. I'd rank them higher than the Red Sox, at least.

As for the Brewers, I'm not sure at all where they should rank. I think my judgment here is clouded by the fact that Bud "Lite" Selig owns the team (although he has his daughter run it, to avoid conflict of interest ... right). Personally, I don't pity them, but I suppose Wisconsin fans can't be held accountable for the Brew Crew's ownership. And the Brewers have been pretty hopeless since at least the 1980s.

This leaves the A.L. Central rivals, the White Sox and Indians. I think a case can be made for switching them in the standings.

I'm a young guy, and when I think about team dominance, I'm less likely to remember the Go-Go White Sox of the 1950s than I am to remember the Jacobs Field Era Indians of the 1990s.

Like I said earlier, the Red Sox -- and the Cubs too -- get all kinds of press for being the notorious losers of baseball. In the Red Sox' case, it's the "underdogs fighting against the curse" angle; in the Cubs' case, it's the "lovable losers, ain't they cute" angle. In a way, I think this validates the fans of these teams. Sox fans -- admit it! -- rest securely at night knowing that although they may not win their division, they're morally superior because they're struggling against all odds. Cubs fans, and I know this firsthand, would love to win but will just as soon accept sunshine, green grass and cold beer as a substitute.

White Sox fans, on the other hand, have suffered in silence. Perennially overshadowed by their better-marketed neighbor to the north, and lacking an overarching narrative prism through which to view their losses, they are made truly miserable by the fact that the ChiSox haven't won a world series since 1917 -- you read right, 1917 -- nor appeared in one since, if memory serves, 1954 (not recently, at any rate; not even as recently as 1986 or 1997).

On the other hand, Cleveland dominated its division (albeit a weak division) throughout the late 1990s. Having come to know Indians fans only after they began their Jacobs Field sellout run, I've never known them to carry a chip on their shoulder like Expos or White Sox fans. Rather, the denizens of the North Coast rallied in a very positive fashion around the Indians, especially after the Browns left town.

Indians fans are not, in my experience, miserable. Nor, given their history, should they be -- not any more so than Cubs or White Sox fans, at least. And the White Sox have the edge in recent history: no dynasties in their division, no respect from their hometown, a crappy ballpark -- it truly is crappy, possibly the worst ballpark among the 28 U.S. teams; the infamous "White Flag" trade; and a World Series history that hit its last high point prior to the Black Sox scandal.

If there's a team, other than the Expos, whose fans have more to be miserable about than White Sox fans, I don't know who it is.

April 12, 2004

All hail Emperor Clobbersaurus

Grammar God!
You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!

How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

March 8, 2004

A popular misattribution

This comes courtesy of The Phrase Finder:

"'I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.'

"A remark attributed to Voltaire, notably by S.G. Tallentyre [a nom de plume of E. Beatrice Hall] in The Friends of Voltaire (1907). But Tallentyre gave the words as a free paraphrase of what Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: 'Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privelege to do so, too.' So what we have is merely Tallentyre's summary of Voltaire point of view.

"Then along comes Norbert Guterman to claim that what Voltaire did write in a letter of February [6,] 1770 to a M. Le Riche was: 'Monsieur l'Abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.' So, whether or not he used the precise words, at least Voltaire believed in the principle behind them.

"From Brewer's Quotations (1994) by Nigel Rees."