Cheap Thought
<harveyj> Someone ask Sarah Palin if we should ban the NRA from Oklahoma City
Add a Comment
Pages
Archives
Meta
Categories
!? Recommends
Aerion's blogroll
harveyj's blogroll
nepharis' blogroll
A related, but less useful graph
But seriously, all the consternation in the media about Tiger being in some sort of slump is dumb. (I don’t mean to say that anyone here is engaging in that.)
He’ll be back. Remember 2004-ish, when he wasn’t doing so hot? He hadn’t won a major in two years. What happened? Laser show. Relax. Specifically, he made top 5 in ten of the next twelve majors, winning five of them. (Never mind that one where he missed the cut.) He tied for 4th at the Masters and U.S. Open this year, so he’s clearly still Really Good At Golf.
-
I understand that “laser show” is not technically appropriate in this context. But you know what? My graph has labeled axes, so suck on that.
-
The earlier post was inspired by the always awesome Joe Posnanski. http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/07/18/writing-off-tiger/
My thoughts on the topic boil down to:
* Tiger is probably still the best golfer on the planet.
* That might not be enough to pass Nicklaus.One mildly cherrypicked stat from the article: The most majors anyone in history has won after age 35 was 4… by Jack Nicklaus. Tiger has had one of the best starts to a career of all time. His two-year drought has put him in the position of needing the best finish to a career of all time to set the record.
-
I hate to say it, ’cause Dodgers, but you should add Kirk Gibson to your graph.
Add a Comment
Majors won versus age of golfer, Tiger and Nicklaus
Add a Comment
Cheap Thought
<harveyj> * Aerion makes a cheap shot about John Boehner rooting for the Dutch team
Add a Comment
How to make BP pay
We’ve been discussing how to make BP pay for the cleanup of the oil spill for a little while. It’s common knowledge by now that BP’s liability is limited to $75M, and the fund that is associated with that liability cap can pay out $1B for the incident. In doing some half-assed research on the subject it looks like cleanup costs the cleanup itself may cost up to $5B and people are throwing out the completely unsubstantiated estimate of about another $6B in lost revenues in the area (this is only talking about a few select industries, so it may go up, but they’re also completely made up, so they may go down). Absolute worst case scenario looks to be about $17B.
This liability cap poses a problem because $1B isn’t nearly enough to cover all of the things that BP is clearly responsible for. At this point the usual suspects come out, congressional actions in the form of bills of attainer and ex post facto laws, much the same as the financial system bailout situation. While we could probably structure a law to sidestep around these issues there are no guarantees that the courts wouldn’t (rightly) strike it down.
In this case though there are some additional tools that are probably much better than unconstitutional laws.
Since 2000 BP has received $9B in defense contracts and operates around 22,000 oil and gas wells in United States controlled areas. This represents $16B in revenue. This financial relationship makes a much different situation from financial firm executive compensation. These significant economic ties make it very easy for the US government to make life hell for BP. A wide range of actions are possible from moving defense contracts to other suppliers to shutting down BP operations for safety violations (of which there is no shortage of legitimate concerns). BP is much smaller than the two other major players in the oil industry, ExxonMobil and Shell, so it’s not like it’s even a two way street. BP needs us more than we need them.
In other words, we have a wide and wonderful variety of methods to make avoiding paying cleanup liabilities more expensive than actually paying out. Whether the Feds have the balls to do it is another story, it would likely take some serious housecleaning in the EPA and MMS to get rid of the people loyal to BP, which seems to be part of the regulatory problems that got us into this mess.
Add a Comment
Experts on making black water
Rather than cleaning up the mess, it might just be easier if BP changed its name to “Xe”.
Add a Comment
Iran
It looks like Iran is going all out on the “I do what I want!” strategy of international relations. Not exactly a bad choice for them, seeing as they aren’t looking to improve relations with us and are on the other side of the globe. If you’re going to declare that most of the world is infidels and wish death on them it’s probably a good idea to build nuclear weapons instead of try to make friends.
The question here is, what can we do about it? It’s obviously not in the interest of most nations to have a bunch of religious crazies with The Bomb. There’s the argument to be made for the freedom of soverign nations, but that’s another discussion, let’s assume we have no moral qualms about doing what we can to ‘fix’ the problem.
- Bomb nuclear research facilities. Assuming they’re not underground we can take them out, probably flare up hostilities in the area and perhaps provoke some terrorist attacks here. Best case, we set them back a few years in development and they move underground where we can’t bomb them. Worst case, we don’t accomplish anything and now we’re in open war with them.
- Skip to the open war part first. Move in and liberate the country Iraq style. Cue indefinite occupation, destabilized country, chaos, American casualties,and maybe add half a trillion dollars to the national debt. Nukes problem is solved, new problem is worse.
- Destabilize the country CIA style. May or may not work, it certainly looks like we’ve been trying at this for a while with minimal success. Seems to have the fewest downsides of the options. Worst cases, either nothing happens, or the new government hates us even more (is that possible?).
- Do nothing. Iran successfully develops a small number of nuclear weapons and starts a MAD situation in the area with Israel. While MAD ‘worked’ between the US and the USSR it seems like tensions run a little hotter in the middle east and the situation may collapse badly. The prospect of real consequences may also cool down the constant simmer of conflict. Who knows when religion is involved though.
-
OK, so since I don’t have anything informed to say on the premise, let me question your assumptions. It’s not clear to me that actually becoming a nuclear power is a good idea for Iran, compared to sabre rattling re: nukes. Pre-nukes, Iran basically has an instant, easy way to goad Israel and stir up public sentiment; they just have to crank up some centrifuges. Post-nukes, their defensive position is pretty much unchanged (neither Israel or Iran is going to nuke each other, and Iran will still lose a conventional war to the US), but their sabre-rattling options are much more limited. The populist pro-nuke sentiment will turn to populist use-nuke sentiment, but the ruling class won’t survive a nuclear exchange, so they’ll be trapped.
-
What are your thoughts regarding similarities with North Korea on this front?
I’ve always thought that their main goal has largely been posturing and the appearance of power, rather than lusting after the power proper. I’m not entirely clear what their goals are supposed to be, but I could conceive that it’s largely a way to keep the population’s attention focused on North Korean foreign policy rather than its infrastructure.
Summed up: North Korea does this insane shit to keep its subjugated population psyched about being North Korean and serving the state, possibly without further goals in mind.
-
Harvey, you’ve got a good point about the advantages of just threatening to make nukes, but I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that actually getting them would hurt Iran. I think they’re legitimately scared that a hawkish US administration might roll right in like in Iraq and their threatening only increases the chances of that. We’ve made it pretty clear that nuclear weapons will make us think twice about invading.
Add a Comment
Questions on Libertarianism
I’ve been thinking some about libertarianism as much of the political end of the internet has been lately. Before I left my parents’ house and got a life I tended to identify strongly with the libertarian line, but now can’t quite figure out why I ever thought that way. The market that libertarians espouse seems to solve a lot of problems, but I haven’t found anyone willing to take up a discussion on the problems it also seems to expose. I’ve started writing down questions and situations that embody the problems I see.
- Should business owners be shielded from liability? What if the business ends up negligently killing people?
- Is it okay for a doctor to allow me to bleed out because I can’t pay him, or for any reason? Should we as a society allow this if it’s within our power to stop?
- If it is, does that mean the doctor’s right not to help me is more important than my right to live?
- Is a life that’s less than perfectly free worth living? Is there an optimum somewhere?
- What is my recourse if a contract is broken? What if the act of breaking this contract has taken all my resources? What if the act of breaking this contract has killed me (the contract said these toys wouldn’t have cyanide in them)?
- Can the argument that trying to save lives through regulation outweighs the inefficiency that regulations bring?
- Should we grant patents? If patents are handled by an industry cooperative wouldn’t that tend to be an anticompetitive cartel? How is a business with high startup costs ever supposed to get started?
- Should I be allowed to buy the land next to your house and build a chemical plant? Can I buy the land completely surrounding your house and build a cage?
- Can I use my resources to spread damaging lies about someone?
I’m trying to not speak to any particular implementation of libertarianism, feel free in considering these questions to use any theoretical perfect system you can think of. I make no claims on being informed on the issues beyond some mediocre philosophy classes in college, but definitely welcome having these questions torn apart. It would greatly help my understanding of the underlying issues.
Add a Comment
Cheap thought
Rand Paul has lots of black friends. Some of his best friends are black.
Add a Comment
Rand Paul, Liberatarianism, and You
I would like to pose the following question: What the fuck is libertarianism?
I will propose the premise that to be a legitimate political school of thought requires both a guiding ideology and a basis for implementing that ideology through policy. For example, as a first order approximation, I would say that modern progressivism is based on an ideology that places the greatest value on social liberty and equality. Policy is sought that increases governmental capacity to enforce social liberty at the expense of economic liberty (e.g. general welfare programs and death panels funded by progressive taxation). Modern conservativism, on the other hand, might be described as based on the idea that personal freedom is the paramount value of a society, and is implemented by reducing the role of federal government in peoples lives (e.g. cutting welfare programs and reducing taxes).
Okay, now libertarianism. I suppose the ideology is that the promotion of all freedoms and liberties (rather than the prioritization of social/personal/economic) should be sought. I think it’s safe to say, at least in reference to current political climates, this is a fairly extreme stance. How, then, does one propose to implement this in policy? What you seem to hear fairly frequently from people claiming to be libertarians is that all policy is bad, in that there is always increased restriction of freedoms as a result. How, then, is this distinct from anarchism? Without some guiding principal towards policy, libertarianism should be strictly relegated to crackpots like Rand Paul.
Not all is necessarily lost. Though I’m not aware of such a policy directive of libertarians, that’s not to say one does not or cannot exist. If I were a libertarian (which I’m not.. usually), I would say that not all freedoms and liberties are equal — there are different values that the individual or society places on its various freedoms. For example (here’s where Paul comes in again), consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, that limits my freedom to racially discriminate. Yes, technically, I will grant that that does in fact represent a restriction of liberties. However, at that expense, all persons now have the freedom to, say, sit anywhere on a bus, or drink from whatever water fountain they please, or become the God-Damned President of the United Fucking States. If I were a libertarian, I would say that was a net gain. I would say, fuck yeah, let’s get us some more of that. (As it turns out, that’s what I say anyway, because I’m, you know, sane.)
So back to the original question. When someone says they’re a libertarian, what exactly do they mean? What are the stated goals and policy directives of American libertarians?
(…and I don’t mean upper-case ‘L’ Libertarians.. them bitches be crazy.)
Add a Comment