Yes, Republicans are Anti-Science

That is a statement that 20 years ago would have been laughed at, and that, if taken seriously, would have been pretty horrifying to most people.  Today it's nearly shrugged off as "so, what else is new" except among an ever-shrinking subset of "very serious people" and, frankly, somewhat deluded scientists...mostly people who like low taxes (or who dislike the blah people), and who very selectively ignore the evidence--these aren't very good scientists in a general sense, mind you, but they constitute a significantly non-zero fraction.

The GOP itself spends a good deal of time pretending that they are the ones being "scientific" about various issues (mostly global warming and evolution), and pointing out the crazy anti-science that is more common on the left--particularly nuclear power but also animal testing and vaccinations, though that last is actually pretty ideology neutral in terms of where the true believers lie.  Of course with respect to that first item, they are absolutely not being scientific.  They are abusing complicated scientific principles to undermine the real science being done.  On the second point they aren't necessarily wrong (except the vaccine thing, which tends to pick up rich fools more specifically than it does liberal or conservative fools), but the difference is one of influence: anti-science lefties, even when they have fairly popular positions (e.g. nuclear) that are understanable from a non-science perspective, have approaching zero influence in the party.

I would like to clarify a bit on nuclear energy.  Scientists tend to be pro- while liberals are more likely to be anti- but a lot of the anti-nuke can be justified by things like cost analysis, and risk management/containment.  Additionally, current nuclear technology is just not good enough to replace fossil fuels, while renewables like solar and wind have the potential to reach that point where they could, theoretically, provide enough power to replace fossil, and much, much more power than nuclear [fission] ever could.  So it is possible to be pro-science and anti-nuke.  The same really can't be said about evolution or the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

How to Feel Better About Your Run

So I ran Broad Street last weekend (like a chump).  My chip time was 1:57:31 (because I'm slow and 10 miles is a long damned way...also there was a ~5 min bathroom break in there).  For those who are passably good at math that translates to an average pace of 11:45.  Not great, though better than last year despite not properly training and having sprained my ankle pretty badly ~3 months before.  Also I know the last mile was right around 9 min from the clocks at miles 9 and the finish.  Then I checked Map My Run:

10.58 miles in 1:54:13, or 10:47 pace

Now I may have missed turning it off for as many as 200 m past the finish line, and clearly my bathroom break was auto-paused away--not 5 min, but it was probably another 1-2 min before I actually stopped it after the finish.  But most of that added distance is because we didn't run a straight line down the street, cutting all the corners as short as possible, and over a 10 mile stretch little wiggles here and there (water breaks, finding shade, swinging wide to get more space) add up to nearly half a mile over the nominal race distance.  Now I don't know what the error is on those numbers but based on comparisons to my bike computer (which I trust to better than 95% confidence), it's pretty good.

10:47 is quite a bit better pace than 11:45.

Must Read

Infuriating and disturbing, but everyone should read this.

More Like Petulant Children

Yes, as Atrios says, "Libertarians is Weird" but Libertarians are a really odd group of people predominantly made up of 16-year-old boys (well, white male college stoners) and petulant man-children, and it's the latter that really hold sway.  Pretty much any Libertarian story could be replaced with "mine, gimme, you can't make me, no..." without changing it significantly.  

There are aspects of Libertarianism that seem to apply pretty broadly (civil liberties, some level of property rights, marijuana legalization), but there's a lot of greedy, racist child that goes into the actual overall Libertarian movement--anti-tax, anti-regulation (often more specifically pro-pollution), anti anti-civil rights/voting rights act(s) (yes, really).  People like Cliven Bundy are not the exception among self proclaimed Libertarians, they are the median Libertarian.

Also, as a special note: most self-proclaimed libertarians are not, in fact libertarians.  A "real Libertarian" would be more strongly pro-choice than anti-tax, and it's odd how often supposed Libertarians are anti-choice.  

We Drink Crap Beer

Lots of it.  Charts like the one below (from this link) just astound me.  Two quick points of contention.  One: most of those "domestics" are no longer American.  Two: Yuengling (which is America's largest brewer--based on ownership and production) isn't on the list at all despite being bigger than Sam Adams (and, agian, being America's largest brewer).

It doesn't surprise me that crap beer (and Bud Light in particular) dominate what we buy, it is how far ahead they are from anything of quality.  Maybe it's because I have lived in several places with very good craft brew scenes, but I am still amazed at how small a fraction of the sum total of the craft/micro brewed beers are of the total consumed--it's pretty damned close to 100% of what I, and many of my friends/family buy but it's less than 5% of the total [volume] purchased in the US.

I think what is happening is the confluence of marketing with low-income/poverty and [borderline] alcoholism--maybe I should call it "partying".  It has to be the combination, because if it was just poverty and "partying" then Natural Light, Keystone Light, PBR, and High Life would all score higher (they're all about the same quality as Bud Light, but cheaper).

Note that Sam Adams to the rest of the craft beer is similar to Bud Light to all beers.  Also, I may have mentioned, but Yuengling seems to be missing from the list.  Also, too, I wouldn't consider Yuengling craft, nor Shiner, and Sam Adams is on the edge, but they do enough experimentation for me to still consider them craft...not that they give two shakes.  Also, also, too, I'm kinda surprised that Kona and Stone are big enough to show up but Dogfish and Rogue aren't...the Yuengling thing makes me wonder a bit at the completeness of the list.

Housing for the Stupid Rich

a.k.a. McMansions...

I have a pretty visceral negative response to most McMansions that is neatly summed up near the end of the linked article:

But what I discovered is that the form doesn’t really change. Yes, the houses get bigger every year, gables and gazebos come and go, but what is really striking about the McMansion is its vapid consistency as the decades pass.

What stays the same, and what always gets me when I walk through one of these houses, are the vacuous spaces. The vast stretches of painted sheet-rock. The gaping rooms that are simply too tall to decorate. The billowing industrial roof. The windowless walls. 

There’s something else, too. Stand in the street when the sun hits the McMansion from the right angle and its glare obliterates the fake muntins in the windows and suddenly you grasp the truth about this form: It is staring at you with those blank featureless eyes, those empty holes in that vast, unadorned wall, demanding to be fed. This house doesn’t serve humans, we serve it.

I live in a neighborhood with plenty of large houses (not mine), most of which date to the late 19th, early 20th century.  Houses that were well built, functional and served to house people well.  They are, I still think, too large by half for most families, but they are not the insanity that is the McMansion.  It's the useless space in so many newer large homes that I really don't like.  Space that needs to be heated, cooled, adorned, cleaned, but that doesn't provide any functionality.  In the older houses, even the large ones, you find that most of the space is somehow useful (yes, there are true mansions that have useless space, but at least those are well made and really look great).  The McMansion equivalents around me have relatively small bedrooms, in which a queen sized bed often feels cramped.  The closets range from small to smaller, and bathrooms and kitchens are utility rooms, not designed to be living spaces themselves.  There may be too many rooms, but each room is serviceable.

Other than very large families or frequent hosting of parties there isn't much use to space beyond a certain point.

Family Leave

We should have it, and it should be very much like that in Sweden.  Oddly, it's an issue that traditional conservatives should embrace along with the liberals, except that it runs hard up against the corporate conservatism that actually owns the Republican party (and yes, it largely owns the Democratic party as well).

What is "Self-Made"

A lot of the income inequality/mobility discussion has, as part of its background the fact that most of the really wealthy are "self-made" which, as far as I can tell, means they didn't inherit their great wealth.  But there's a problem with that fact: it doesn't count leg-up wealth.  Mitt Romney is a good example.  Everyone knows he was born to wealth and opportunity, but his current wealth is "self-made".  Sure he inherited (or would have, not sure on the timing) lots of $$, but he has made quite a bit more.

Even Bill Gates, who most people see as an innovator and self made man, had pretty well off parents.  The children of wealthy people have advantages that others don't, even without looking at some big inheritance/gift.  They can afford to take more risks and chances than most people, because if they fail, they won't be destitute.  Bush Jr. failed at every enterprise he ever attempted and he was gifted the presidency thanks to daddy's little supreme court justices!

That America has lots of "self-made" extraordinarily wealthy individuals is not a testament to America as a land of extraordinary opportunity unless rich, middle class, and poor alike all have the same chance of making it.

83% Out of $1 Billion Bracket...After Game 1

So 83% of people in the billion $ bracket picked Ohio State over Dayton, and are now marred.  As one of the 16% who picked Dayton, I'd brag, but chances are very good that I will miss a game by the end of today (if not the end of this afternoon) and almost certain that I will have at least one miss before the second round finishes.

Still, it is fun to fantasize about what I'd do with the money.  As I've said before, mostly, I'd give it away.  I don't have any use for that much money, but it would be nice to be debt free and to get all the work done on my house that I want, and some new furniture.  ...Also a Tesla.

Free Money For Everyone

Sounds crazy but it would work.  Since it's really no less likely than fiscal stimulus (infrastructure spending please) pushing for it is not a bad idea.

Why Bother With a Monitor?

Ok, sure, I know there are some people who require the much better resolution for work (graphical design, programming...), and for workplaces you can probably fill an office 17" monitors for a song, but for most [home] users, a dedicated computer monitor is a pretty dumb purchase.  For generally less money you can get a television, that can do the same things as a monitor, but also has built in speakers and doesn't require any extra hardware to play television/cable.  Since most computers/laptops now days have HDMI output, it's even a better proposition.

TV plus computer is a much better entertainment option than TV in one place, computer and monitor and speakers in another.  It's also a much better web entertainment option than web-enabled TVs or even Xbox/PSx--apparently these are better, but I can put a keyboard in my lap and a mouse on the sofa and use a computer online much easier. My only real complaint is Netflix: on the computer is seems more laggy and lower res, on the PS3 the interface is shit.

Minimum Wage and Jobs

It's one of those things that seems to be taken more on faith than evidence: higher minimum wage means fewer jobs.  But the evidence just doesn't seem to be there.  It seems like it should so people assume it does, but cities, states, and countries with higher minimum wages than the US just don't generally show higher unemployment (there are other social welfare issues that change and probably do lead to fewer jobs).

This article discusses states and cities in the US, referencing side by side county comparisons.  I wish I could find the link, but Austrailia has a much higher minimum wage than us, and pretty damned low unemployment.

Pure economics wouldn't get you here, but maybe a bit more thought does.  Higher minimum wage means more impetus to work, plus more income for those who do.  More workers making more money will then spend more money meaning an increase in the demand for goods and services, which must be provided by employing more people.  Moreover, if you have a business you want to succeed, you can't just fire everyone because their wages must go up.  You can't succeed with zero employees.  Maybe you can pass on some of the cost to customers, but only in a colluding society can that be guaranteed to work.  Most likely the people on top (owners, executives) will end up with less profits, which, I suspect, is the real reason that business leaders oppose raising the minimum wage.

[Note: I would actually guess* the lower profit thing to be an immediate effect in terms of total $ and long term in terms of % profit.]

*Not an economist, and not doing the maths...which in this case are hard even for economists--too many variables--which I further suspect to be one of the reasons why they all "know" that higher min wage reduces jobs: that's what their maths tell them.

Arizona GOP: Anti-Math...I'll Assume Pro-Barbie

A state senator that doesn't know algebra isn't as surprising as I'd like it to be, but that he would state his ignorance so directly...

It's Not the Brackets, It's the Breaks

First, what Atrios said:

Getting rid of tax brackets does not make the system "dramatically simpler."

Taxes are actually pretty simple for lots of people: anyone who files the 1040 EZ or just takes the standard deduction, and don't have dependents or mortgage or other deductions and credits to put in there.  Even for people with common deductions, tax filing isn't all that complex.

The main reason that taxes get complex is that we spend hours trying not to pay them, and politicians have put in hundreds of breaks that are available to different people and businesses in different cases.  Anyone who wants to simplify the tax code actually has a pretty simple job: eliminate all deductions and credits.  You would probably want to adjust rates (and brackets) along with that, but that's really it.  You made $85k?  go to table, pull up your tax number, that's what you owe.

Right now someone who makes $85k likely pays taxes as though they made $70k, and may get credit for non-tax activity toward that.  That's why taxes are complex.  Between tables and computers, no one actually calculates their taxes.  The calculations are all done on deductions and credits.  We could have 100 brackets, or even a continuum and it would not make anything more complex.

Yes, Student Loan Debt is a Problem [Part the Infinity]

Another article, and another day that nothing is going to be done about this.  I still think that a student loan forgiveness by the Fed buying up all the debt and torching it and free college going forward would be the best fix.  One quick note that was in there was about mortgage requirements:

especially under new mortgage rules that limit total debt for a would-be borrower to 43 percent of their annual income.

I did not know that.  I'll be getting married this year, and apparently we wouldn't qualify for a mortgage after that due primarily to student loans (boo debt!).  Good thing I've already got one (hooray debt!?!).

Another Must Read

Really, just about everything Matt Taibbi writes, but this one is the latest.  Depressing, but stuff that everyone needs to know if we're to have any hope of stopping the next global financial meltdown.

Actually, You Kind of Do...

In David Atkins' post "Serfdom Either Way" he references the report discussed here about the wage gap between college grads and high school grads.  He doesn't say much about it, in fact most of what he does say is:

Do I really need to comment here? The insanity speaks for itself.

I think I know what he is talking about: either go into massive debt or get a shitty job.  But you really do need to comment about it, because the implication of the price premium for college grads is that it is, in fact, worth it to go to college, even when it means incurring debt.  Now I certainly think that college should be much more affordable--in fact free to everyone--but so long as we have this capitalist fantasy about everything, it not only makes sense that college tuition has gotten high, this report clearly implies that the high cost is entirely justified.  Because the gap has been spreading it also implies that the value (and the cost) should grow faster than GDP.

If a college degree means an extra $17k/year (for life!) then it sure as hell is worth paying $30k/year for 4 years to get one.  Now this isn't the math that most students (or their parents) do, and the nature of student loans is borderline predatory, but it isn't "insanity" it's perfectly rational capitalism.

(Note: I hope this isn't a trend of him becoming increasingly irrational, because this follows a post of his from yesterday, that was mostly fine but that very oddly stated "Bill Gates isn't exactly an innovator"...I'm not sure what he would call Bill Gates, but innovator, at the least, is pretty damned appropriate.)

No More Brand Loyalty

I think the article should have made clearer that this is really only true of consumer goods, and maybe small businesses--large corporations/businesses have lots of brand loyalty on the items they buy (sometimes for good reason, other times not so much).  Still, broadly, this is a good thing for society.

What Atrios Said

I think may be scariest when it comes to gun nuts (for whom it undoubtedly holds true).

USPS Banking - I Like It

This is a great idea (it actually sounds familiar, but not so much that I'll admit to having heard it before).  Also, while payday lenders and the like would be the biggest losers, and while [big] banks mostly don't seem to want small depositors, I am most curious to know what the effect would be on banks.  There's a lot of inertia in banking, but the USPS has some serious advantages over the big banks even for people not in banking deserts.

People who currently have banks, but only a couple thousand $ in savings, at most, are mostly being screwed over if that money is in a bank.  Switching to credit unions broadly makes sense, but not all credit unions are equal, and many people who won't switch offer as reason credit unions' (and small banks') shortage of locations/ATMs.  USPS clearly doesn't have that issue.