Tired Puppy

Bored Puppy...part the infinite

Bored Puppy...Actually this is pretty fun.

Bored Puppy...why yes I am spamming Ripley's picture

Bored Puppy...part the whatever

Bored Puppy...part the third

Bored Puppy

Puppy Blogging

Anti-GMO Nuts Similar to Anti-Vax Nuts

Anti-GMO (and to a lesser extent a lot of the super organic everything types) Nuts are pretty high on my personal pet peeve list.  As a public health/welfare issue it is less important as the anti-vax crowd as the anti-gmo group mostly just way overspends on groceries, but the clear disdain both groups hold for the actual science on the issues is infuriating to me.

I'm really not happy to see Consumer Reports on the nutjob side of this fence.

Wearable Fitness

Krugman points out one benefit of the wearable fitness trackers that are getting popular but misses another.  The immediacy thing has been doable for some time now in the form of pedometers.  What the newer electronic devices that couple to apps on on your phone gives you is not just the inability to fool yourself but also introduces a game element, including competition with yourself and others.

People [generally] have more fun running 5 km in a race than they do on their own.  If I walk 15k steps a day: so what?  If I'm involved in a work-week challenge with friends and family: I can win!  Also, this adds the guilt element: other people will know if you're a slug.  The more automated the tracking and notifications are the more likely people are to do them.

I am reminded of the fitness program in "Ready Player One".  He was a slug who did little exercise and ate pizza, but the program, which could not be uninstalled for a month (iirc) wouldn't let him online until he had exercised.

We generally recognize that fitness is more fun when it is a game, but not all people are going to be good/capable of all games.  Personal trackers that monitor steps, fitness level, heartrate, allow anyone to play the fitness game.

Peggy Carter singing 10,000 Maniacs

Yes, I am very aware that it's actually Natalie Merchant, but that was my first thought on seeing this older performance on YouTube (actually saw it on Krugman's blog).  She doesn't actually look like Hayley Atwell, but the outfit, hair and camera angles...Agent Carter was the first person I thought of.

"Liberal" Professors

Professors and universities are bastions of liberal thought.  Sure, but why?  This article states that the reason is self-selection, i.e. liberal youth consider academia an appropriate destination more than conservative youth and so choose it.  Fine, but this seems to me to be circular and so there is still a "why?" to consider.

First: it is circular, because the self-selection needs to be kickstarted somehow.  There needs to be a reason that liberals are more likely to see academia as a good environment to them that isn't "there are more liberals than conservatives in academia." It had to get that way somehow.  Note that that could have still been self-selection but the motivation to get from no apparent bias to professors are all liberal can't be that professors are all liberal.

So, why is it that academia developed into a place where liberals gather?  I haven't the resources (time or physical) to figure this out myself--I certainly do have a few thoughts on the matter--but this isn't a new phenomenon (some aspects are but not the whole liberal vs. conservative thought in educational settings).  

I should also note that while this has some bearing on US politics, that isn't necessarily a big part of it. Particularly today, the political side of liberal vs. conservative doesn't really register to me as an intellectual debate.  The two political sides are far more divided along emotional and group lines, though, yes, one side is far more welcoming of intellect/reason/facts/science/thought/... than the other.  

Seriously: Don't Use Brokers

Even before Wolf of Wall Street and now the Furman memo (first at Bloomberg but more fun read is Taibbi's). It was obvious to anyone who paid any attention that managed funds were a bad idea.  Tons of fees and most do worse than the market average (deducting fees even more are worse).  Yesterday's golden boy is tomorrow's goat--past success does not predict future success in finance.

Your best option is and has been to park your money in a couple low cost index funds (exchange traded or not) and then leave it there.  For balance split between total stocks and total bonds.  You can add REIT and international if you feel like it and the ratio of the split(s) should relate to your risk tolerance (more simply: to your age).  That's it.  Anyone who tells you differently is trying to take money from you and pocket it himself (well, maybe herself, but let's be honest: it's probably gonna be a dude).

Yes some people (and maybe you!) can get lucky and pick the right blend of stocks at the right times and make a killing: doing way better than the market.  But 00 may also come up on the roulette wheel, the dealer may not be sitting on 20 with that face card showing, and 7 could get rolled 3x in a row.  If you want to gamble, that's fine, and the stock market is as good a place to do it as any (and more respectable for some odd reason).  If you are just trying to save for retirement the best way possible, on the other hand, gambling isn't the wise choice.  You may hit the financial jackpot, but probably, you're going to be a lot poorer than you would be if you had just stuck with the simple, cheap option.

Because We Don't...Listen?

Look, scientists are not necessarily the people we want to pay attention to for every little thing.  We are, however, the go-to people for, you know, science stuff.  That's why some of this crap is really frustrating.

Look at that list then think about where the two parties sit.  One party is pro-science, the other is not.  There are some crossover issues, but they are not really party platform points...Yes, more liberals (probably) think GM foods are not safe to eat, and certainly more liberal politicians push for laws on labeling, but the Democratic party does not really care.  Animal research is similar.  Nuclear power is also similar except that the party is very much pro nuclear power.  

Only one party has large numbers who state they do not believe the science on climate change.  Only one party has presidential candidates who publicly declare that they do not believe in evolution.  Indirectly on the list but only one party fights against alternative energy mostly that which comes in the form of solar.

I really do wish the Republican party wasn't anti-science.  I probably still wouldn't vote for them because I have a heart (i.e. liberal on social issues) but at least I would be somewhat less fearful of the damage that will be done to our country and our planet when they have power.

Mostly "Conservative" Rich but Not Entirely

So the "Rich Think the Poor Have it Easy" do they?  I am genuinely curious about why this belief comes about.  Is it straight up class-ism?  Is it a combination of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal poisoning their brains?  I just don't understand how anyone could really believe that the poor have it easy.

We have a (small) safety net that mostly keeps poorer people from being completely destitute.  It helps keep poorer families from starving and helps keep a roof over their head.  Public schools provide some opportunity for advancement for their children, though it should be pretty obvious how inadequate that is.  Moreover we put less toward alleviating poverty today than we did 40, 50 years ago.

I wonder how much is an age divide.  Older people are more likely to be rich.  They mostly grew up during that time that being poor was less of an obstacle than it is today, and there are dramatic differences in some standard of living/cultural issues that confuse the whole picture--"When I was a kid I didn't have an  Xbox and a 40 in. flat screen to play it on!  I had a stick and a hoop and I liked it!"

...really this post is going to be either too long or incomplete so I'm leaving it incomplete.  I just wish I could understand the astounding lack of empathy among the well off in our society.  On the one hand they complain about how hard it is to get by on only $250k, on the other they think people making $20k/year have it easy.

Infuriating and Depressing

There's really no good way to understand understand how [some] American [police] handle black citizens other than racism.  There's even less of a way to get around how the justice system treats these events other than racism.  There are two justice systems in America.  Black people who may or may not be guilty of some crime can be killed by police and nothing comes of it.  White gun nuts engaged in open carry while drunk on the other hand?  Pretty much nothing.  He loses his gun for an afternoon (because drunk) and that's it.  No citation, no wrestling, tazering, pepper spraying, and definitely no shooting because white.

Just Raise the Damn Gas Tax!

Vehicle mileage taxes are stupid on many levels.  But they keep coming up.  You can read here a good (and less emotional) overview of why the VMT idea should die.

Someone Should Remind Bill that Stalin was an Atheist

Considering that Atheists have long gotten shit from religious types about lack of moral compass one would think that a present day atheist would have enough sense to not blame religion (or lack thereof) for the horrible things people do.

Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.  They were horrible people.  Following Bill Maher "logic" atheism makes people horrible (and yes, people have actually made that leap).

Helicopter Money

Simon Wren-Lewis has a good description of Helicopter money but I think he may be missing a couple things.

First is the perception of a "tax cut" vs. "free money".  At one level, if everyone gets $1000 it is the same either way.  If it is a tax cut, however, there is a perception that people who pay more in taxes are getting less out of the deal, and also, people who have little to no tax liability may receive nothing, and those are often the people most in need and most likely to spend.  Additionally, people seem to act differently about free money (read: they spend it) compared to earned money (which a tax cut is returning).

The second thing is the targeting/distribution aspect.  Tax cuts get money to all tax payers/filers.  Helicopter money can get money to everyone.  It could also target specific [debt] problems that may be holding back the economy (student loans, credit cards, mortgages).  True the latter is not exactly the same as helicopter money, but it isn't the same as the current QE strategy either, and everything else he said about it applies equally.

Personally the way I would like to see "helicopter money" distributed is via debt reduction to real people.  I am particularly fond of the fed buying and torching student loan debt, but I could also get behind credit card debt (which I don't really have) or mortgages, though with that last one I think I'd prefer a partial rather than complete buyout (up to maybe $50k per primary mortgage).

There is a lot of fear and uncertainty remaining in the US, and having lots of debt is a real issue for it.  People don't feel as free to spend money if they have these huge responsibilities hanging over them.  Even a fairly generous helicopter drop (via tax cut) isn't directly addressing the debt issue, and probably won't do enough to boost the economy.

Bill Maher is an Asshole

Sometimes he's a good asshole, but lately he's been on his anti-religion zealotry binge and he sounds every bit as bigoted, stupid and vile as the fundamentalists he is ranting against.  There are some atheists who are every bit as fundamentalist and xenophobic as the various fundamentalist religious groups around the world.  They hate religion and religious people like Fred Phelps hates gays: irrationally and with heavy doses of scorn and vitriol.

I saw a bit of the segment with Ben Affleck and I liked that Ben stood his ground against the fundamentalists at the head of the table, but Reza Aslan is right: you can't argue to convince Bill Maher: his viewpoint is not rational.  It is emotional, and he cannot be dissuaded.

Incidentally: the whole of that linked interview is really good.