Is it true that Glass-Steagall is largely irrelevant? I was under the impression some smart people - notably Paul Volcker and Joseph Stiglitz - think that the connection between investment and commercial banks contributed to the crisis:
You're changing the subject. We're talking about the utility of statistical analysis in the context of calling plays, not Belichek's roster-management skills.
I can accept that statistics are frequently cherry-picked, but if you're going to argue that statistical analysis is wrong in this context, I think you need to point out what Football Outsiders missed.
If civilians are killed in the course of an attack on a legitimate military target, I can accept that as a regrettable but justifiable consequence of warfare. The military value of leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, was marginal at best. The attacks were aimed at convincing Japan's civilian population and political leadership that further resistance was futile, a rationale that strikes me as dangerously close to justifying terrorist attacks on civilian targets. This doesn't erase Japan's culpability for attacking the United States, but the military rationale for nuking two major Japanese cities seems remarkably thin in retrospect.
I actually donated money to his presidential campaign, although I didn't vote for him because I was so turned-off by that New Republic article. Even if I overlook the newsletters, however, I'm still faced with the fact that Paul's crankish persona makes it difficult for him to be a credible public advocate for civil liberties.
Now that you're a Canuck, Dierkes, are you allowed to root for American football teams? Shouldn't you be rooting for the Manitoba Manglers or something?
If the conversation wasn't so limited and superficial (a function of Twitter's design constraints), I think this argument would be more persuasive. I can accept the social and organizing functions of Twitter as genuinely useful, but I think it's been over-hyped as some revolutionary new form of communications.
As for The Shield, I never really watched it consistently enough to render final judgment. A top five show, though? The premise seems a little too far-fetched, albeit interesting.
Good post. The amount of obfuscation and self-justifying BS that went into that latest non-apology apology is truly astounding. It's like they're congenitally incapable of admitting a mistake.
I think I was a junior in high school when that happened. A few buddies wore homemade t-shirts with targets and the words "Shoot me, I dare you" to school.
On “quote for the day II”
My advice: filter out all the stuff related to Sarah Palin and go from there.
On “The Acid Test for Conservative Populism”
Is it true that Glass-Steagall is largely irrelevant? I was under the impression some smart people - notably Paul Volcker and Joseph Stiglitz - think that the connection between investment and commercial banks contributed to the crisis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/21volcker.html]
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have jumped into this debate without doing my homework. Thanks for the links.
On “sports metrics and the problem with unconventional wisdom”
You're changing the subject. We're talking about the utility of statistical analysis in the context of calling plays, not Belichek's roster-management skills.
"
I can accept that statistics are frequently cherry-picked, but if you're going to argue that statistical analysis is wrong in this context, I think you need to point out what Football Outsiders missed.
On “Bill Belichek, Randian Superhero”
To be fair, it's only supposed to be a semi-parody. I still think the call is defensible, though.
"
And honestly, I kind of love him for it. To hell with the looters!
On “Ahem.”
a) Brady's still a dreamboat.
b) I actually found this kind of persuasive:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html
On “Breaking the Nuclear Taboo”
North (et. al.) -
Our own government concluded that the bombing was unnecessary from a military standpoint after the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
Again, I think this demonstrates how difficult it is to justify eradicating two civilian population centers on the grounds of military necessity.
"
Transplanted Lawyer -
If civilians are killed in the course of an attack on a legitimate military target, I can accept that as a regrettable but justifiable consequence of warfare. The military value of leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, was marginal at best. The attacks were aimed at convincing Japan's civilian population and political leadership that further resistance was futile, a rationale that strikes me as dangerously close to justifying terrorist attacks on civilian targets. This doesn't erase Japan's culpability for attacking the United States, but the military rationale for nuking two major Japanese cities seems remarkably thin in retrospect.
On “Wanted: Non-corrupt conservative leaders to defend civil liberties”
Thanks for the clarification. I'll update the post to reflect your comments.
"
I actually donated money to his presidential campaign, although I didn't vote for him because I was so turned-off by that New Republic article. Even if I overlook the newsletters, however, I'm still faced with the fact that Paul's crankish persona makes it difficult for him to be a credible public advocate for civil liberties.
On “Who Dey”
Now that you're a Canuck, Dierkes, are you allowed to root for American football teams? Shouldn't you be rooting for the Manitoba Manglers or something?
On “Bruce Bartlett, Socialist Lackey”
Mike -
A deregulated labor market, robust support for free trade, and a reasonably expansive social safety net sounds pretty good to me.
"
We could start here, Mike:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/how-do-those-northern-europeans-do-it/
On “Best Television Shows of the Decade”
Glad someone else is giving Deadwood some love, Sidereal.
On “Somebody had to say it”
If the conversation wasn't so limited and superficial (a function of Twitter's design constraints), I think this argument would be more persuasive. I can accept the social and organizing functions of Twitter as genuinely useful, but I think it's been over-hyped as some revolutionary new form of communications.
On “Best Television Shows of the Decade”
1) Watch The Wire.
2) Never saw Wonderfalls. Heard it was excellent.
3) Farscape > BSG? Seriously? I refuse to take that ranking seriously.
"
That's a decent pick, although your lack of respect for Freaks and Geeks is disheartening.
"
Agree entirely re: the golden age of television.
As for The Shield, I never really watched it consistently enough to render final judgment. A top five show, though? The premise seems a little too far-fetched, albeit interesting.
On “Ambassador Speaking Sense On Line 1”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525722665041310.html
On “Breaking…”
I was just about to post that! Hahahaha mediocre bloggers think alike and all the rest . . .
On “Deadspin’s bind”
Good post. The amount of obfuscation and self-justifying BS that went into that latest non-apology apology is truly astounding. It's like they're congenitally incapable of admitting a mistake.
On “A few more thoughts on the death penalty”
I think I was a junior in high school when that happened. A few buddies wore homemade t-shirts with targets and the words "Shoot me, I dare you" to school.
On “The answer, of course, is to send Bloomberg off to fight the Parthians”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus
On “dangerous ideas”
Did you see this?
http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.