In a great editorial from Sunday, Dan Savage nails the fallacy in the recent marriage rulings in New York and Washington:
Without the promise of gift registries and rehearsal dinners, it seems, many more newborns in New York would be found in trash cans.
Not only is that sarcasm correct, I wish I’d written that line.
It’s always annoying amusing when elderly people win huge jackpots in casinos or state lotterys. They’re always fun little stories that follow a quick pattern. As shown by today’s edition of this tale, it’s location in the “Oddly Enough” section demonstrates its overall importance. Yet, I clicked through.
Unfortunately, now I must mock the unnamed writer:
Great-grandmother Josephine Crawford of nearby Galloway Township was playing the nickel slots in Harrah’s casino in the game where each play costs 5 cents, or a nickel.
A nickel slot costs 5 cents, or a nickel? Who would’ve guessed? Does that mean a quarter slot is 25 cents, or a quarter? Perhaps that’s simplifying the story beyond the “average reader’s” need. Find me someone who is old enough to play a slot machine and I’ll guess she understands how much money she needs to play one spin.
Update: In the comments Kip explains what really happened, i.e. what Reuters ignored. Of course, I missed it, too, but it’s Saturday, so I blame Reuters.
Continuing today’s theme of calling out poor writing… This passage from a story stating that a majority of seniors eligible for Part D, the new Medicare drug benefit program, aren’t enrolling:
But as in earlier efforts to register low-income Americans in programs such as food stamps or children’s health insurance, officials have encountered myriad challenges. The group of seniors eligible for the subsidies dubbed “extra help” tend to move often, may not speak English, sometimes suffer from mental impairments or do not want what they perceive to be a government handout.
Ummm… how else are they, and anyone else, supposed to perceive Part D? By itself, being a handout doesn’t push it into the “Bad” pile, but I’m at a loss to see how else it should be perceived. I’m sure supporters of Part D could explain it as something else, but that would be political gobbledygook. Reporters for the Washington Post should try a little harder.
Post Script: Yes, I agree that the details of this could fill many posts regarding the details. Such a post would likely begin with this statement:
Even Medicare chief Mark McClellan acknowledged that it is difficult marketing to this skeptical group. “Some people think it’s too good to be true,” he said in an interview.
Make of that what you will.
Reading through more analysis of Marcus Vick’s recent troubles, I found a useful fact in this column. It refutes a little of the heated, holier-than-thou rhetoric some have used over the last few days. Consider:
And for what it’s worth, Vick and Tech coach Frank Beamer did wait outside the Louisville locker room in hopes of apologizing personally to Dumervil and Cardinals coach Bobby Petrino. They were told by a U of L official that Dumervil and Petrino weren’t interested in discussing the incident.
I’m not going to start defending Vick because of that, but I think it shows that indicting the entire Virginia Tech football program, as some have written this week, is excessive. Facts still matter. Everyone, including me, forgets that at times. This is just another example of why we should strive to be smarter and less reactionary.
I promise this will be the last sports-related post today, but I want to comment on this column by Michael Wilbon in today’s Washington Post. Mr. Wilbon is one of two sports columnists I look forward to reading when any significant topic (to me) occurs in the sports world. I can always count on Mr. Wilbon to offer an insightful, well-written editorial. Reading today’s column on Redskins safety Sean Taylor spitting in the face of Michael Pittman, I figured I’d get the same, since a $17,000 fine is ridiculously low. The column started out well, comparing Taylor’s fine with the $20,000 fine running back Clinton Portis received for wearing non-regulation socks. So far, so good. It’s when Mr. Wilbon got to the example of Marcus Vick as further proof. I agree that Vick is a useful comparison, but there are two serious issues I have with how far Mr. Wilbon takes the argument. Both exist in this paragraph. Consider:
So you’ll pardon me if I’m not going to give school and athletic department officials a standing ovation for throwing his butt out of school . . . eventually. He should have been thrown out months earlier. And university officials, if they have the guts, ought to be taking a serious look at the entire football program because there’s way too much trouble involving the football players on that campus.
As for Virginia Tech “throwing his butt out of school,” this is the second time Mr. Wilbon mentioned this. Unfortunately, it’s not true. Virginia Tech dismissed Marcus Vick from the football team, not from Virginia Tech. Vick did nothing to help himself in the last week, but there’s a difference. But that’s more a trivial complaint than anything.
More disturbing is the last part of that paragraph. With the phrase “way too much trouble involving the football players on that campus,” Mr. Wilbon presents the Virginia Tech football team as a troubled program, one that coddles thugs and criminals while putting only money as a priority. Maybe that’s true; I’ve heard such statements in abundance over the last week, so I’m not surprised. I expect proof with a statement like that, though. Simply stating something does not make it true.
Without facts, it diminishes our reputation with people who are paying only marginal attention to our program. It implies that we care only about athletics and victories, with academics of little consequence. If that’s true, Mr. Wilbon should provide support for statements like that. If it’s not, he should understand that making such throwaway lines for hyperbole hurts Virginia Tech unfairly with potential students, as well as athletic recruits, because his words have influence. Whichever impression the facts support, I can accept it. I can’t accept that Marcus Vick alone is an indictment of the entire program, not without more proof.
Since I’ve highlighted in the past writing I admire, the kind of phrase, sentence, or paragraph that makes me wish I’d written it, it makes sense for me to highlight the opposite. It’s very rare that I come across something that makes me groan, since something like that is usually bad from start to finish and not worth mentioning. This article about highway repairs in New Orleans has a sentence that mars an otherwise good job of reporting. Consider:
I-10 is one of three coast-to-coast interstates that link the entire nation, stretching from Jacksonville to Los Angeles; the broken spans were an affront to the Jack Kerouac sensibility of a vast nation united by its long ribbons of concrete.
I’ll concede that “long ribbons of concrete” is an interesting phrase. But does the nation as a whole possess the “Jack Kerouac sensibility” regarding its roads? We like our cars, but really, has all traffic west stopped because a bridge is out? There has to be a better way to buttress “long ribbons of concrete” with a phrase as interesting. There has to be.
Enjoy this article in The Washington Post, which could’ve ended much earlier than the writers ended it.
An 18-year-old student was arrested at a D.C. school yesterday for allegedly robbing a Metro passenger of an iPod, an expensive music-playing device that has become a pop-culture icon, a Metro spokesman said.
That should be enough to tell readers that Metro riders should keep their belongings close or whatever lesson one wants to take from that. Since it needs to fill more newspaper space, we’re treated to other iPod descriptions. Consider:
The electronic devices, which let people carry thousands of songs with them and listen to them through earphones, are about the size of a pack of cigarettes and have rapidly replaced the older portable Walkman-style stereos as the entertainment device of choice. Many people use them to alleviate the boredom of trips on crowded subway trains and the perceived tedium of many other activities.
……the rectangular metallic device…
I appreciate that the writers can form multi-syllabic groupings of symbols uniformly accepted to represent phonetic pronunciation, which, when grouped in a recognized manner, imply meanings to the otherwise arbitrary sounds. I prefer to call them words. And any decent editor should’ve crossed all that crap out, replacing it with something more familiar, like maybe “iPod.” But I could just have an exceptional understanding of what an iPod is and why people use it. I’m not jealous that both of the writers involved got paid like times infinity more than I did for these multi-syllabic groupings of symbols uniformly accepted to represent phonetic pronunciation, which, when grouped in a recognized manner, imply meanings to the otherwise arbitrary sounds words.
Yesterday, I wrote about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. I discussed the economic stupidity of the scheme, making it clear how I thought it should work. In the comments to that post, I received the following from BrStarr:
So you don’t care if Boston, New York or LA gets blown up?
Who do you think pays enough taxes so that you farm belt people can have your huge subsidies?
Winn-Dixie?
I responded, though sadly only in comments, since BrStarr left no contact information.
Read through the archives and you’ll find that it’s no secret that I live in the Washington, DC metro area, which I do not believe is in the farm belt. I acknowledge that I face greater risk living here. As such, my cost to insure my life, health, and property will likely go up, if the private insurance market is paying attention. I accept that, as well as believing that the farm belt should not have to pay it since they don’t live here and didn’t force me to live here. And if I showed you my tax bill, you’d realize that I’ve “earned” the right to get a “favor” from Congress. I’d rather have lower taxes and a private insurance market, but that’s the crazy libertarian in me.
As to the other points, no, I don’t want to see Boston, New York, or LA blown up. I’ve been to all three cities and like them well enough that I’d like to be able to revisit them.
And I don’t like farm subsidies. I’d rather pay the price at the supermarket than at the Treasury. Either way, I’m paying. Crazy me, I think the market can do it better. Also, as a vegan, I benefit little from subsidies for beef, chicken, milk, etc. Again, my personal choices. And the private market could handle them.
Today’s lesson: don’t call me a hypocrite until you have facts. Have a day.
I should’ve added that the leap in assumptions to go from me saying that terrorism risk insurance should be private to believing I’d belittled the threat of destruction to three of our largest cities is gargantuan, but no matter. Criticism with no basis is easy to dismiss when I know I’m right. But I’d be a fool to think I’m always right. I know that I’m sometimes misguided due to imprecision or accusing too broadly. Sometimes, I’m sure I’m even wrong. That’s okay. I’m writing as much to figure out what I believe as I am to inform and convince.
If I just wanted to enjoy my writing without criticism, I wouldn’t have comments. They’re open on every post, and I welcome responses. If I’ve said something stupid, inaccurate or incomplete, I’m willing to listen to alternatives. I’ll respond if appropriate. As much as I want to influence opinion, I want to learn more. Read through the archives and I think you’ll notice the same progression in my thinking and expressing that I’ve noticed.
I know my opinions challenge some who read this site, and you express it from time to time. I don’t expect anyone to comment just to comment. But if you think you have a better way of looking at something, say so. The ideas and principles are more important to me than being right all the time.
By now everyone knows that Denver residents approved Initiative 100, legalizing possession of up to one ounce of marijuana within the city limits. This is, of course, mostly symbolic since state laws against possession will still trump Initiative 100. We all know how the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” nanny statists will view this, so shock at continuing arrests and disregard for this message from the voters would be pointless. Remember, it’s all about the will of the people unless the will of the people don’t do what’s in their best interests. The people don’t get to offer input into what’s in their best interest, either, but no matter. “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” continues.
Personally, I agree with the gist of the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” message, although I’d change it to reflect that I merely don’t get the fascination with drugs, or even alcohol. That doesn’t mean I expect to deny it to you. As long as you don’t endanger me, I don’t care, so I think drugs should be legal and would’ve voted for Initiative 100. With all the issues facing our society, prohibition laws make no sense. Possession of one ounce of marijuana is trivial when considering other dangers. Legalize all of it and end the nonsensical battle.
While in Blacksburg over the weekend, I read the student newspaper, The Collegiate Times, for a bit of nostalgia. I always do this and I’m always amused at how bad it is. It was awful when I was a student. A reporter interviewed me for a story on a student organization I was involved in at the time and misquoted me after I e-mailed my response to her questions. Seemingly everyone involved was some combination of lazy and/or incompetent. Now, more than seven years later, nothing has changed. From Friday’s edition, this editorial tackles the passage of Initiative 100 in Denver. Consider [sic’s everywhere]:
News of such a measure brings about issues of legalizing marijuana in general. Denver should not have allowed such a measure to pass, even its mayor and the state of Colorado agree with that. The new procedure essentially stops people in Denver from being punished for carrying small amounts of marijuana. State law still allows for fines and speaks nothing to buying, selling or smoking the drug that has been known as a gateway drug to other addictive ones.
By passing such a procedure, the city of Denver may have gotten more than it bargained for. Then again, perhaps they really are attempting to become the next Amsterdam. If possession of marijuana becomes legal, what is to stop arguments of legalization of prostitution, heroin or any other illegal drugs?
In a country full of people who cannot even handle alcohol, legalizing marijuana is ludicrous. The United States arguably has some of the strictest laws pertaining to alcohol; however, drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries, if not all.
What all of this boils down to is this: Making a vice more accessible, even legal, only ensures that it will become more harmful. Allowing people in one city to carry less than an ounce of marijuana literally removes the deterrence of carrying drugs in general. Not only that but a measure such as the one that has just passed in Denver, push the movement of legalizing marijuana in general.
That seriously could be the only reason something such as this has happened. In Telluride, Colo., the same measure as in Denver was narrowly turned down. It seems as though the purpose of introducing these procedures in localities that are so close to one another can only be to eventually challenge the state law itself.
The United States simply isn’t ready for the legalization of marijuana. This country cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, how can citizens expect to be able to handle marijuana? While it seems as though state law may trump the measures being taken in Denver, the overall effects of such things are the real problem. Legalizing possession in Denver pushes the movement towards general legalization in Colorado and basically paves the way for legalized marijuana all over the United States. Without a doubt the road the followers of this movement are headed on must be stopped.
I’m ashamed that poorly reasoned, grammatically ignorant screeds pass for thinking at Virginia Tech. There are so many lapses of logic that it’s hard to decide where to begin. Is it the ridiculous notion that government officials are a better arbiter of standards than the governed? Could it be that the editors invoked the “slippery slope” argument without providing any justification for how that would happen, or even why it’s a “bad” outcome?
No. It’s the low level of intelligence needed to believe that “strictest laws pertaining to alcohol/drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries” forms a strong pretext to criminalize drugs more until the people finally get it that drugs. are. bad. and they can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so Thank God the government is looking out for them. The editors provide no support for their generalizations. No statistics, no theories, no anecdotal evidence. They offer nanny statism at its core: if we give you freedom, you’ll only fuck it up, so trust us that we know better. No, thanks.
Yet, the editors don’t stop there. Somehow America cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, so how can citizens be able to handle marijuana? First, prove that Americans can’t handle alcohol. I might agree generically, although I come to the conclusion that allowing Americans to drink earlier, where parents and society can teach moderation, would be more effective than “protecting” them from themselves with strict laws. I don’t agree, though, that a blanket statement of fact is sufficient in this argument. Prove it with at least one fact. Surely one is available.
More importantly, the editors failed to prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol. Again, prove it. State at least one fact indicating that legalization of alcohol is reasonable but legalization of marijuana is not. It can’t be the gateway drug nonsense, either, unless you prove that, too. Wishing it so doesn’t it make it true. Cause and effect.
Finally, what kind of government do the editors believe we have? Granted, that’s mostly rhetorical because the clear implication in that editorial is that the federal government mandates best. But consider the federal part of federal government. Isn’t it reasonable to allow a locality to decide that it wants to try this experiment? If it doesn’t work, it’ll stop and presumably won’t spread to other places. If it succeeds, the next locality has proof that it can be done without destroying society. In that regard, the editors are correct in assuming that it could spread all over America, but that’s not a bad outcome if the experiment proves a success. But that’s just my crazy notion that I’ll err on the side of freedom unless the facts reveal that as unwise.
You’re going to be shocked, but I have an opinion on this story:
A Roman Catholic high school has ordered its students to remove their online diaries from the Internet, citing a threat from cyberpredators.
Students at Pope John XXIII Regional High School in Sparta appear to be heeding a directive from the principal, the Rev. Kieran McHugh.
…Officials with the Diocese of Paterson say the directive is a matter of safety, not censorship. No one has been disciplined yet, said Marianna Thompson, a diocesan spokeswoman.
It’s a private school, so no civil rights are being abused. That doesn’t make it right. It’s not even the most appropriate response a learning institution could pursue. Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation offered this, which is too logical and obvious for the school, I suppose:
“But this is the first time we’ve heard of such an overreaction,” he said. “It would be better if they taught students what they should and shouldn’t do online rather than take away the primary communication tool of their generation.”
The real issue for me in this is the likely reason the school believes this is within its bounds. The parents who enroll their kids in Pope John XXIII Regional High School probably signed something giving the school the ability to make this decision for their children. But why do parents feel this is good parenting? Better to learn early that parents own children.
This is a high school, where the “kids” are within a few years of adulthood. Sooner rather than later they’ll be making decisions on their own, involving themselves in relationships and activities with the same potential consequences that the school aims to protect with this policy. Shielding them from the world before turning them loose is an abdication of a basic purpose of education. Parents signing this away is worse.
I’d say I’m surprised, but I’ve written enough about that concept to know that it shocks only the foolish.
