So last week I finished The Post-American World and I have to say it was one of the best books I have ever read. Although relatively short at 259 pages, it is amazing the breadth of information he has managed to pack into it. I can’t remember another book where I found myself nodding in agreement to almost everything he said. I do have a problem with the title, though. It absolutely makes sense in the context of the book but I think it’s a little too inflammatory for those that aren’t familiar with his work and it will probably cause a fair amount of people to dismiss it as “just another anti-American book.” Really, it is anything but that. While he certainly doesn’t pull any punches in criticizing American blunders, he is also careful to point out the myriad of successes and instances where we’ve gotten an undeserved bad rep. Overall he presents a vision of a world where, yes, America will inevitably be stepping down from its role as the sole super-power but where we also have a very important new role to play and we will be instrumental in determining whether or not the age of globalization surges ahead smoothly or lurches forward unsteadily. In the analogy of the world as a corporation, we will be the Chairman of the Board. We wield the most power at the table, but we will no longer be able to unilaterally act without the cooperation of the rest of the Board of Directors.
Rather than expound on the subjects he talks about, I thought it would be better to give it to you in his own words, with some commentary from me after each quote.
On Terrorism
“Some Western leaders speak of a single Islamist movement – absurdly lumping together Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite warlords in Lebanon, and Sunni jihadists in Egypt. In fact, a shrewd strategist would emphasize that all these groups are distinct, with differing agendas, enemies, and friends. That would rob them of their claim to represent Islam. It would also describe them as they often are: small local gangs of misfits hoping to attract attention through nihilism and barbarism.”
This is such a great point. Even in anecdotal discussions with pretty well-informed people I have often heard (and been guilty of saying myself) things like “well, the Sunnis want this, and the Shiites want this” when the reality is far more complex. In the U.S. if someone were to make a statement that the KKK, the IRA, and pro-lifers that bomb abortion clinics were all the same because they are all radical Christian-based organizations, people would rightfully look at them like they were crazy. But far too often we are eager to group things together and gloss over all the extremely important complexities of the situation. We do so at our own peril.
“Here is the bottom line. In the six years since 9/11, Al-Qaeda Central – the group led by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri – has been unable to launch a major attack anywhere. It was a terrorist organization; it has become a communications company, producing the occasional videotape rather than actual terror. Jihad continues, but the jihadists have had to scatter, make do with smaller targets, and operate on a local level – usually through groups with almost no connection to Al Qaeda Central. And this improvised strategy has a crippling weakness: it kills locals, thus alienating ordinary Muslims. . . The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant”
Now I’m sure a lot of people will see this as goading the terrorists but I think this is a far cry from Bush’s “Bring it on” from 2004. The most important thing, and the thing we need to improve the most upon in this country, is to keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. If you don’t like the above quote, consider this one: “Get on the damn elevator! Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist! It’s still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave.” That’s from John McCain’s book (Why Courage Matters, 2004). Fighting terrorism, like fighting crime, is an important part of any country’s safety. It should not, however, be dominating the political agenda.
The Effects of Terrorism on the Economy
“In the West, the effects of terrorism have diminished with each additional attack. After 9/11, global financial markets collapsed and did not return to 9/10 levels for 2 months. After the Madrid bombings in 2004, the Spanish market took a month to recover. After the London bombings in July 2005, British stocks were back to pre-bombing levels in 24 hours.”
As an economics geek, I find this kind of thing really interesting, and it is one of the things I have believed for a while. Since terrorism cannot kill the genocidal type numbers of a huge war, the only way it really succeeds is if it manages to create instability and fear within a population. That is why I was actually upset when, on the evening of 9/11, there was nothing to be found on the TV but WTC coverage. Certainly I don’t think that it wasn’t newsworthy, I just thought that the best response to the attack would have been a collective shrug where we get on with our lives. It bothered me that we kept saying “the terrorists failed” while all the while further solidifying that 9/11/01 will be a pivotal date etched into the history books. That’s what they wanted to do, and they succeeded. 9/11 should not be our date or our rallying cry. 9/11 is about a group of misguided extremists who decided to bring tragedy and destruction into the lives of innocent people. That’s their date. You know what our date is? 7/4. Always has been, and always should be. To quote The World is Flat, “we need to restore 9/11 to its rightful place on the calendar. The day after 9/10 and the day before 9/12.”
Climate Change
“Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build 800 new coal-fired power plants – with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”
Again, this is all about perspective (though this time in the reverse). It’s all well and good for us Americans to switch to fluorescent lights and even drive our hybrid cars, but unless we are able to get China and India on board in the fight against climate change, it’s probably all moot. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though.
American Hypocrisy
[This is Fareed quoting a Chinese government employee]“When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is ‘And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?’ We see the hypocrisy, we just don’t say anything, yet.”
Fareed expounds on this a lot in the book. Bush is fond of saying how much he loves democracy and condemns countries that support non-democratic regimes. Yet the rest of the world sees our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and our words seem very hollow. We consider those countries to be “exceptions”. But we either need to stop having our own exceptions or realize that other countries are entitled to their exceptions too and drop the empty rhetoric.
“On terrorism, both parties continue to speak in a language entirely designed for a domestic audience with no concern for the poisonous effect it has everywhere else.”
When our politicians fall all over themselves decrying this and that country and leader, it’s always with the mindset of how American voters will see the issue. But the rest of the world watches too, and it does not set the stage for very effective diplomatic relationships.
The Global Economy
“For all its abuses of power, the U.S. has been the creator and sustainer of the current order of open trade and democratic government – an order that has been benign and beneficial for the vast majority of humankind.”
“That is why it seems perfectly natural that the largest casino in the world has been built in Macao, China – and it is an imitation of St. Mark’s Square in Venice, which is itself strongly influenced by Moorish (Islamic) design. Is it Chinese, Western, Moorish, or modern? Probably all of the above.”
From the Pew Global Attitudes Survey – “Of the 47 countries polled, however, the one that came in dead last in terms of support for free trade was the US . . .We want the world to accept American companies with open arms, but when they come here – that’s a different matter.”
“Over the last 15 years the U.S. has placed sanctions on half the world’s population. We are the only country in the world to issue annual report cards on every other country’s behavior.”
“Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that, in the early decades of the 21st century, the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission – it globalized the world. But along the way, they might write, it forgot to globalize itself.”
I don’t have a lot of comments on these individually, as I think they generally speak for themselves. I think together they paint a pretty good picture of the role the U.S. has had in shaping the current world and global economy we operate in, and also the challenges that we face in now needing to reshape the way we interact with this new world order.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
One More Down, One Still Pending!
Well, my last post has confirmed what I’ve always thought: you get the most interest when you talk about sex or death (though, preferably not at the same time). In any case, I’m working on a couple more serious posts but hey, it’s Friday so let’s turn to some more fun stuff!
The big news from today is that at long last I finally found out one of my CPA scores (the Financial Reporting section) and I did indeed pass! Contrary to my other two exams, where I far exceeded the minimum passing score of 75 (87 on BEC and 91 on REG), this time I got through by the skin of my teeth with a 77. I like the way my co-worker put it when I told him this morning: “That just means you studied exactly the right amount.” Still waiting on the final section (Audit) but I am ecstatic that I will never need to study this Financial Reporting junk again. That was by far my weakest area and the one I was dreading the most going into this process. Even though it will suck if I have to retake Audit, I will appreciate the inherent irony that I have been an Auditor for 7 years and that might be the one section I don’t pass. More than anything, though, I just hope I find out sooner rather than later. With the holiday weekend upon us, I have the distinct feeling that if it isn’t posted today by 5 I won’t find out till Tuesday at the earliest.
Last night Christy and I got out to see the new Indiana Jones movie on opening night. Since I’m assuming most of you haven’t seen it yet but are planning to, I won’t give away any specifics and will just let you know my reaction to it. Overall, I was actually really impressed. My first thought as the credits rolled was “that was a far better job of preserving the legacy of a historic series than the new Star Wars films.” Everything about the film still *feels* like an Indiana Jones movie. The way it’s shot, written, acted, the action scenes, the sound effects, and even down to the Indy one-liners are all done pitch-perfect. They don’t shy away from the fact that he is a lot older than he was in the last one, and I’m glad for it. It does add a tinge of sadness to the whole proceedings, because where the other stories felt like we were seeing just one adventure in a long series that began long before and would continue long after, this one really feels like it is his last adventure and thus almost plays out like a long epilogue. But, hey, by all accounts it really IS the last adventure for him, so that feel is appropriate too. There are subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the previous films, but rather than seem contrived or superfluous they feel logical within the context of the story. It manages to exceed in walking a very tight line of invoking nostalgia while at the same time being an exciting new adventure in its own right. This is definitely a film I can see myself watching over and over again. The only complaint that, to me, really keeps it from being masterful is the ending. Again, I won’t give specifics, but I’ll just say that while I won’t go so far as to call it bad, I think underwhelming is a good descriptor. I think that’s partially a function of the fact that all 3 previous films managed to have unbelievably awesome endings. Seriously, the opening of the ark in Raiders, the mine cart race and rope bridge fight in Temple, and the trials and choosing the right grail in Crusade would all probably be in the top-50 most memorable scenes of all time. The end of this film will most definitely not be included there, but that’s ok. For me, it knocks it down from a 10 to a 9/10, but that’s still pretty impressive and a lot better than I was expecting. I was also trying to think of where this film ranks out of the four films and you know what? I can’t do it; because I actually can’t rank the other three either. Depending on the day, I can make an argument that any of the other three are my favorite. The only things I can say definitively is that on no day is Raiders my least favorite, and on no day will the Crystal Skull be my favorite. Everything else is up for grabs though.
This is Captain Tollway, the new mascot for the Illinois er . . . tollway I guess. For the moment I am going to bypass the inherent ridiculousness of having a mascot for tolls (what’s next? Taxy the IRS mascot who looks like a cab?) and just concentrate on the absolute absurdity of the appearance of this particular one. First of all, why are only his lower teeth showing and why exactly is his lower jaw three times the size of the top of his head? Second, I question the decision to give him the Cameron Diaz There’s Something About Mary hair. I also don’t understand why his knees curve inward instead of out, and I am moderately disturbed by the sharp, triangular (possibly cancerous) growths protruding from both biceps. All that being said, I can’t wait to pick up my free Captain Tollway coloring book and crayons! Yes, that’s our tax dollars at work.
Finally today, I’ve come up with an idea for some group participation (no, not that; get your minds out of the gutter people). Since there seems to be a fair amount of opinionated people that read this, I thought it might be neat to do a sort of “round table” discussion. I’ve seen this done on some other sites (mainly sports blogs) and I thought it was pretty cool. Basically, I’ll come up with a list of topical questions (maybe 5 or 6) and me and 3 other people will provide short (~100-200 word) answers to them. It’s basically meant to simulate if we were all on one of those Sunday morning talk shows (or discussing over a few beers at a bar). Anyway, let me know if you are interested in participating. Not sure how many people will be, but to keep it fair if I get a lot of volunteers I’ll just take the first 3 I get. I haven’t even started to put together questions yet, but I’m thinking I’ll do that in the next week, send them out, and then give another week to get everyone’s response. I vow to reprint your responses exactly as I receive them (typos and all); no censorship of any kind. Anyway, let me know if you want to participate.
OK, I think that’s all for today. Monday or Tuesday I will post my comprehensive review of Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, complete with a ton of quotes from the book that I think are awesome (hopefully I don’t get sued).
Have a good holiday weekend everyone!
The big news from today is that at long last I finally found out one of my CPA scores (the Financial Reporting section) and I did indeed pass! Contrary to my other two exams, where I far exceeded the minimum passing score of 75 (87 on BEC and 91 on REG), this time I got through by the skin of my teeth with a 77. I like the way my co-worker put it when I told him this morning: “That just means you studied exactly the right amount.” Still waiting on the final section (Audit) but I am ecstatic that I will never need to study this Financial Reporting junk again. That was by far my weakest area and the one I was dreading the most going into this process. Even though it will suck if I have to retake Audit, I will appreciate the inherent irony that I have been an Auditor for 7 years and that might be the one section I don’t pass. More than anything, though, I just hope I find out sooner rather than later. With the holiday weekend upon us, I have the distinct feeling that if it isn’t posted today by 5 I won’t find out till Tuesday at the earliest.
Last night Christy and I got out to see the new Indiana Jones movie on opening night. Since I’m assuming most of you haven’t seen it yet but are planning to, I won’t give away any specifics and will just let you know my reaction to it. Overall, I was actually really impressed. My first thought as the credits rolled was “that was a far better job of preserving the legacy of a historic series than the new Star Wars films.” Everything about the film still *feels* like an Indiana Jones movie. The way it’s shot, written, acted, the action scenes, the sound effects, and even down to the Indy one-liners are all done pitch-perfect. They don’t shy away from the fact that he is a lot older than he was in the last one, and I’m glad for it. It does add a tinge of sadness to the whole proceedings, because where the other stories felt like we were seeing just one adventure in a long series that began long before and would continue long after, this one really feels like it is his last adventure and thus almost plays out like a long epilogue. But, hey, by all accounts it really IS the last adventure for him, so that feel is appropriate too. There are subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the previous films, but rather than seem contrived or superfluous they feel logical within the context of the story. It manages to exceed in walking a very tight line of invoking nostalgia while at the same time being an exciting new adventure in its own right. This is definitely a film I can see myself watching over and over again. The only complaint that, to me, really keeps it from being masterful is the ending. Again, I won’t give specifics, but I’ll just say that while I won’t go so far as to call it bad, I think underwhelming is a good descriptor. I think that’s partially a function of the fact that all 3 previous films managed to have unbelievably awesome endings. Seriously, the opening of the ark in Raiders, the mine cart race and rope bridge fight in Temple, and the trials and choosing the right grail in Crusade would all probably be in the top-50 most memorable scenes of all time. The end of this film will most definitely not be included there, but that’s ok. For me, it knocks it down from a 10 to a 9/10, but that’s still pretty impressive and a lot better than I was expecting. I was also trying to think of where this film ranks out of the four films and you know what? I can’t do it; because I actually can’t rank the other three either. Depending on the day, I can make an argument that any of the other three are my favorite. The only things I can say definitively is that on no day is Raiders my least favorite, and on no day will the Crystal Skull be my favorite. Everything else is up for grabs though.
This is Captain Tollway, the new mascot for the Illinois er . . . tollway I guess. For the moment I am going to bypass the inherent ridiculousness of having a mascot for tolls (what’s next? Taxy the IRS mascot who looks like a cab?) and just concentrate on the absolute absurdity of the appearance of this particular one. First of all, why are only his lower teeth showing and why exactly is his lower jaw three times the size of the top of his head? Second, I question the decision to give him the Cameron Diaz There’s Something About Mary hair. I also don’t understand why his knees curve inward instead of out, and I am moderately disturbed by the sharp, triangular (possibly cancerous) growths protruding from both biceps. All that being said, I can’t wait to pick up my free Captain Tollway coloring book and crayons! Yes, that’s our tax dollars at work.
Finally today, I’ve come up with an idea for some group participation (no, not that; get your minds out of the gutter people). Since there seems to be a fair amount of opinionated people that read this, I thought it might be neat to do a sort of “round table” discussion. I’ve seen this done on some other sites (mainly sports blogs) and I thought it was pretty cool. Basically, I’ll come up with a list of topical questions (maybe 5 or 6) and me and 3 other people will provide short (~100-200 word) answers to them. It’s basically meant to simulate if we were all on one of those Sunday morning talk shows (or discussing over a few beers at a bar). Anyway, let me know if you are interested in participating. Not sure how many people will be, but to keep it fair if I get a lot of volunteers I’ll just take the first 3 I get. I haven’t even started to put together questions yet, but I’m thinking I’ll do that in the next week, send them out, and then give another week to get everyone’s response. I vow to reprint your responses exactly as I receive them (typos and all); no censorship of any kind. Anyway, let me know if you want to participate.
OK, I think that’s all for today. Monday or Tuesday I will post my comprehensive review of Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, complete with a ton of quotes from the book that I think are awesome (hopefully I don’t get sued).
Have a good holiday weekend everyone!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
An Argument Against Capital Punishment
OK, so usually even in my political posts I try to inject a little bit of humor there. After rereading this one, I realize that it is an exception. So, sorry, but this is one that will be all serious.
This is a topic I’ve had a lot of thoughts about over the last year and since I just read an article related to it I thought it would be a good time to bring it up. CNN is currently running a series of articles on DNA exonerations in the Dallas, TX area. To date, 17 people in the Dallas area (and, according to The Innocence Project, 216 nationwide) have been freed due to DNA evidence which has come to light since their incarceration. The latest is a man (James Woodward) who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. While he will never get those 27 years of his life back, one of my favorite expressions applies here; things can always be worse. He could have been executed.
I suppose one of the reasons this issue has been on my mind is that it’s only been in the last year that I’ve changed my mind about it. Prior to that, I was firmly in the pro death-penalty camp. Largely my rationale was consistent with a conservative, Ayn Rand line of thinking where I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to support the lowest dregs of society. In many ways, I still believe that. However, I heard an argument on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! that, try as I might I cannot refute.
Essentially, it boils down to an issue called the “paradox of the death penalty.” It means that if you believe that people responsible for murder deserve to be put to death then you are forced to believe that no innocent person has ever been falsely convicted and put to death. Otherwise you, as a member of a society that kills people, are responsible for the death of an innocent and therefore you yourself deserve to be put to death. While that may seem like academic rhetoric, I think it’s a very powerful point. How can you possibly support a policy where it is known that it will result in the death of the innocent?
Well, I guess I always knew that theoretically some people were imprisoned wrongfully. But seeing ironclad proof of it, as has been the situation with these DNA cases, is something else entirely. One of the scariest things about the James Woodard case is that he happened to be “lucky” enough to be convicted in a county that has evidence preservation laws. Had he not been, all the DNA evidence would have been destroyed long ago and he would still be in jail today. How many hundreds of other people does that apply to sitting in prison today? How many does it apply to that have been executed? We’ll never know the answer to either of these, and that’s what is so disturbing. The other thing that is just as frightening in his case is that it appears that during his original trial the police didn’t follow-up on several key leads and the prosecution apparently didn’t share information they were legally obligated to. The fact that this did not appear to even come up or factor in any of his appeals cases is further evidence of the fallibility of our legal system and further strengthens my case.
One of the counter arguments is that these anomalies represent “collateral damage.” The injustice done to a few individuals is minor when compared to the increase in safety to the public from ridding the world of dangerous and deranged criminals. After all, whenever the military engages in struggles there will inevitably be civilian casualties. Doesn’t following my logic indicate that I must believe all military action is immoral as well?
I would counter that military action, when properly used, is supposed to be a last resort. The wielding of death and destruction is meant to be used when there is no other option available. And that is the key: the lack of other options. With the death penalty, there is another option. And that option is locking criminals up and keeping them segregated from the general populace for the rest of their lives. True, it does not eliminate the injustice of imprisoning an innocent, and it is also true that it means that public money must be used to support them. All I can say is that sometimes you do have to choose the least worst option, and I believe that this is it.
I suppose it comes down to a fundamental question: are you willing to financially support 99% of people convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable in order to avoid killing the 1% that were falsely convicted?
This is a topic I’ve had a lot of thoughts about over the last year and since I just read an article related to it I thought it would be a good time to bring it up. CNN is currently running a series of articles on DNA exonerations in the Dallas, TX area. To date, 17 people in the Dallas area (and, according to The Innocence Project, 216 nationwide) have been freed due to DNA evidence which has come to light since their incarceration. The latest is a man (James Woodward) who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. While he will never get those 27 years of his life back, one of my favorite expressions applies here; things can always be worse. He could have been executed.
I suppose one of the reasons this issue has been on my mind is that it’s only been in the last year that I’ve changed my mind about it. Prior to that, I was firmly in the pro death-penalty camp. Largely my rationale was consistent with a conservative, Ayn Rand line of thinking where I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to support the lowest dregs of society. In many ways, I still believe that. However, I heard an argument on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! that, try as I might I cannot refute.
Essentially, it boils down to an issue called the “paradox of the death penalty.” It means that if you believe that people responsible for murder deserve to be put to death then you are forced to believe that no innocent person has ever been falsely convicted and put to death. Otherwise you, as a member of a society that kills people, are responsible for the death of an innocent and therefore you yourself deserve to be put to death. While that may seem like academic rhetoric, I think it’s a very powerful point. How can you possibly support a policy where it is known that it will result in the death of the innocent?
Well, I guess I always knew that theoretically some people were imprisoned wrongfully. But seeing ironclad proof of it, as has been the situation with these DNA cases, is something else entirely. One of the scariest things about the James Woodard case is that he happened to be “lucky” enough to be convicted in a county that has evidence preservation laws. Had he not been, all the DNA evidence would have been destroyed long ago and he would still be in jail today. How many hundreds of other people does that apply to sitting in prison today? How many does it apply to that have been executed? We’ll never know the answer to either of these, and that’s what is so disturbing. The other thing that is just as frightening in his case is that it appears that during his original trial the police didn’t follow-up on several key leads and the prosecution apparently didn’t share information they were legally obligated to. The fact that this did not appear to even come up or factor in any of his appeals cases is further evidence of the fallibility of our legal system and further strengthens my case.
One of the counter arguments is that these anomalies represent “collateral damage.” The injustice done to a few individuals is minor when compared to the increase in safety to the public from ridding the world of dangerous and deranged criminals. After all, whenever the military engages in struggles there will inevitably be civilian casualties. Doesn’t following my logic indicate that I must believe all military action is immoral as well?
I would counter that military action, when properly used, is supposed to be a last resort. The wielding of death and destruction is meant to be used when there is no other option available. And that is the key: the lack of other options. With the death penalty, there is another option. And that option is locking criminals up and keeping them segregated from the general populace for the rest of their lives. True, it does not eliminate the injustice of imprisoning an innocent, and it is also true that it means that public money must be used to support them. All I can say is that sometimes you do have to choose the least worst option, and I believe that this is it.
I suppose it comes down to a fundamental question: are you willing to financially support 99% of people convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable in order to avoid killing the 1% that were falsely convicted?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Is it the end, the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning?
One of the classes I never thought I'd take but was really glad I did in undergrad was Nuclear Engineering 100. I knew it was going to be a good class right away when the professor said on day 1: "I can't promise anything, but I try to blow up at least one thing during every class period." The thing I learned that was most interesting to me at the time was how to make a still (sadly, I have never put this knowledge into practice). I also got to do a presentation on how rockets work, a topic I picked for the sole reason that I wanted to use the headline "This IS Rocket Science". However, the most interesting thing I learned that has stuck with me was an analysis of the different forms of energy production and some speculation on what the near and long term future might look like. Among the things I learned: nuclear power plants aren't nearly as dangerous as they are perceived (not surprising coming from a class called Nuclear Engineering), solar power is good on a micro level but is unlikely to ever make up more than a minor portion of our power needs, coal is just about the worst possible way to generate power, and finally that the end of the oil age was coming a lot sooner than most people expected.
I remember very clearly the day we discussed oil, because I was completely taken aback by the figure presented to me. According to the latest estimates, at present consumption levels it was projected that there was approximately 60 years left of oil in the world. This included ~40 years from sources that we knew about, and a best guess of another 20 that were either undiscovered or to this point impossible to drill for (i.e. underneath the ocean floor). This was in the spring of 2000 that I was told this, and I just remember thinking "wow; we're talking about 2060 here. If I just slightly beat the national average lifespan we're talking about my lifetime here." But that was 8 years ago; a veritable eternity in terms of scientific progress. In addition, that was based on 2000 consumption levels, and with China and India on the rise that has increased markedly since then. So, I figured that this would be a good time to revisit this. Just how much oil is left in the world?
Well, to the surprise of probably no one, the answer is that no one really knows. I have tried to track down some hard numbers but all you really ever get from anyone is a range. So, I will go ahead and do what I was trying to avoid: use wikipedia for some quick, back-of-the-envelope type calcs. For the record, though, the other sources I consulted (which included American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, Collapse by Jared Diamond, and The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery) also pretty much support the numbers in wikipedia.
Essentially, there are 2 problems that make calculating a hard number difficult and they have to do with the concept of "peak" oil and the rate of discovery. A good definition of the "peak" concept comes from American Theocracy: "Geologists define it as the point at which at least half of the field's reachable oil has been extracted. After this stage, getting each barrel out requires more pressure, more expense, or both. After a while . . . more energy is required to find and extract a barrel of oil than the barrel itself contains. By then, production becomes uneconomic - at least until the price of oil rises or the cost of extraction drops." This explanation is used to describe one particular oil field but can be expanded to discuss all oil in aggregate. Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to try and calculate the point when the world will hit "peak" oil production, and of course all of them have been wrong so far. A big part of the problem is that many of the world's largest oil fields are government-owned, and by and large these governments do not have an open-book philosophy on the data from these fields. As a consequence, we're left to largely speculate. Pessimistic projections say that oil may have already peaked or will in the next couple years, and very optimistic projections say it won't peak until 2050. The year 2030 is probably cited the most often and I imagine it is not just coincidental that it is around the mid-point of the divergent opinions. Obviously, the difference between oil peaking next year versus oil peaking over 40 years from now has tremendous implications on how urgent the situation is.
The other issue that is very speculative and causes significant variance in the overall oil supply number is the discovery rate. As the name implies, this is the measure for how often either previously unknown sites are discovered or where previously unextractable oil becomes feasible. Here again, depending on what you project the discovery rate to be has huge implications on the ultimate oil supply number.
So, with all this uncertainty, what's the bottom line? Basically, we get a huge range: between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of oil. The 2 trillion number represents the average finding of major oil surveys done since 1960. The 3 trillion estimate comes from a 2000 USGS survey. I would classify the 2 trillion estimate as generally realistic with a tinge of pessimism while the 3 trillion estimate is more on the side of wild optimism. This is because the worldwide discovery rate has been steadily falling since 1960 and the 3 trillion estimate counts on the discovery rate to suddenly and dramatically reverse itself. That seems unlikely, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. It should be noted, however, that the trend of falling discovery rates has continued in the 8 years since the USGS released their report.
So, if we agree that the actual amount of oil in the world lies between those two numbers, what does that mean in terms of years of oil left? Here again, we will have to make some assumptions about projected future use, but at least we have solid data on the current usage. Right now, world oil consumption from 2007 was just over 85 million barrels of oil per day. That translates into just over 31 billion barrels per year (these figures come from the US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo). If we apply just the current consumption to our range of estimates that works out to about 65 years (for 2 trillion barrels) and 97 years (for 3 trillion barrels). However, that figure is not very realistic since oil consumption has risen markedly from a little over 27 billion barrels per year in 2000 to the current 31 billion. That's almost a 15% increase in just 8 years. The EIA further projects global oil usage to rise by 1.2 million barrels per day in both 2008 and 2009, leading to annual global oil usage of over 32 billion by the end of 2009. Obviously the farther we get out from here, the fuzzier the numbers get. Just for the sake of simple math, lets assume that we rise to the level of 35 billion barrels per year and then level off (this seems likely to be a vast underestimate given the recent growth of China and India that shows no signs of abating soon). This gives us projections of 57 and 85 years, respectively.
So; all in all I'd have to say that the estimate of 60 years given to me back in Nuc E 100 seems to be just about right. Even though there is obviously all sorts of assumptions being made in the above calculations, there is one truth that is inescapably clear: the age of oil is ending, and faster than most people realize. Of course, I don't really think we will physically run out of oil. I have tried to phrase this analysis in isolation of the problem of climate change, but of course in reality they are inexorably linked. We cannot burn another 2 trillion barrels of oil over the next 60 years without disastrous environmental consequences. That is why it was nice to see McCain talk about attacking climate change earlier this week. The Democrats countered (with some justification) that it is just empty rhetoric, but given that even the rhetoric has been sorely lacking from the right even empty rhetoric still represents progress.
In summary, I hope if nothing else this clarifies my statement that I believe gas at $10/gallon would be a good thing. Both the climate change and oil problems can be likened to riding on a train that is heading for a ravine where the bridge is out. Maybe the ravine is still hundreds of miles away, but it is inescapable that if we continue on the present course we are assuring our destruction. In that context, I am in favor of anything that moves us towards stopping the train as quickly as possible. All other considerations (economic and political) are important but decidedly secondary.
I remember very clearly the day we discussed oil, because I was completely taken aback by the figure presented to me. According to the latest estimates, at present consumption levels it was projected that there was approximately 60 years left of oil in the world. This included ~40 years from sources that we knew about, and a best guess of another 20 that were either undiscovered or to this point impossible to drill for (i.e. underneath the ocean floor). This was in the spring of 2000 that I was told this, and I just remember thinking "wow; we're talking about 2060 here. If I just slightly beat the national average lifespan we're talking about my lifetime here." But that was 8 years ago; a veritable eternity in terms of scientific progress. In addition, that was based on 2000 consumption levels, and with China and India on the rise that has increased markedly since then. So, I figured that this would be a good time to revisit this. Just how much oil is left in the world?
Well, to the surprise of probably no one, the answer is that no one really knows. I have tried to track down some hard numbers but all you really ever get from anyone is a range. So, I will go ahead and do what I was trying to avoid: use wikipedia for some quick, back-of-the-envelope type calcs. For the record, though, the other sources I consulted (which included American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, Collapse by Jared Diamond, and The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery) also pretty much support the numbers in wikipedia.
Essentially, there are 2 problems that make calculating a hard number difficult and they have to do with the concept of "peak" oil and the rate of discovery. A good definition of the "peak" concept comes from American Theocracy: "Geologists define it as the point at which at least half of the field's reachable oil has been extracted. After this stage, getting each barrel out requires more pressure, more expense, or both. After a while . . . more energy is required to find and extract a barrel of oil than the barrel itself contains. By then, production becomes uneconomic - at least until the price of oil rises or the cost of extraction drops." This explanation is used to describe one particular oil field but can be expanded to discuss all oil in aggregate. Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to try and calculate the point when the world will hit "peak" oil production, and of course all of them have been wrong so far. A big part of the problem is that many of the world's largest oil fields are government-owned, and by and large these governments do not have an open-book philosophy on the data from these fields. As a consequence, we're left to largely speculate. Pessimistic projections say that oil may have already peaked or will in the next couple years, and very optimistic projections say it won't peak until 2050. The year 2030 is probably cited the most often and I imagine it is not just coincidental that it is around the mid-point of the divergent opinions. Obviously, the difference between oil peaking next year versus oil peaking over 40 years from now has tremendous implications on how urgent the situation is.
The other issue that is very speculative and causes significant variance in the overall oil supply number is the discovery rate. As the name implies, this is the measure for how often either previously unknown sites are discovered or where previously unextractable oil becomes feasible. Here again, depending on what you project the discovery rate to be has huge implications on the ultimate oil supply number.
So, with all this uncertainty, what's the bottom line? Basically, we get a huge range: between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of oil. The 2 trillion number represents the average finding of major oil surveys done since 1960. The 3 trillion estimate comes from a 2000 USGS survey. I would classify the 2 trillion estimate as generally realistic with a tinge of pessimism while the 3 trillion estimate is more on the side of wild optimism. This is because the worldwide discovery rate has been steadily falling since 1960 and the 3 trillion estimate counts on the discovery rate to suddenly and dramatically reverse itself. That seems unlikely, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. It should be noted, however, that the trend of falling discovery rates has continued in the 8 years since the USGS released their report.
So, if we agree that the actual amount of oil in the world lies between those two numbers, what does that mean in terms of years of oil left? Here again, we will have to make some assumptions about projected future use, but at least we have solid data on the current usage. Right now, world oil consumption from 2007 was just over 85 million barrels of oil per day. That translates into just over 31 billion barrels per year (these figures come from the US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo). If we apply just the current consumption to our range of estimates that works out to about 65 years (for 2 trillion barrels) and 97 years (for 3 trillion barrels). However, that figure is not very realistic since oil consumption has risen markedly from a little over 27 billion barrels per year in 2000 to the current 31 billion. That's almost a 15% increase in just 8 years. The EIA further projects global oil usage to rise by 1.2 million barrels per day in both 2008 and 2009, leading to annual global oil usage of over 32 billion by the end of 2009. Obviously the farther we get out from here, the fuzzier the numbers get. Just for the sake of simple math, lets assume that we rise to the level of 35 billion barrels per year and then level off (this seems likely to be a vast underestimate given the recent growth of China and India that shows no signs of abating soon). This gives us projections of 57 and 85 years, respectively.
So; all in all I'd have to say that the estimate of 60 years given to me back in Nuc E 100 seems to be just about right. Even though there is obviously all sorts of assumptions being made in the above calculations, there is one truth that is inescapably clear: the age of oil is ending, and faster than most people realize. Of course, I don't really think we will physically run out of oil. I have tried to phrase this analysis in isolation of the problem of climate change, but of course in reality they are inexorably linked. We cannot burn another 2 trillion barrels of oil over the next 60 years without disastrous environmental consequences. That is why it was nice to see McCain talk about attacking climate change earlier this week. The Democrats countered (with some justification) that it is just empty rhetoric, but given that even the rhetoric has been sorely lacking from the right even empty rhetoric still represents progress.
In summary, I hope if nothing else this clarifies my statement that I believe gas at $10/gallon would be a good thing. Both the climate change and oil problems can be likened to riding on a train that is heading for a ravine where the bridge is out. Maybe the ravine is still hundreds of miles away, but it is inescapable that if we continue on the present course we are assuring our destruction. In that context, I am in favor of anything that moves us towards stopping the train as quickly as possible. All other considerations (economic and political) are important but decidedly secondary.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Back to Some Random Thoughts
While I am still researching the question of how much oil is left on the planet (I've got some rough estimates but they are from wikipedia and I'd like to get some more solid sources) there are a whole bunch of other thoughts I've had over the past couple of days.
The Summer Movie Season
The Summer Movie Season
Last year's summer movie season was touted as "The Summer of Sequels" and it certainly lived up to that name. Of the 16 summer movies that made over $100 million, 12 of them were either direct sequels, remakes, or were based on long-running tv shows (in other words, they were not original works). This included Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Simpsons Movie, Rush Hour 3, Live Free or Die Hard, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Evan Almighty, and Hairspray. If you're curious, the 4 that did represent "original" works were Ratatouille, Superbad, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, and Knocked Up. I have nothing specifically against sequels, and I will admit that I have seen all but 3 of the previously mentioned films (Evan Almighty, Hairspray, and Harry Potter because that was the one book in the series I hated). I figured if Hollywood was going to advertise it as "Summer of the Sequel", that must mean it was a rare, near fluke occurrence that all these just happened to come out in one summer. Well, now here we are heading into the next summer and, appropriately, this looks to be "Summer of the Sequel II: Even Sequelier" (or "Sequel Harder" if you are a Kevin Smith or Die Hard fan). This summer we get: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Incredible Hulk, Speed Racer, Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Sex and the City, Get Smart, Hellboy 2, The Dark Knight, X-Files 2, and The Mummy 3. Even one of the "original" works is Iron Man and considering it's the umpteenth summer superhero movie and is based on a 45-year old comic book character I'm not sure how "original" you can claim it is. Balanced against that, I could only find 7 other likely hits coming out this summer (Kung-Fu Panda, You Don't Mess With the Zoltan, The Happening, Hancock, Step Brothers, Pineapple Express, and Tropic Thunder).
I remember in 1997 when I heard that the movie Good Burger had just been released I asked "Has Hollywood just completely run out of ideas?" And now I ask the same question again. Unfortunately, the answer is actually worse than that. Now moreso than ever, big studios are hesitant to dump big money into something that may turn into a colossal failure. It doesn't take many Waterworlds to make you gunshy. At the same time, executives hold on with an icy death grip the rights to any film that ends up profitable and has any form of sequel potential (i.e. every film in the eyes of studio execs). Maybe it was just my perception, but it used to be that you made a movie and if it turned out to be a success, you'd see if maybe you could get everyone back together and catch lightning in a bottle again. Sequels were the exception. Now, they are the rule. Almost every major film and tv deal has a clause locking them up for a number of sequels just on the off chance the studio decides it wants to make them. This becomes particularly frustrating for fans of a show like Firefly that was cancelled by Fox after 6 episodes; yet they own the rights to it for 10 years. Thus even if a network like Sci-Fi wanted to pick it up, they can't because Fox would rather see the show dead than have it become a hit somewhere else and make them look stupid(er). Fortunately, at the same time all this is happening in the major studios, technology has progressed to the point where really high quality films can be made for progressively cheaper and as a result we are seeing some of the best independent films ever made. The only problem is that unless you are a hardcore film geek (like me) you aren't seeing any advertising for them and you probably don't even know that they exist.
And now, just to undercut everything I've just said, I've heard that Iron Man is really good and I'm excited to go see it this weekend.
Obamania!
Well, Indiana couldn't quite come through for me with a Barrack victory, but the result is much the same and the race is, for all intents and purposes, over. A lot of people are wondering why Clinton hasn't already dropped out. There's actually a couple legitimate reasons why she hasn't (well, one legitimate, and one selfish). The selfish reason is that she loaned her campaign over $11 million, and if she drops out now it's all a complete loss. She's in a position now where she can continue to raise money and not have to spend a lot since she's heavily favored in both West Virginia and Kentucky and they are small media markets anyway. The hope on her part will be that after 2 weeks she will have enough campaign cash to pay herself back. Let me just add that even though I said this was selfish I don't blame her. $11 million is a lot to eat, even for millionaires like the Clinton family. The legitimate reason for her to stay in the race is, ironically, as a courtesy to Obama. Much like it was a little embarassing for McCain when Huckabee kept winning southern states after the race was over, it would be embarassing to Obama to still lose West Virginia and Kentucky with Clinton gone (which he still would). With her still as a candidate, she can give one more victory speech next Tuesday in West Virginia (which should also help fundraising) and then go out on a semi-high note the following Tuesday when they split Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. May 20th is really the key date here, because that will be the day that Obama is projected to go over the halfway mark of all delegates (pledged and super), thus finally making it mathematically impossible for her to catch him. Hence, we should be looking towards the evening of May 20th or the afternoon of May 21st for her to officially withdraw from the race. The only possible reason she would have to stay in after that point is to make good on her commitment to make sure Michigan and Florida delegates are seated (which they will be regardless, now that it won't matter). That meeting occurs on May 31st. Well, I guess there's another reason she could choose to stay in after that: just to be a bitch.
So now that the field looks to be officially set for November, the next question will be who the VP picks will be. I have absolutely no idea who McCain is going to pick. The hip pick of the moment from pundits is Condoleeza Rice, which would make sense in a weird sort of way, but I don't see it happening just because it gives the Democrats way too much fuel to continue to hammer that McCain represents "a 3rd term of George Bush". On the Obama side, though, I see a clear front runner, and it's Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. It makes a ton of sense to me (much moreso than the "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton) but rather than expound on the reasons, since I'm getting long-winded anyway, the reasons are laid out very nicely in this article (http://tinyurl.com/69xyq6) so you can read it if you are interested.
Also, just to finish my thoughts on the Democratic primary, there is a good article describing the mistakes that Clinton made here: http://tinyurl.com/3za5nd. Nothing mind-blowing here, but it's a good summation.
Books
As I mentioned before, one of the things I was most looking forward to after being done with the CPA was getting back to reading. In the last 2 weeks I've finished two books, and they were both excellent. The first was The Teapot Dome Scandal by Laton McCartney. It is a fascinating true story about a political scandal that most people only know by name. It is about how Big Oil literally bought the Republican nomination for Warren Harding in exchange for an agreement that he would make one of their people Secretary of the Interior, who would in turn open up the Teapot Dome oil fields (they were naval reserves at the time) for private drilling. It is all the old-time, smoke-filled room, underhanded bribes with stacks of money in suitcases changing hands that people imagine when they thing corrupt politics. One of the most amazing things comes right at the beginning. At the 1920 Republican convention, the clear favorite was General Wood. After the first round of votes he had far more votes than any candidate, just not enough to get the nomination. Here's the thing, though; he wouldn't cut a deal. The party leaders and members from the oil company came to him and tried to make the same deal with him that Harding had. He refused. Then they said, over a phone call, "Ok, well just give promise us any 3 cabinet posts." At this point, his political advisor covered the phone up and said to Wood, "with one word here, you will be the next President". His response was "I am my own man, and I will make my own decisions. I promise nothing." And with that, the nomination went to Harding. I read that and had great ambivalence. On one hand, I thought "What an idiot! He had it wrapped up!" and at the same time I thought "Wow! That's some amazing ethical principles to turn that down. Think of what kind of a President someone with those kind of morals could have been!" Unfortunately, we'll never get to know, and General Wood will forever just be a small footnote in U.S. history.
The second book I read was The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch. This story has gotten a lot of press lately, but for those that may not have heard about it here's a quick recap. A lot of universities have professors give a "last lecture". It's supposed to be a hypothetical situation where if you knew you were dying and that this would be your final lecture what would you say that you would want to be remembered for? Well, in the case of Randy Pausch, there was nothing hypothetical about it. He had recently been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and knew he had less than a year to live. This book is an expansion of the lecture he gave and, really, is a gift to his kids (who are 6, 4, and 18 months) to try and teach them the things he would have tried to if he had lived another 20 years. He gave the lecture in September of 2007 and is, as of today, still alive. It is one thing to read about someone post-humously who exhibited tremendouns bravery when facing death. But there is something even more surreal to read about someone and to know that this person is still doing it right now. The book is all at once touching, wise, uplifting, sad, happy, and heartbreaking. You can read about his story at http://www.thelastlecture.com/; he also has a link to his blog and health report there too.
The book I have just begun now is The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria, who is one of my favorite political pundits. I highly recommend that you read the book if you have any interest at all in global politics and economics and the place the U.S. is likely to have in it in the 21st century. For a great summary of the main ideas in the book, though, head on over to http://www.charlierose.com/ and catch the interview with him from May 1st. Truly fascinating stuff (at least to me).
OK, I think that does it for me today. Should find out about the CPA in ~ 1 week. Have a good weekend everyone and Happy Mother's Day!
Monday, May 05, 2008
Drilling in Alaska
Since Weir brought it up in the comments I decided to post my thoughts on this rather than just commenting back to him.
I have long held the contrary opinion that gas in this country does not cost too much; it actually costs way too little. Honestly, $10 a gallon would make me pretty happy. And I'm not just saying that because we own a hybrid (even at 45 MPG, $10/gallon would put a real healthy dent in our pocketbook). The reason is that it will take that amount of hardship for this country to finally get itself off its oil addiction. By the way you may want to mark this date down because the term "oil addiction" was popularized by President Bush and this may be one of the only times you'll catch me agreeing with him. The bottom line is that whatever your feelings on global warming are, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world and thus it seems to make sense to realize sooner rather than later that we need to switch to some form of sustainable, renewable resource for our power needs. But people are creatures of habit, and our post-WWII suburban migration has left us particularly dependent on our gas guzzlers, so this is not a change that most people are willing to make easy.
So now, as gas prices have been rising to new highs, we have seen the predictable political football getting thrown around. It seems that everybody has a plan for "helping" middle america shrug off the increasing burden of high fuel costs. Whether it's grass roots e-mails calling for boycotts of certain companies or a convoluted nation-wide economic solution, they all have one thing in common: they are temporary (at best) and ultimately they are all bogus. That's because the oil situation we find ourselves in right now follows some of the simplest economics of all; aggregate supply is going down every day and demand is increasing every day. Hence, each barrell of oil should sell for slightly more than the previous barrell of oil did, and this should continue to be true all the way through the last barrell of oil that will ever be sold.
It therefore follows logically that the single best course of action that this or any country can take is to immediately begin to reduce their oil use immediately and do whatever necessary to develop sufficient alternative resources.
Now, with all that being said I am going to go contrarian again and say that I am 100% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling.
OK, maybe that's not true. Let's say instead that I'm 90% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling because there are some important caveats that I need to add. The first is that the purpose of Alaskan oil wouldn't be to supplement or replace our current oil supply. I don't know for sure the accuracy of the oil taking 15 years to be usable, but it certainly would take multiple years before we ever saw anything and by that point if we have not already significantly decreased our dependence on oil the little bit from Alaska is not going to do anything more than stop the bleeding for a couple months. So why am I saying we should drill for it? As I said before, the current economic situation is such that each barrell of oil should sell for progressively more and more. Hence, we have a veritable diamond mine underneath our feet and I believe that it would be foolish to waste it. However, this is where the second caveat comes in. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to extract oil from a wilderness area with very minimal disruption to the environment. It typically doesn't happen because it's obviously a lot more expensive and most oil companies are only interested in doing the bare minimum mandated by the margins of the law. In fact, I probably wouldn't have even believed the statement I just made before I read Collapse by Jared Diamond. He is the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and is also a staunch conservationist. He visited the drilling sites of a major oil company (I am pretty sure it was either Chevron or Shell but I'm not positive) and said it was remarkable how little had been changed. You would never even know you were on a drilling site. And when they are done drilling, they will dismantle all the equipment and replant native vegetation over the area. Drilling oil is not like clear-cutting a forest. The ecosystem doesn't depend on the petroleum for anything and really could care less if it's there or not.
So, basically I am saying that within the confines of the scenario I have laid out (where we are drilling basically as speculation instead of consumption and that extreme care is taken to minimize environmental destruction) I submit that given that oil is only getting more and more valuable I don't see a compelling reason to not drill for it.
But I'm sure Weir will let me know . . .
I have long held the contrary opinion that gas in this country does not cost too much; it actually costs way too little. Honestly, $10 a gallon would make me pretty happy. And I'm not just saying that because we own a hybrid (even at 45 MPG, $10/gallon would put a real healthy dent in our pocketbook). The reason is that it will take that amount of hardship for this country to finally get itself off its oil addiction. By the way you may want to mark this date down because the term "oil addiction" was popularized by President Bush and this may be one of the only times you'll catch me agreeing with him. The bottom line is that whatever your feelings on global warming are, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world and thus it seems to make sense to realize sooner rather than later that we need to switch to some form of sustainable, renewable resource for our power needs. But people are creatures of habit, and our post-WWII suburban migration has left us particularly dependent on our gas guzzlers, so this is not a change that most people are willing to make easy.
So now, as gas prices have been rising to new highs, we have seen the predictable political football getting thrown around. It seems that everybody has a plan for "helping" middle america shrug off the increasing burden of high fuel costs. Whether it's grass roots e-mails calling for boycotts of certain companies or a convoluted nation-wide economic solution, they all have one thing in common: they are temporary (at best) and ultimately they are all bogus. That's because the oil situation we find ourselves in right now follows some of the simplest economics of all; aggregate supply is going down every day and demand is increasing every day. Hence, each barrell of oil should sell for slightly more than the previous barrell of oil did, and this should continue to be true all the way through the last barrell of oil that will ever be sold.
It therefore follows logically that the single best course of action that this or any country can take is to immediately begin to reduce their oil use immediately and do whatever necessary to develop sufficient alternative resources.
Now, with all that being said I am going to go contrarian again and say that I am 100% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling.
OK, maybe that's not true. Let's say instead that I'm 90% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling because there are some important caveats that I need to add. The first is that the purpose of Alaskan oil wouldn't be to supplement or replace our current oil supply. I don't know for sure the accuracy of the oil taking 15 years to be usable, but it certainly would take multiple years before we ever saw anything and by that point if we have not already significantly decreased our dependence on oil the little bit from Alaska is not going to do anything more than stop the bleeding for a couple months. So why am I saying we should drill for it? As I said before, the current economic situation is such that each barrell of oil should sell for progressively more and more. Hence, we have a veritable diamond mine underneath our feet and I believe that it would be foolish to waste it. However, this is where the second caveat comes in. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to extract oil from a wilderness area with very minimal disruption to the environment. It typically doesn't happen because it's obviously a lot more expensive and most oil companies are only interested in doing the bare minimum mandated by the margins of the law. In fact, I probably wouldn't have even believed the statement I just made before I read Collapse by Jared Diamond. He is the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and is also a staunch conservationist. He visited the drilling sites of a major oil company (I am pretty sure it was either Chevron or Shell but I'm not positive) and said it was remarkable how little had been changed. You would never even know you were on a drilling site. And when they are done drilling, they will dismantle all the equipment and replant native vegetation over the area. Drilling oil is not like clear-cutting a forest. The ecosystem doesn't depend on the petroleum for anything and really could care less if it's there or not.
So, basically I am saying that within the confines of the scenario I have laid out (where we are drilling basically as speculation instead of consumption and that extreme care is taken to minimize environmental destruction) I submit that given that oil is only getting more and more valuable I don't see a compelling reason to not drill for it.
But I'm sure Weir will let me know . . .
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Observations Over The Last Week
Couple of random thoughts I had while living my life this past week:
- Last Thursday night I went out to Borders looking for The Orphanage on Blu-ray (which they did not have by the way). While wandering around, I noticed that they still have an HD-DVD "section". It consists of exactly 8 titles, none of which were on clearance or even on sale. I submit to you that if you happen to be out looking for a particular HD-DVD and when you get to Borders the one you are looking for just happens to be one of the 8 they have you should proceed immediately to the nearest convenience store and buy a lottery ticket because you are obviously the luckiest person on Earth at that moment.
- Anyone who has purchased tickets through ticketmaster.com in the last 5 years knows that as part of their protection against server attacks they require you to type in a random security word which changes everytime you select a ticket. The other day, the security word that came up for me was "bitch". I certainly wasn't offended, but it led to the following thoughts: 1) do they have a filter on the list of possible words; 2) if so, did they intentionally decide to leave this word in or was it an oversight; and 3) I wonder what other kinds of interesting words are possible.
- I am officially sick of the presidential race and it's not even May yet. At the beginning of the race (which seems like about 6 years ago now) I tried to be fair and listen to everyone, including the candidates that I didn't like in an honest attempt to see if they could change my mind. About a month ago I arrived at the point where I physically can't listen to Hillary speak anymore; I have to change the channel. Now, in the last week I have gotten to the point where I can't even listen to the two candidate I DO like. I would like to make an earnest plea to Indiana to please, please, please give Obama a decisive victory next Tuesday and end this thing. Because if it doesn't end there it is going all the way to the convention, and I just can't take another 3 months of this. So come on, Indiana, be a pal. Remember how we started Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl against your Colts? Time to return the favor.
- I am in CPA limbo and it's a very weird feeling. With every passing day I can feel a little more of the knowledge that I crammed into my head over the last 6 weeks seeping out, and I don't know yet if it's a problem or not. This is going to be a very long 2-3 weeks till I find out. At least I have the Cubs now. But dear god, if I have to wait till mid-June to find out . . .
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
I Might Be a CPA . . .
. . .or maybe 3/4 done; or maybe still just halfway done. Just finished the 4th test literally less than an hour ago. I'm currently sitting in the beautiful Chicago Public Library writing this. Nothing like going straight from a CPA test to the library. Damn, do I know how to party or what!? Actually, because I'm such a nerd I have been fantasizing the last month about how nice it will be to be able to read again during the morning el ride instead of studying. I think people are used to guys staring at hot chicks on the el, but it's something different altogether to be leering seductively at someone's paperback. No one quite knows how to respond.
Anyway, now it's just a matter of waiting. The first round of scores are supposed to be released the week of May 16th, so I've got at least 3 more weeks ahead of me. But they are estimating that they will only have 70% of the scores from the two tests I'm waiting on so it's possible I won't find out one or even both of them till halfway through June. I suppose if I was motivated I would keep myself up to speed and keep studying so I don't forget everything, but frankly at this point if I even look at my review books again for a while I think I'm going to vomit.
Took tomorrow off to catch up on sleep and let my brain cool down and I'm looking forward to eating some horrible food (still debating between italian beef and chili-cheese fries or Taco Bell) and relaxing while watching the Cubs.
Anyway, now it's just a matter of waiting. The first round of scores are supposed to be released the week of May 16th, so I've got at least 3 more weeks ahead of me. But they are estimating that they will only have 70% of the scores from the two tests I'm waiting on so it's possible I won't find out one or even both of them till halfway through June. I suppose if I was motivated I would keep myself up to speed and keep studying so I don't forget everything, but frankly at this point if I even look at my review books again for a while I think I'm going to vomit.
Took tomorrow off to catch up on sleep and let my brain cool down and I'm looking forward to eating some horrible food (still debating between italian beef and chili-cheese fries or Taco Bell) and relaxing while watching the Cubs.
Friday, April 18, 2008
My Fellow Moronic, Ignorant Cubs Fans
In following with the spirit of stupid slogans from yesterday's post, I woke up to find an article in the Sun-Times about the new #1 selling shirt at non-Cub affiliated merchandise stands outside Wrigley. They feature this image:
Last weekend, my bro and I were discussing and wondering how Fukodome feels about all the headband wearing and bowing in the bleachers. Well, he doesn't need to worry about pondering the more subtle aspects of racism because he has a large shining beacon of ignorance to concentrate on now! I said before the season started that I knew the play on words with Fukodome's name was inevitable, but congratulations Cubs fans, you have once again managed to surprise me by sinking to an all-new lowest common denominator!
Look, I am no prude and I'm not a radical leftist who's worried about offending everyone. In fact, I think that racial humor can be absolutely hilarious when done correctly (great examples are Chris Rock on blacks, Jon Stewart and Lewis Black on Jews, Stephen Colbert on Catholics, Dave Allen on the Irish) and I don't even necessarily subscribe to the belief that you have to be a member of a particular group in order to make fun of it. But it is really all about context. Most of the time, racist humor is derived from taking a stereotype of an existing group and either applying it to something unexpected or grossly exagerrating it for effect. But to be truly funny rather than offensive it relies on the understanding that the intended audience knows that you don't really believe that stereotype applies to every member of that group. And there is also the tacit approval granted from going to see a particular comedian live or choosing to watch them on TV. You can always walk out or you can always change the channel if it offends you. But when you decide to break away from that and make something public, you aren't giving the rest of us that choice and can put us in an uncomfortable position. I am going to Wrigley tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll see people wearing this shirt. Let's say that I'm next to someone who is and on the other side there is an asian. I now am in the position where I either have to get confrontational and tell this guy his shirt is offensive, or I say nothing and appear to approve of it by my silence.
Now I want to be crystal clear here that I am an absolutely adamant supporter of free speech and I don't believe that the shirt should be pulled off the market or even banned from Wrigley. However, that doesn't preclude me from thinking less of someone who chooses to wear it in public.
But why am I worked up about it? After all, I'm not asian. I am, however, a Cubs fan and I think that the jist of the problem is summarized nicely in the Sun-Times article: "The image feeds not only ugly, arrogant, and ignorant Japanese stereotypes, but also the stereotype of the obnoxious, profane, drunken, booing, garbage-throwing Cubs fan. How much truth is there in either image? How funny is either one?"
Fukodome, to his credit, is taking the high road so far. ''I knew I was coming to a different country, so I expected something like this. Maybe not necessarily racial, but that anybody could take any context of my words and degrade me if they wanted to. But if I make a big deal out of it, it's not going to benefit me, so I'm not going to make a big deal of it.''
I'm glad that Fukodome was prepared for this and seems relatively unfazed, but I'm just disappointed that we couldn't surprise him.
And by the way, the name of my fantasy baseball team is "My Fuk'n Sori Team" and I still think that's hilarious.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
If You Don't Read This Post Your Life May Be in Danger!
Not really, but that probably got your attention , right?
So I'm out for a run on Tuesday and I suddenly start seeing all these lawn signs opposing the proposed construction of a new condo tower in downtown Evanston. Apparently it's going to be 150 feet taller than the current tallest building in Evanston, will displace some 140 office professionals since the new building won't have any office space, and also use about $3 million in public funds for its construction. OK, fair enough. So how do they choose to get this point across on a lawn sign? "Save Evanston. Stop the Tower." To put it lightly, this seems like just a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe once the tower gets built I will walk out my front door and see the Four Horsemen riding across the sky, or there will just be a giant crater where Evanston used to be, or suddenly the entire city will be populated by drug dealers and gang members. If that happens, I'll apologize for not taking this dire emergency more seriously.
This is a perfect illustration of the kind of muckraking that I can't stand. It is most prevalent in politics, although it certainly is not limited to that arena. From one side we get to hear that "John McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy" (he actually said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues") and that he "speaks of a 100 years war in Iraq" (he actually said that he would be fine having a troop presence there for 100 years "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."). Then from the other side we get to hear that "al-Qaida would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11" if Obama gets elected, and that he is a Muslim who attended a Madrassa (a radical muslim school) as a young boy (he lived in Indonesia and briefly attended a Muslim school that was not a Madrassa and he has always been a Christian). Most people chalk up this kind of behavior to a necessary evil of politics, but it's only necessary because people don't reject it. I think Jon Stewart said it best when I saw him live about a year ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): the people that march and go to protests and get on the news are always the extremists, because normal people are too busy with their own lives to go around holding up signs that say "Be Reasonable". I think there's a lot of truth to that. Every issue seems to get radicalized and set up as a "you're either with us or against us" choice rather than the far more productive "you're over there and I'm over here so let's come up with something we can both live with." I mean, why sacrifice a good misleading sound bite just for the sake of reasonable debate?
So, I say to my fellow citizens of Evanston "can't we do a little better than this?" I'm not asking for much. How about just "Save the Evanston Skyline" or "Say No to Taxpayer Funds for Private Construction"? Must we over exaggerate to the point of ridiculousness just to get people on our side? Can't we lead by example?
Oh well, it was worth a try . . .
Sources:
McCain quote on the economy: http://tinyurl.com/7pfca
McCain quote on the 100 years war: http://tinyurl.com/5qfkka
Accusation that al-Qaida wants Obama to win: http://tinyurl.com/2l4qmc
Article that Obama is a Muslim: http://tinyurl.com/yqat77
Debunking of the above article: http://tinyurl.com/2ktpjh
So I'm out for a run on Tuesday and I suddenly start seeing all these lawn signs opposing the proposed construction of a new condo tower in downtown Evanston. Apparently it's going to be 150 feet taller than the current tallest building in Evanston, will displace some 140 office professionals since the new building won't have any office space, and also use about $3 million in public funds for its construction. OK, fair enough. So how do they choose to get this point across on a lawn sign? "Save Evanston. Stop the Tower." To put it lightly, this seems like just a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe once the tower gets built I will walk out my front door and see the Four Horsemen riding across the sky, or there will just be a giant crater where Evanston used to be, or suddenly the entire city will be populated by drug dealers and gang members. If that happens, I'll apologize for not taking this dire emergency more seriously.
This is a perfect illustration of the kind of muckraking that I can't stand. It is most prevalent in politics, although it certainly is not limited to that arena. From one side we get to hear that "John McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy" (he actually said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues") and that he "speaks of a 100 years war in Iraq" (he actually said that he would be fine having a troop presence there for 100 years "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."). Then from the other side we get to hear that "al-Qaida would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11" if Obama gets elected, and that he is a Muslim who attended a Madrassa (a radical muslim school) as a young boy (he lived in Indonesia and briefly attended a Muslim school that was not a Madrassa and he has always been a Christian). Most people chalk up this kind of behavior to a necessary evil of politics, but it's only necessary because people don't reject it. I think Jon Stewart said it best when I saw him live about a year ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): the people that march and go to protests and get on the news are always the extremists, because normal people are too busy with their own lives to go around holding up signs that say "Be Reasonable". I think there's a lot of truth to that. Every issue seems to get radicalized and set up as a "you're either with us or against us" choice rather than the far more productive "you're over there and I'm over here so let's come up with something we can both live with." I mean, why sacrifice a good misleading sound bite just for the sake of reasonable debate?
So, I say to my fellow citizens of Evanston "can't we do a little better than this?" I'm not asking for much. How about just "Save the Evanston Skyline" or "Say No to Taxpayer Funds for Private Construction"? Must we over exaggerate to the point of ridiculousness just to get people on our side? Can't we lead by example?
Oh well, it was worth a try . . .
Sources:
McCain quote on the economy: http://tinyurl.com/7pfca
McCain quote on the 100 years war: http://tinyurl.com/5qfkka
Accusation that al-Qaida wants Obama to win: http://tinyurl.com/2l4qmc
Article that Obama is a Muslim: http://tinyurl.com/yqat77
Debunking of the above article: http://tinyurl.com/2ktpjh
Monday, April 14, 2008
Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check
If you are confused by the title you now have an idea of how I felt when my computer has repeatedly spit up this exact phrase to me over the course of the last several months. Honestly, how could an error message like this make it through the quality control process? At this point, I would much prefer the computer to simply shout "No!" at me or print a big red X across the screen rather than try to present the illusion that it's giving me helpful information that I can use to solve the problem.
A little background is perhaps in order here. Sometime last fall I came home from work one day to discover that i-Tunes had crashed and wouldn't reopen. After trying various quick fixes I came to the conclusion that I would have to uninstall and then reinstall i-Tunes. Seems easy enough right? Well, when I went to run the uninstall program about 2/3 of the way through I had my first experience with the above error. I eventually traced it to a problem with Quicktime (which is required to run i-Tunes) and I thought that my problems were over but they were really just beginning. The uninstall for Quicktime wouldn't work, nor could I manually delete the Quicktime files, nor could I install a new version of it. All three activities resulted in my friend the cryptically unhelpful error message. The upshot of it all has been that over the last 6 months or so I have been stuck without i-Tunes and thus have been forced to listen to the same songs on my iPod. And although I have often stated that if music had stopped being made in 1996 my music collection would be largely unaffected, I still do enjoy having the ability to add and remove songs (otherwise, all I really have is one really big MP3 CD). So it's been kind of an ongoing project of mine for about the past 6 months. Once a month or so my frustration meter fills up enough to the point that I resolve to fix the problem and then after a solid 3-4 hours of fruitless effort my frustration is eclipsed by my discouragement and I give up until the next month. Rinse and repeat.
For all intents and purposes, computers have come a long way in terms of ease of use and self-monitoring. However, all it takes is one little miscue for you to feel like you're back in the days of MSDOS, staring at a black screen with the computer saying "Invalid command" or just simply "Error" after pretty much everything you type and the only diagnosis available to you was "this doesn't work". It also led me to think more about the evolution of computer use over the last 50 years. Originally, computers were used to perform manual operations that took far longer to do by hand. The key being that here when the computers broke (which they frequently did), we were able to perform the same tasks in the coventional way; it was just a lot slower. Eventually though, once they got sophisticated enough we started using them for things and calculations that we were unable to do without them. We also started forgetting how to do things the manual way since it was no longer pertinent information. Finally, we've started replacing the existence of physical items for the sake of their digital representations (i.e. we get rid of the CD or DVD once we've ripped it onto our hard drive). Up until 3 or 4 years ago, if my MP3 player didn't work I could always just pop on my CD and hear whatever I wanted. Now, though, I got rid of all my CDs and thus if my computer crashes I am just SOL.
Obviously this kind of thing has been happening for quite some time and I am not trying to spout a "2001" type or warning that we shouldn't leave everything to computers, but I do find it interesting, particularly because this is a trend that is just going to keep growing. I mean, have you seen the CD section at Best Buy lately? Up until about 3 years ago, CDs took up about half the store; now it's 3 aisles in a corner. I don't even remember the last time I bought one. Is there really any reason to think that as the speed of information increases that we won't be doing exactly the same thing with all our movies and video games too? I don't know yet for sure if Blu-Ray will replace DVDs as the standard format, but I do know for sure that it will be the last physical media format we have. Similarly, I think the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will be the last of the next-gen systems where you will have to purchase physical video game discs to play.
By and large this is a good thing, if for no other reason than the fact that it should cut down on the amount of raw materials needed to produce these items as well as cutting down on the refuse when they get disposed of (obviously that's offset somewhat by more hard drives). But it just makes for some interesting potential problems. Right now when you lose something like music on your computer it's just gone from your machine. There are still physical copies somewhere in the world. But what if that is not always the case? We could be looking at the possibility sometime in the future that when something gets erased it is just expunged from the Earth permanently as if it never existed. Obviously, that is an extremely remote and far fetched scenario, but it conjures up thoughts of some super-coded virus that learns how to break security on its own and corrupts every computer it touches. And it is my firm belief that should that ever happen, when an alien civilization comes to visit us in some distant time and tries to figure out what went wrong with life on this planet, they will eventually dig deep enough to be greeted by this message:
"Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check"
P.S. I did FINALLY manage to fix my computer this past weekend through a combination of "chkdsk" commands that eventually quarantined the corrupt file and allowed me to delete it. So you will all be happy to know that I can replace all the bad 80s music on my iPod with entirely different bad 80s music.
A little background is perhaps in order here. Sometime last fall I came home from work one day to discover that i-Tunes had crashed and wouldn't reopen. After trying various quick fixes I came to the conclusion that I would have to uninstall and then reinstall i-Tunes. Seems easy enough right? Well, when I went to run the uninstall program about 2/3 of the way through I had my first experience with the above error. I eventually traced it to a problem with Quicktime (which is required to run i-Tunes) and I thought that my problems were over but they were really just beginning. The uninstall for Quicktime wouldn't work, nor could I manually delete the Quicktime files, nor could I install a new version of it. All three activities resulted in my friend the cryptically unhelpful error message. The upshot of it all has been that over the last 6 months or so I have been stuck without i-Tunes and thus have been forced to listen to the same songs on my iPod. And although I have often stated that if music had stopped being made in 1996 my music collection would be largely unaffected, I still do enjoy having the ability to add and remove songs (otherwise, all I really have is one really big MP3 CD). So it's been kind of an ongoing project of mine for about the past 6 months. Once a month or so my frustration meter fills up enough to the point that I resolve to fix the problem and then after a solid 3-4 hours of fruitless effort my frustration is eclipsed by my discouragement and I give up until the next month. Rinse and repeat.
For all intents and purposes, computers have come a long way in terms of ease of use and self-monitoring. However, all it takes is one little miscue for you to feel like you're back in the days of MSDOS, staring at a black screen with the computer saying "Invalid command" or just simply "Error" after pretty much everything you type and the only diagnosis available to you was "this doesn't work". It also led me to think more about the evolution of computer use over the last 50 years. Originally, computers were used to perform manual operations that took far longer to do by hand. The key being that here when the computers broke (which they frequently did), we were able to perform the same tasks in the coventional way; it was just a lot slower. Eventually though, once they got sophisticated enough we started using them for things and calculations that we were unable to do without them. We also started forgetting how to do things the manual way since it was no longer pertinent information. Finally, we've started replacing the existence of physical items for the sake of their digital representations (i.e. we get rid of the CD or DVD once we've ripped it onto our hard drive). Up until 3 or 4 years ago, if my MP3 player didn't work I could always just pop on my CD and hear whatever I wanted. Now, though, I got rid of all my CDs and thus if my computer crashes I am just SOL.
Obviously this kind of thing has been happening for quite some time and I am not trying to spout a "2001" type or warning that we shouldn't leave everything to computers, but I do find it interesting, particularly because this is a trend that is just going to keep growing. I mean, have you seen the CD section at Best Buy lately? Up until about 3 years ago, CDs took up about half the store; now it's 3 aisles in a corner. I don't even remember the last time I bought one. Is there really any reason to think that as the speed of information increases that we won't be doing exactly the same thing with all our movies and video games too? I don't know yet for sure if Blu-Ray will replace DVDs as the standard format, but I do know for sure that it will be the last physical media format we have. Similarly, I think the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will be the last of the next-gen systems where you will have to purchase physical video game discs to play.
By and large this is a good thing, if for no other reason than the fact that it should cut down on the amount of raw materials needed to produce these items as well as cutting down on the refuse when they get disposed of (obviously that's offset somewhat by more hard drives). But it just makes for some interesting potential problems. Right now when you lose something like music on your computer it's just gone from your machine. There are still physical copies somewhere in the world. But what if that is not always the case? We could be looking at the possibility sometime in the future that when something gets erased it is just expunged from the Earth permanently as if it never existed. Obviously, that is an extremely remote and far fetched scenario, but it conjures up thoughts of some super-coded virus that learns how to break security on its own and corrupts every computer it touches. And it is my firm belief that should that ever happen, when an alien civilization comes to visit us in some distant time and tries to figure out what went wrong with life on this planet, they will eventually dig deep enough to be greeted by this message:
"Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check"
P.S. I did FINALLY manage to fix my computer this past weekend through a combination of "chkdsk" commands that eventually quarantined the corrupt file and allowed me to delete it. So you will all be happy to know that I can replace all the bad 80s music on my iPod with entirely different bad 80s music.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
You're More Right Than You Realize
Busy prepping for the CPA exam tomorrow, but just saw something I felt compelled to comment on. In a speech yesterday, Hillary Clinton compared herself to "Rocky", indicating that she never gives up. In talking about ending her presidential campaign, she alluded to the famous training scene in the original film and said it would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'" Well, I imagine it's been a while since she's seen the film so I guess it escaped her attention that Rocky in fact LOSES to Apollo Creed at the end. He does come back to beat Apollo in the sequel, so maybe she's just trying to set up her 2012 campaign.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
2008 Cubs Season Preview
The Shamrock Shuffle 8k was today and boy what a wonderful day for a race! 39 degrees with a wind and a slight drizzle. It was actually not bad during the race but before and then especially after were pretty brutal. Nevertheless, I actually did pretty good, especially considering I haven't run at all in about a month. I decided beforehand that as long as I finished in under an hour I would be happy. Well, I ended up doing quite a bit better than that, finishing in 49:56. That works out to just a little over 10:20/mile. Although fairly short, this race also has the distinction of being the longest race I have ever run without stopping to walk at all. I'm probably going to do a 10k in a month or two and I'll hope to set a new personal best there too. The overall goal for me will be to be able to run the half-marathon in August without stopping. And before anyone asks, no I absolutely have not changed my mind and decided to run another full marathon! Last year was, and forever will be, a one shot deal! Another first for today was Christy running her first race ever. Congratulations dear! Up next for us is the "Race to Wrigley" in two weeks, which is just a short 5k that starts and ends at Wrigley Field. I'll be looking to finish in under 30 mins in that one.
Anyway, as promised I'll get on with my probably-not-at-all anticipated preview of the 2008 Cubs. This one won't be as lengthy as last year's, partially because I don't feel like it and partially because there haven't been all that many changes from last year.
It has been 100 years since the Cubs last won the World Series. From reading other season previews, it appears that it is a requirement to mention this when previewing the Cubs and I have now fulfilled my obligation to do so.
Outfield
Alfonso Soriano - LF
Felix Pie - CF
Kosuke Fukodome - RF
This is probably the biggest change from last year. Last March, it looked like the Cubs might have quite possibly one of the worst defensive outfields of all time, and now it looks like they may have the best in the NL. All three outfielders have absolute cannons for arms and I don't think the opposition will be testing them much after the first month of the year. The only shortcoming is Soriano's less than stellar jumps he gets on balls, but this is far less an issue now that he will be permanently in left field instead of the ill-fated center field experiment from last year. Offensively, this group is more of a question mark. While it's pretty clear Soriano will hit, he's made mention of the fact that he's still not psychologically ready to test his injured hamstring 100% and if his base-stealing ability is hampered that's a sizeable loss from his game. Fukodome, the Cub's biggest free agent signing during the offseason, is playing in the majors for the first time and it's anyone's guess how well he will make the transition. He has a great eye for the strike zone, though, so even if he struggles with hits the OBP should still be respectable. Finally Felix Pie, the latest "next big thing" from the Cubs minor league system, finally gets his shot this year. He's a great talent and has had a really good spring, but Cubs fans still haven't gotten over the hype and disappointment surrounding Corey Patterson and that is tempering the excitement somewhat. It's not fair to hold Pie responsible for that but that doesn't change things.
Infield
Derek Lee - 1B
Mark DeRosa - 2B
Ryan Theriot - SS
Aramis Ramirez - 3B
Geovany Soto - C
The most notable thing about this is who is NOT included here, as 4 months of Brian Roberts to the Cubs rumors have apparently all been for naught, and the Cubs will go into the year with the same starters here as from last year. Theriot is clearly the weak link here, but apart from a horrendous September he put up decent numbers last year. I'm willing to chalk that up to him tiring and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect average numbers from him (maybe .275/.330 AVG/OBP). Still, I don't think he'll be the make or break player for the Cubs. If he is the worst hitter on the team this year, they'll be fine. Lee, DeRosa, and Ramirez are, well, Lee, DeRosa, and Ramirez. They're all veterans at this point and they can all be penciled in to achieve approximately their career averages. Soto is the question mark here. He hit the cover off the ball last September and in the playoffs, but came into spring apparently overweight and has underwhelmed in March. Hopefully, he can turn it on starting tomorrow. Defense is solid at all positions.
Starting Pitching
Carlos Zambrano
Ted Lilly
Rich Hill
Jason Marquis
Ryan Dempster
Here you've got Dempster coming out of the bullpen taking Sean Marshall's place but other than that it's again the same as last year (which is a good thing). I expect Dempster to be serviceable in general but get absolutely shelled one out of every 5 times out. I expect Marquis to start strong and then fade after the all-star break. I expect Rich Hill to take the next step towards becoming a dominant pitcher in the NL. I expect Lilly to regress from his very good year last season but still put up good numbers. Finally, as has been the case for the past 3 years, I expect Zambrano to finally stop his inconsistency and become one of the elite pitchers in the game.
Bullpen
Michael Wuertz
Carlos Marmol
Jon Lieber
Kevin Hart
Carmen Pignatiello
Bob Howry
Kerry Wood - Closer
Apart from the uncertainty surrounding Wood transitioning to the closer role, this should just flat out be the best bullpen in the NL. The Cubs should not lose many games that they are leading after 6.
Bench
Darryl Ward
Ronny Cedeno
Henry Blanco
Mike Fontenot
Reed Johnson
Ward should continue to be one of the best pinch hitters in the game. Other than that, this is a serviceable but unspectacular bench. No automatic outs, but no one that gets you excited either. Murton got caught in a roster crunch when the Cubs signed Reed Johnson. Hopefully Reed and his ridiculous goatee will prove to be worth it. While I understand Hendry's desire to do the right thing for Murton by trading him to a place where he'll have the opportunity to play every day, I am really hoping he keeps him around to potentially include in a trade near the All-Star break.
So, overall the Cubs improved a little bit from last year. Well, at least on paper they did. However, they've also had exactly 2 back to back winning seasons in the last 35 years and they had a winning season last year so who knows. It's nice to go into a season where you don't have to root for absolutely everything to go your way in order to be competitive. For all the slack Hendry gets (much of it deserved) I think he's done a real nice job in the past couple years stocking the farm system with near major league ready talent. If someone goes down or severely underperforms, I'm confident that he has the pieces to either fill the hole in house or use them as chips in a trade.
Prediction: 91 wins and back-to-back Central division crowns!!!! However, my reckless prediction at the beginning of last year notwithstanding, I'm going to refrain from predicting their fate in the playoffs. That time of the year it is all about matchups and momentum that it's just completely baseless speculation to predict now. All I'll say is that the Cubs can go toe to toe with anyone in the NL. If it's true that pitching and defense win championships, the Cubs have as good a chance as they've ever had of raising the banner this year.
Enjoy opening day and the next six months!
Anyway, as promised I'll get on with my probably-not-at-all anticipated preview of the 2008 Cubs. This one won't be as lengthy as last year's, partially because I don't feel like it and partially because there haven't been all that many changes from last year.
It has been 100 years since the Cubs last won the World Series. From reading other season previews, it appears that it is a requirement to mention this when previewing the Cubs and I have now fulfilled my obligation to do so.
Outfield
Alfonso Soriano - LF
Felix Pie - CF
Kosuke Fukodome - RF
This is probably the biggest change from last year. Last March, it looked like the Cubs might have quite possibly one of the worst defensive outfields of all time, and now it looks like they may have the best in the NL. All three outfielders have absolute cannons for arms and I don't think the opposition will be testing them much after the first month of the year. The only shortcoming is Soriano's less than stellar jumps he gets on balls, but this is far less an issue now that he will be permanently in left field instead of the ill-fated center field experiment from last year. Offensively, this group is more of a question mark. While it's pretty clear Soriano will hit, he's made mention of the fact that he's still not psychologically ready to test his injured hamstring 100% and if his base-stealing ability is hampered that's a sizeable loss from his game. Fukodome, the Cub's biggest free agent signing during the offseason, is playing in the majors for the first time and it's anyone's guess how well he will make the transition. He has a great eye for the strike zone, though, so even if he struggles with hits the OBP should still be respectable. Finally Felix Pie, the latest "next big thing" from the Cubs minor league system, finally gets his shot this year. He's a great talent and has had a really good spring, but Cubs fans still haven't gotten over the hype and disappointment surrounding Corey Patterson and that is tempering the excitement somewhat. It's not fair to hold Pie responsible for that but that doesn't change things.
Infield
Derek Lee - 1B
Mark DeRosa - 2B
Ryan Theriot - SS
Aramis Ramirez - 3B
Geovany Soto - C
The most notable thing about this is who is NOT included here, as 4 months of Brian Roberts to the Cubs rumors have apparently all been for naught, and the Cubs will go into the year with the same starters here as from last year. Theriot is clearly the weak link here, but apart from a horrendous September he put up decent numbers last year. I'm willing to chalk that up to him tiring and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect average numbers from him (maybe .275/.330 AVG/OBP). Still, I don't think he'll be the make or break player for the Cubs. If he is the worst hitter on the team this year, they'll be fine. Lee, DeRosa, and Ramirez are, well, Lee, DeRosa, and Ramirez. They're all veterans at this point and they can all be penciled in to achieve approximately their career averages. Soto is the question mark here. He hit the cover off the ball last September and in the playoffs, but came into spring apparently overweight and has underwhelmed in March. Hopefully, he can turn it on starting tomorrow. Defense is solid at all positions.
Starting Pitching
Carlos Zambrano
Ted Lilly
Rich Hill
Jason Marquis
Ryan Dempster
Here you've got Dempster coming out of the bullpen taking Sean Marshall's place but other than that it's again the same as last year (which is a good thing). I expect Dempster to be serviceable in general but get absolutely shelled one out of every 5 times out. I expect Marquis to start strong and then fade after the all-star break. I expect Rich Hill to take the next step towards becoming a dominant pitcher in the NL. I expect Lilly to regress from his very good year last season but still put up good numbers. Finally, as has been the case for the past 3 years, I expect Zambrano to finally stop his inconsistency and become one of the elite pitchers in the game.
Bullpen
Michael Wuertz
Carlos Marmol
Jon Lieber
Kevin Hart
Carmen Pignatiello
Bob Howry
Kerry Wood - Closer
Apart from the uncertainty surrounding Wood transitioning to the closer role, this should just flat out be the best bullpen in the NL. The Cubs should not lose many games that they are leading after 6.
Bench
Darryl Ward
Ronny Cedeno
Henry Blanco
Mike Fontenot
Reed Johnson
Ward should continue to be one of the best pinch hitters in the game. Other than that, this is a serviceable but unspectacular bench. No automatic outs, but no one that gets you excited either. Murton got caught in a roster crunch when the Cubs signed Reed Johnson. Hopefully Reed and his ridiculous goatee will prove to be worth it. While I understand Hendry's desire to do the right thing for Murton by trading him to a place where he'll have the opportunity to play every day, I am really hoping he keeps him around to potentially include in a trade near the All-Star break.
So, overall the Cubs improved a little bit from last year. Well, at least on paper they did. However, they've also had exactly 2 back to back winning seasons in the last 35 years and they had a winning season last year so who knows. It's nice to go into a season where you don't have to root for absolutely everything to go your way in order to be competitive. For all the slack Hendry gets (much of it deserved) I think he's done a real nice job in the past couple years stocking the farm system with near major league ready talent. If someone goes down or severely underperforms, I'm confident that he has the pieces to either fill the hole in house or use them as chips in a trade.
Prediction: 91 wins and back-to-back Central division crowns!!!! However, my reckless prediction at the beginning of last year notwithstanding, I'm going to refrain from predicting their fate in the playoffs. That time of the year it is all about matchups and momentum that it's just completely baseless speculation to predict now. All I'll say is that the Cubs can go toe to toe with anyone in the NL. If it's true that pitching and defense win championships, the Cubs have as good a chance as they've ever had of raising the banner this year.
Enjoy opening day and the next six months!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A Bruised, Bloody, and Beaten Bracket
So, my prediction of a UCLA/Kansa final game is still intact, but unfortunately little else is in my sorry looking bracket. Hindsight is always 20/20, but as I review my picks there is a lot more "what was I thinking?" than normal. Indiana in the elite 8 by beating Arkansas and North Carolina in Raleigh? Duke in the elite 8 because I couldn't decide who would win between Xavier and Purdue? And man did I misjudge the Big East. After watching their conference tourney, I thought "wow; Georgetown's really good and Pitt just destroyed them" when the proper conclusion to draw seems to be "Georgetown just got exposed because Pitt's not that good of a team." Oh well; I don't think I've ever won a tourney pool so I suppose the only difference this year is that I knew on day 3 that I was totally out of it instead of sometime during the 2nd weekend. I still am alive to maybe claw my way back into 3rd place, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.
So the Cubs season gets underway on Monday. I have been holding off on my season preview because there have been a lot of signs that some significant moves would get made before the start of the season. Now, however, other than a minor signing of a backup outfielder it looks like the team is largely the same group that entered spring training 5 weeks ago. I'll probably end up writing the preview this weekend during a CPA study break.
Really looking forward to seeing the movie 21, which comes out tomorrow. It's based on a true story about a group of students at MIT who took Vegas for a couple million dollars by counting cards at blackjack. I heard about this story a few years ago and have read a couple articles about it. I know there will be embellishments, but I really hope they don't go too overboard with it. The true story is intriguing enough that you don't need the extra drama.
Upset special for this round is Michigan St. over Memphis. That team just can't shoot free throws.
Have a good weekend everyone!
So the Cubs season gets underway on Monday. I have been holding off on my season preview because there have been a lot of signs that some significant moves would get made before the start of the season. Now, however, other than a minor signing of a backup outfielder it looks like the team is largely the same group that entered spring training 5 weeks ago. I'll probably end up writing the preview this weekend during a CPA study break.
Really looking forward to seeing the movie 21, which comes out tomorrow. It's based on a true story about a group of students at MIT who took Vegas for a couple million dollars by counting cards at blackjack. I heard about this story a few years ago and have read a couple articles about it. I know there will be embellishments, but I really hope they don't go too overboard with it. The true story is intriguing enough that you don't need the extra drama.
Upset special for this round is Michigan St. over Memphis. That team just can't shoot free throws.
Have a good weekend everyone!
Monday, March 17, 2008
Halfway to a CPA!
Found out Saturday that I rocked the house on my 2nd CPA test (REG), getting a 91. Two more tests to go, with the next one (Audit) on tap for April 2nd and the final one (FAR) three weeks later on April 23rd. With any luck I will have my official certification by Memorial Day.
On Wednesday I am taking off with some friends to a cabin at White Pines State Park to pretty much do nothing but watch basketball for 3 straight days. Now, when I say "cabin" we are using this term in the loosest possible sense, since it has 3 bedrooms, a full kitchen, gas fireplace, propane grill, and a flat screen tv with satellite cable. So, yeah, we'll be roughing it. Of course, that should put me in fantastic shape for the 8k Shamrock Shuffle, which is less than 2 weeks away.
Since I'm taking a couple days off of work this week, I'm trying to get a little ahead so I don't end up with an avalanche of work when I get back Monday. So even though I've got enough thoughts to fill a couple pages today, I'll be brief (I can almost hear the cheers):
On Wednesday I am taking off with some friends to a cabin at White Pines State Park to pretty much do nothing but watch basketball for 3 straight days. Now, when I say "cabin" we are using this term in the loosest possible sense, since it has 3 bedrooms, a full kitchen, gas fireplace, propane grill, and a flat screen tv with satellite cable. So, yeah, we'll be roughing it. Of course, that should put me in fantastic shape for the 8k Shamrock Shuffle, which is less than 2 weeks away.
Since I'm taking a couple days off of work this week, I'm trying to get a little ahead so I don't end up with an avalanche of work when I get back Monday. So even though I've got enough thoughts to fill a couple pages today, I'll be brief (I can almost hear the cheers):
- The Super Bowl is my single favorite sports game, but March Madness is my favorite sports event overall. For most of the country, the Super Bowl is just about drinking and overeating but the way March Madness captures the mind of the whole country (at least this week) is without parallel. Of course, I'm not discounting the role of drinking and overeating here too. As Americans, we generally believe that every event would be better if we were drunk and eating something. And we are not wrong.
- By the way, we're looking at a UCLA-Kansas championship game this year, with UCLA winning it. You heard it here first.
- I was disappointed that Illinois lost yesterday, but I was pleased that after writing the season off 2 months ago I at least got to experience a little more excitement this year.
- Christy and I went to see "Horton Hears a Who" on Friday. It is pretty good, but you can definitely tell it comes from source material that's about 20 pages long. There's enough adult humor to keep those over 12 entertained, but you won't be missing anything by waiting for it on DVD.
- Speaking of DVD, No Country for Old Men is out now. If you're one of the few not into basketball, go out and rent that along with Gone Baby Gone and American Gangster and you will have yourself a good weekend in that will reaffirm your belief that Hollywood actually still can make good movies.
- If you do see (or have already seen) No Country for Old Men, don't bitch to me about the ending unless you're prepared for a lengthy conversation with the end result being me telling you that I respect your opinion but you're completely wrong.
Doubt I'll update again this week, so Happy St. Pat's day everyone and enjoy the Madness!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Working for the weekend
I got into Houston last Wednesday night at around 11:30, and got in a car with 2 zombies. This is a rough translation of the conversation that occurred.
“So how was opening day?”
“Mmmmmm . . .”
”Busy?”
“Lines out the door”
“Well, it’s good you’re busy at least. Any problems?”
“Well, we think we accidentally charged one lady $148 for her pizza, and then broke the credit card machine and could only take cash for a while.”
“Wow; do you have it all figured out now?”
“Yeah; now you’re here so you can deal with it”
I am told that the weather in Houston was nice while I was there. I wouldn’t really know, though, considering all I really saw of the city this trip was the inside of Windy City Pizza from 10:00 A.M. to 10: 00 P.M. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Givcn that I never had experienced the joy of working in the food service industry during my minimum wage teen years, this was altogether new for me. About the closest I came was working the concessions at a movie theatre during high school, but of course transactions are a lot simpler and the menu is a lot more limited. Plus, that was back in the cash-only days so it really was my first time dealing with a credit card machine. Overall, I’d say that the experience was a lot of fun but also that I was definitely ready to leave by Sunday.
We got to the pizza place at 10:00 on Thursday morning and that whole day was pretty slow. While not ideal from a profitability standpoint, it was perfect for me to be able to learn how to work the register without getting mobbed. Friday was significantly busier and then Saturday most of the day was crazy. Overall, between Wednesday and Saturday the place did a little over $2700 worth of business. That’s actually real impressive considering so far they have done exactly 0 advertising and thus the only customers have been people from the area that saw the sign and people who knew one us. Almost without exception, everybody that tried either the deep dish or thin crust said it was far and away the best pizza you can get in the area. I also had the following conversation with at least 15 initially skeptical people:
Them: So, real Chicago pizza huh?
Me: Yep
Them: OK, but I’m from Chicago. I’ll know.
Me: Well, I still live in Chicago and I guarantee that it is.
Then I left them to figure out why someone who lives in Chicago was working a cash register in Houston.
Some quirks about Houstonians. First, they want to order a ridiculous amount of toppings on their pizza. Like 5-6 toppings is not unusual, even if they’re just ordering a 10 or 12 inch pizza. I am told that this is because most of the pizza places have really bland crust, sauce, and cheese and thus they’ve become used to the fact that the only taste they will get from the pizza is from the toppings. Second, they love ground beef as a topping. Everytime I heard “I’d like a meat-lovers pizza, but instead of Italian sausage can I get ground beef” there was a part of me that wanted to reach across the counter and slap them. But, seeing as we’re not going for “The Wiener Circle” feel, I restrained myself. We also had to introduce the greater Houston area to Italian beef, because they have absolutely no idea what it is. It was a dead giveaway whenever someone ordered one that they were from Chicago. During the slower times we brought out some samples to people while they waited for the pizza and everyone said that was really good too. I guess the proof will show up in the number of sales over the next couple weeks.
Anyway, I think those were the highlights. Throughout the weekend, I tried almost every major item. The thin crust is excellent; both the sauce and the crust are extremely flavorful. I’ve been trying to think about which place it is most similar to, but so far I can’t place it.. The deep dish is also excellent and is actually very similar to Giordano’s. I also tried the Slider burgers, which taste almost exactly like White Castles, except thicker and without the holes in the meat. Finally, Saturday night I treated myself to a meat calzone, which I made myself. That was also good, but honestly after working for 12 hours just about anything would have tasted good so I am a little biased. My nightly routine after closing was to go home and have a couple beers and then collapse in bed around midnight. On Thursday night I laid down and saw that the UCLA game was on and had 90 seconds left in the 2nd half. I didn’t even make it to the end of the game. The final little kick in the teeth was Saturday night when I figured I’d finally get to catch up on sleep only to remember that it was daylight savings time day. I usually look forward to that day, but this year I really wouldn’t have minded at all if it had been at least a week later.
I did finally get a little chance to relax Sunday afternoon. A friend of my Ps was having a crawfish boil at their place so we went over there and I got to lay in the sun for a couple hours before I headed back to the arctic. I got to try crawfish for the first time too. For those that have never had the experience of attending a crawfish boil, it is pretty interesting. They line up about 5 or 6 picnic tables, cover them with tablecloths and paper, and then just dump literally thousands of steamed crawfish on top and everybody just digs in. If you can get past the fact that it’s just one small step above eating an insect, they are pretty tasty. Although the amount of work that you have to do to get just a tiny bit of meat makes it not really worth it, in my opinion. But I guess that’s what makes me a northerner.
In any case, the business is certainly off and running, and the place looks great! I’ve attached a few pictures below so you can get a sense for how they tried to bring a real Chicago feel to the place. I’d like to point out that it is my Kerry Wood jersey that can be seen framed in the dining room. Note that the pictures were taken before it opened, so that's why there are no customers.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Another Quick One
Just another brief update to say that I took the 2nd part of the CPA on Monday. It went . . .eh, we'll see. The multiple choice went really well, but then there were two simulations and they went . . . less well. I looked it up yesterday and was pleased to see that it is weighted 70% for the multiple choice and 30% for the simulations so unless I totally bombed the sims or completely misjudged my multiple choice performance I should be ok. Probably give it 60/40 that I passed but I wouldn't be at all stunned if I didn't.
Already started studying for the next exam (T-minus 33 days and counting), which again will probably occur right after I find out the score from the last one. I have been getting progressively better about my study habits but I still have a ways to go. I thought that I was fairly on top of things with the last section by studying 1-2 hours a day until the last weekend but I ended up doing a lot more hardcore cramming than I ever planned on. I nearly pulled an all-nighter on Sunday night (went to bed at just before 3 and woke up at 6:45 to start studying again). Reminded me of my college days (in a very different way than what usually reminds me of them).
In other news, it looks like I will be heading down to Houston next week for the grand opening of my family's new Chicago-style pizza restaurant (Windy City Pizza)! The opening has been tentative for a while now as one beaureaucratic thing after another kept popping up and so they weren't able to hire people since they didn't know exactly when they'd be starting. Couple that with the fact that they have been getting bombarded with questions about when they are opening and they are worried about not having enough help for opening weekend. So even though I know absolutely nothing about making pizzas I will be heading down to lend a hand wherever I can. I have informed them that I actually do have a lot of expertise in eating pizza; not sure how that helps but it is part of my skillset. Opening day is next Wednesday (March 5th) and I fly in that night. I have already been informed that I'm being written up for missing the first day. However, I have been given assurance that as long as I am working for free, I can get written up lots of times before being dismissed. Anyway, I have been told that Chicago is a little outside of their delivery area, but if your travels ever take you to the greater Houston area be sure to stop in to get a taste of home!
Already started studying for the next exam (T-minus 33 days and counting), which again will probably occur right after I find out the score from the last one. I have been getting progressively better about my study habits but I still have a ways to go. I thought that I was fairly on top of things with the last section by studying 1-2 hours a day until the last weekend but I ended up doing a lot more hardcore cramming than I ever planned on. I nearly pulled an all-nighter on Sunday night (went to bed at just before 3 and woke up at 6:45 to start studying again). Reminded me of my college days (in a very different way than what usually reminds me of them).
In other news, it looks like I will be heading down to Houston next week for the grand opening of my family's new Chicago-style pizza restaurant (Windy City Pizza)! The opening has been tentative for a while now as one beaureaucratic thing after another kept popping up and so they weren't able to hire people since they didn't know exactly when they'd be starting. Couple that with the fact that they have been getting bombarded with questions about when they are opening and they are worried about not having enough help for opening weekend. So even though I know absolutely nothing about making pizzas I will be heading down to lend a hand wherever I can. I have informed them that I actually do have a lot of expertise in eating pizza; not sure how that helps but it is part of my skillset. Opening day is next Wednesday (March 5th) and I fly in that night. I have already been informed that I'm being written up for missing the first day. However, I have been given assurance that as long as I am working for free, I can get written up lots of times before being dismissed. Anyway, I have been told that Chicago is a little outside of their delivery area, but if your travels ever take you to the greater Houston area be sure to stop in to get a taste of home!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
One Down (Definitely), Three to Go
Just a quick update to say that I officially passed the first part of the CPA. I am currently immersed in the wonderful world of corporate tax rules as I await the returns of the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries. Hopefully, all of you are having more fun than me tonight.
Christy and I went to see Rent this past weekend and neither of us were impressed. I didn't expect to be but Christy had been looking forward to it so she was disappointed. The play has been running for over 10 years now and it shows every bit of its age. Maybe I would have liked it more had I seen it on its first or second run; who knows. I can see how the fact that it uses "rock" music might appeal to people who don't normally like musicals, but if that's what you're looking for do yourself a favor and just go buy "Tommy" by the Who and listen to that instead. That's one piece that hasn't lost anything despite being over 30 years old. I seriously doubt Rent will still be touring in 2025. Of course, I've been wrong before.
Christy and I went to see Rent this past weekend and neither of us were impressed. I didn't expect to be but Christy had been looking forward to it so she was disappointed. The play has been running for over 10 years now and it shows every bit of its age. Maybe I would have liked it more had I seen it on its first or second run; who knows. I can see how the fact that it uses "rock" music might appeal to people who don't normally like musicals, but if that's what you're looking for do yourself a favor and just go buy "Tommy" by the Who and listen to that instead. That's one piece that hasn't lost anything despite being over 30 years old. I seriously doubt Rent will still be touring in 2025. Of course, I've been wrong before.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A Perfect Storm?
I have forever lamented the fact that we have a two-party system in this country. It’s unfortunate not only because of the obvious problem of a lack of choices, but also because it diminishes the quality of the candidates as they are forced to try and cover an impossible amount of ideology to maintain their base. Run as a centrist Republican and the religious right will alienate you; run as a left-wing Democrat and the libertarians and independents will abandon you. I have always thought that if we injected a viable third-party into the mix that it would force candidates to carve out distinct positions rather than simply allowing themselves to be categorized as “left” or “right”. However, the more I’ve thought about it recently the more I’m realizing that there will never be a viable third-party (at least for the foreseeable future in this country). The reason is that whatever ideological side of the center a new party comes up on will just split the votes for that side’s existing party and give victory to the other side (e.g. Nader taking votes from the Democrats and Gore in 2000 and Perot taking votes from Republicans and Bush in 92 and Dole in 96). Hence, if we are ever to expand our current field of parties it is likely that we would need the introduction of 2 new parties (one leftist and one rightist) at once to even things out.
At this point though, the logistics of doing so appear extremely daunting. In general, the commitment of the American people to politics is tenuous at best. Even now, when political involvement is at the peak that it’s been in my lifetime, we’re still not even getting half the voting population out to vote in the primaries. Hence, the prospect of actually being able to get enough will and ambition together to start two new parties while still maintaining our current two seems very unlikely. In fact, it would take a set of circumstances so unlikely that for all statistical purposes it has rightfully been discounted as impossible. However, I believe that the conditions for such a perfect storm actually exist now for this to happen.
Before I get into the details, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not see this as anything more than a remote possibility. However, it is more likely to happen now than at any other point in my life, and I can’t imagine a confluence of forces such as this ever occurring again.
As it stands today, we have a Republican race that has been unhappily decided and a Democratic race that is happily undecided. What I mean is that there are a lot of Republicans who are still trying to figure out just how the hell John McCain came back from the brink of bankruptcy and complete campaign chaos to “steal” the nomination. They are not excited about him, and the recent “protest” votes for Huckabee (even though the end result is all but certain) are a good indicator of that. This is really not surprising, given the wide gulf in beliefs between traditional conservatives and the religious right. In fact, it’s a minor miracle that these two groups have managed to co-exist in the same party for this long. You would not think that a group who has always believed that government should have an extremely limited role in the lives of citizens would be partnered with a group who wants to model the Constitution after the bible. On the other hand, there is more enthusiasm on the Democratic side than there has been since probably 1960 even though to this point we have a statistical dead heat between the candidates. It would seem that no matter what, the Democrats will be heading into the general election with a full head of steam towards the White House.
That is probably the most likely scenario and may very well be what ends up happening. However, let me propose a not entirely far-fetched scenario for you. Imagine that going into the convention Obama has won the popular vote and holds more pledged delegates but not enough for the nomination. Then, in a series of back-room deals that no one really understands you end up with Clinton as the nominee. Suddenly there’s a whole group of Obama supporters who thought their candidate won the nomination but now they’re seeing him shut out. They’re pissed off and probably aren’t going to be too excited about the prospect of getting behind Hillary. On the other side, as already mentioned McCain has some problems with his base. Let’s assume that the party as a whole is still very lackluster about him. The religious right and hardcore conservatives are desperate to get excited about someone else, if only there was another choice. They say that politics make for strange bedfellows, so how about this possibility? Someone representing the religious right (like Huckabee) calls up Obama and says “I’m not happy with my party right now and I know you’re not happy. I’m thinking of running as an independent but if I do that I might as well give the presidency to Clinton. But what if we both run as independents? That way voters in both parties will have two viable candidates to choose from.”
Again, I want to stress how remote a possibility I consider this, but it is very intriguing all the same especially given some of the results we’ve seen in the primaries. For instance look at Virginia, which has been a red state in every presidential election since 1964. Yesterday McCain carried it over Huckabee 50-41, but Obama carried it over Clinton 64-35. That means that if that split holds, even if 55% vote for some combination of McCain/Huckabee, and only 45% vote for Obama/Clinton, Obama would carry the state. That means that a lot of the traditional “this state is definitely red; this state is definitely blue” would be called into question and would require a completely different campaign strategy. And it would be a relief to for once see at least some candidates fighting to position themselves in the center to please the independents and moderates instead of fighting to go more left or more right to please the fringes. Perhaps more importantly, it might finally force a general election to be about “these are the good things I stand for and vote for me because of them” instead of “this is the bad thing my opponent stands for and vote for me because I’m not him.” Of course, even in my proposed scenario I'm still making the enormous leap in logic that the candidates running as independents would have an earnest desire to start and maintain a separate party instead of just running as a one-off like Perot or Nader (ok, I guess they are both technically two-offs).
Of course, all this will be completely moot if Obama just keeps on winning, and as much as I’d like to see an expansion of the two-party system, I think I’d like to see that more.
At this point though, the logistics of doing so appear extremely daunting. In general, the commitment of the American people to politics is tenuous at best. Even now, when political involvement is at the peak that it’s been in my lifetime, we’re still not even getting half the voting population out to vote in the primaries. Hence, the prospect of actually being able to get enough will and ambition together to start two new parties while still maintaining our current two seems very unlikely. In fact, it would take a set of circumstances so unlikely that for all statistical purposes it has rightfully been discounted as impossible. However, I believe that the conditions for such a perfect storm actually exist now for this to happen.
Before I get into the details, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not see this as anything more than a remote possibility. However, it is more likely to happen now than at any other point in my life, and I can’t imagine a confluence of forces such as this ever occurring again.
As it stands today, we have a Republican race that has been unhappily decided and a Democratic race that is happily undecided. What I mean is that there are a lot of Republicans who are still trying to figure out just how the hell John McCain came back from the brink of bankruptcy and complete campaign chaos to “steal” the nomination. They are not excited about him, and the recent “protest” votes for Huckabee (even though the end result is all but certain) are a good indicator of that. This is really not surprising, given the wide gulf in beliefs between traditional conservatives and the religious right. In fact, it’s a minor miracle that these two groups have managed to co-exist in the same party for this long. You would not think that a group who has always believed that government should have an extremely limited role in the lives of citizens would be partnered with a group who wants to model the Constitution after the bible. On the other hand, there is more enthusiasm on the Democratic side than there has been since probably 1960 even though to this point we have a statistical dead heat between the candidates. It would seem that no matter what, the Democrats will be heading into the general election with a full head of steam towards the White House.
That is probably the most likely scenario and may very well be what ends up happening. However, let me propose a not entirely far-fetched scenario for you. Imagine that going into the convention Obama has won the popular vote and holds more pledged delegates but not enough for the nomination. Then, in a series of back-room deals that no one really understands you end up with Clinton as the nominee. Suddenly there’s a whole group of Obama supporters who thought their candidate won the nomination but now they’re seeing him shut out. They’re pissed off and probably aren’t going to be too excited about the prospect of getting behind Hillary. On the other side, as already mentioned McCain has some problems with his base. Let’s assume that the party as a whole is still very lackluster about him. The religious right and hardcore conservatives are desperate to get excited about someone else, if only there was another choice. They say that politics make for strange bedfellows, so how about this possibility? Someone representing the religious right (like Huckabee) calls up Obama and says “I’m not happy with my party right now and I know you’re not happy. I’m thinking of running as an independent but if I do that I might as well give the presidency to Clinton. But what if we both run as independents? That way voters in both parties will have two viable candidates to choose from.”
Again, I want to stress how remote a possibility I consider this, but it is very intriguing all the same especially given some of the results we’ve seen in the primaries. For instance look at Virginia, which has been a red state in every presidential election since 1964. Yesterday McCain carried it over Huckabee 50-41, but Obama carried it over Clinton 64-35. That means that if that split holds, even if 55% vote for some combination of McCain/Huckabee, and only 45% vote for Obama/Clinton, Obama would carry the state. That means that a lot of the traditional “this state is definitely red; this state is definitely blue” would be called into question and would require a completely different campaign strategy. And it would be a relief to for once see at least some candidates fighting to position themselves in the center to please the independents and moderates instead of fighting to go more left or more right to please the fringes. Perhaps more importantly, it might finally force a general election to be about “these are the good things I stand for and vote for me because of them” instead of “this is the bad thing my opponent stands for and vote for me because I’m not him.” Of course, even in my proposed scenario I'm still making the enormous leap in logic that the candidates running as independents would have an earnest desire to start and maintain a separate party instead of just running as a one-off like Perot or Nader (ok, I guess they are both technically two-offs).
Of course, all this will be completely moot if Obama just keeps on winning, and as much as I’d like to see an expansion of the two-party system, I think I’d like to see that more.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
One Down (maybe), Three to Go
So I had the distinct pleasure of taking the first part of the CPA exam back on the 28th. I would classify my outlook as "cautiously optimistic", which is probably the best you can ever really feel after one of those. There wasn't anything on there that I looked at and thought "Good god, I have absolutely NO idea!" but then there were a lot of questions where half-way through reading it I was like "Oh, I know this one" but then I'd read through the answers and not like any of them or I'd like 2 of them. I also was a bit concerned because I heard that depending on how well you do in each section they adjust it to make it easier or harder in subsequent sections. Well, it definitely seemed to me like sections 2 and 3 were easier than #1, but maybe that was just my perception. Going in I felt like there was a lot of stuff that I still didn't know very well, but after taking it there was actually a lot more that I did know that they never asked about . I was also suprised that it was about 2/3 conceptual and 1/3 computational and I was expecting the opposite. Overall, it was easier than I thought it was going to be but I still give it a decent chance that I didn't pass (I'd put the odds at about 66-33 in favor of me passing). I am supposed to find out by February 18th at the latest, which is just 7 days before my next exam. Either it will be a very nice boost for me to study a lot the last week, or it will be crushingly demoralizing.
In events not directly related to my life it's been a pretty exciting week. Wow, what a Super Bowl! Probably the most exciting one I've ever seen (not including the 2 the Bears were in, which were obviously more exciting to me but not purely as games by themselves). Certainly right up there with the Packers-Broncos game in 98. There was a period from about the mid-80s to the late 90s where about 80-90% of the Super Bowls were extremely boring blowouts and it's good to see that by and large that hasn't been the case the last 10 years. It's such a letdown when you have 2 weeks of hype and then the game's over by halftime. Especially since it's 7 long months till the next meaningful football game.
Then, of course, there was Super Tuesday. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me, but I was absolutely thrilled with the outcome. The only thing that was slightly disappointing was Barack's mediocre performance in California (no love from the asians and latinos) but to come out with (probably) more delegates than Clinton on the night and with all the momentum in the world bodes extremely well for him. Tuesday also marked the first time I have ever walked into a polling place and had to utter the word "Democrat" when they asked which ballot I wanted. Even though I am a strong Obama supporter, it was still very uncomfortable to utter. Anyway, I am also extremely thrilled that the Republican nomination is all but sewn up for McCain. I probably would vote for Obama over McCain, but it would be very close and I could easily see myself changing my mind by the general election. However, I would just be extremely excited to have the dilemma of choosing between two candidates that I really like. Even though Obama has a lot of momentum, my inherent distrust in the competence of the DNC makes me extremely leary that they are going to royally screw this process up assuming (as is likely) that no one gets the required number of delegates by the convention. The talk of "brokering a deal" (as Howard Dean, the chairman of the DNC, has suggested) or all of a sudden deciding to count the Florida and Michigan delegates (as a lot of political pundits have predicted) is sickening to hear. Either one of those would be enough to get people so disgusted with the Democratic party that you might as well just hold McCain's inauguration at the Democratic National Convention. Personally, assuming that neither candidate earns the required number of delegates, I think the only fair thing to do is give it to the candidate who won the overall popular vote (not counting Florida and Michigan, since candidates were not allowed to campaign there).
I think that's all the thoughts I have for today. On tap this weekend is once again more CPA studying and then a curling double-header on Sunday. I lead an exciting life, I know . . .
In events not directly related to my life it's been a pretty exciting week. Wow, what a Super Bowl! Probably the most exciting one I've ever seen (not including the 2 the Bears were in, which were obviously more exciting to me but not purely as games by themselves). Certainly right up there with the Packers-Broncos game in 98. There was a period from about the mid-80s to the late 90s where about 80-90% of the Super Bowls were extremely boring blowouts and it's good to see that by and large that hasn't been the case the last 10 years. It's such a letdown when you have 2 weeks of hype and then the game's over by halftime. Especially since it's 7 long months till the next meaningful football game.
Then, of course, there was Super Tuesday. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me, but I was absolutely thrilled with the outcome. The only thing that was slightly disappointing was Barack's mediocre performance in California (no love from the asians and latinos) but to come out with (probably) more delegates than Clinton on the night and with all the momentum in the world bodes extremely well for him. Tuesday also marked the first time I have ever walked into a polling place and had to utter the word "Democrat" when they asked which ballot I wanted. Even though I am a strong Obama supporter, it was still very uncomfortable to utter. Anyway, I am also extremely thrilled that the Republican nomination is all but sewn up for McCain. I probably would vote for Obama over McCain, but it would be very close and I could easily see myself changing my mind by the general election. However, I would just be extremely excited to have the dilemma of choosing between two candidates that I really like. Even though Obama has a lot of momentum, my inherent distrust in the competence of the DNC makes me extremely leary that they are going to royally screw this process up assuming (as is likely) that no one gets the required number of delegates by the convention. The talk of "brokering a deal" (as Howard Dean, the chairman of the DNC, has suggested) or all of a sudden deciding to count the Florida and Michigan delegates (as a lot of political pundits have predicted) is sickening to hear. Either one of those would be enough to get people so disgusted with the Democratic party that you might as well just hold McCain's inauguration at the Democratic National Convention. Personally, assuming that neither candidate earns the required number of delegates, I think the only fair thing to do is give it to the candidate who won the overall popular vote (not counting Florida and Michigan, since candidates were not allowed to campaign there).
I think that's all the thoughts I have for today. On tap this weekend is once again more CPA studying and then a curling double-header on Sunday. I lead an exciting life, I know . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
