A Curious Little Blog

When we think of America's origins, we normally think of England, for good reason.  In the Southwest, obviously, there is a lot of Spanish influence.  But we rarely think of the amount of French influence in the settlement of America, even though there is a lot of evidence in geographic names. Three states -- Vermont, Maine, and Louisiana -- have French names.  Several others get their names from Indian tribes that were first contacted by French settlers, and two of them, Illinois and Arkansas, retain a portion of the French pronunciation as a reminder. There is a surprising number of cities over a wide geographic area with French names.  We typically think of Louisiana first, especially New Orleans and Baton Rouge ("red stick"), but they are just the tip of the iceberg.  Mobile, Alabama was founded by the French and owned by them for over half a century.  Detroit ("strait") and St. Louis were also founded by the French.  A large number of other cities, chie

The presidential election teaches us an important lesson, but not the one that most people have been drawing from it.  It's not that the Republicans are a minority party.  They may be, but there is no way to reach that conclusion from a single presidential election.  In general, people are far too hasty to draw long-term conclusions from short-term events.  In 2000, we learned, supposedly, that America was hopelessly divided between blue states and red states.  In 2004, it looked like Republicans had a virtual lock on the presidency, having won 7 of the last 10, and only one of the three Democrats elected had won a majority.  In 2008, we learned that Democrats were permanently ascendant, and Republicans would no longer be a political force in 10 years.  Obviously, that turned out to be very wrong, as did the previous predictions.  That's one of the reasons that I am sceptical this time around. Another reason is that there is a bigger lesson:  it's hard to defeat a sitting

David Frum has a new editorial up on CNN entitled " Let's get real about abortion ."  Anyone who talks about "getting real" on an issue has set himself up a pretty high standard, since he is effectively calling the discussion up to that point unreal -- he is saying that he is bringing sense to the subject for the first time.  Unfortunately, Frum fumbles even a basic understanding of the problem. To begin with, he regrets that the moderator in a recent Indiana senatorial debate did not follow up one candidate's answer with what Frum admits was an "argumentative" question.  The question was narrowly partisan.  To quote just part of it: OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? By the very question, Frum exposes his ignrance of the issue.  He seems to think that

At this point, it's more fun for me to speculate about what will happen after the election than to guess what the result of the election will be, so let's take a moment to think about what major figures might be in a Romney administration. Sarah Palin:  It would be great for her political career to get some experience as a cabinet officer, but I doubt very seriously she would be picked.  She just attracts so much negative attention, and I would be surprised if Romney wanted to start his administration with that burden.  On the other hand, if things are going very poorly after two years, she might come in and provide some new energy. Newt Gingrich:  Newt is sort of the elder statesman of the Republican party now, and I find it hard to believe that Romney would not want to include him in some capacity.  It could be in a cabinet post -- I would think he would want to be in on domestic policy -- but it could also be as a White House strategist. Chris Christie:  He has been a

The second debate was a strong showing from both candidates.  I tend to agree that Obama won, but only by a little.  Then again, I've already made up my mind, and I'm trying to judge by what undecideds would think.  This brings up the question, are there really people who are undecided about which candidate they would vote for?  Or are they just undecided about whether they would vote for the current candidate for their usual party?  That makes a huge difference in how to score the debate.  I'm sure it's some of both, but I would love to know the breakdown. Two strong debate performances from two very presidential-looking and -sounding guys.  They may have the two best voices of any pair of candidates in my lifetime.  Obama's is stronger, but Romney has that reassuring, whispering quality that I think makes his a little better. I agree with those who feel that Romney missed several chances to respond, and not all of them were because the moderator cut him off (o

I know that presidential candidates have to make themselves seem invincible to win elections, but it is still depressing to watch.  If hell freezes over and I ever became a presidential candidate, I imagine blowing the election in a debate something like this: Moderator:  "Mr. Croxton, when will your administration get unemployment below 6%?" Me:  "Never." Mod.:  "Never?" Me:  "No, not my administration.  The president doesn't determine who works and who doesn't.  That's a decision made by millions of private individuals." Mod.: "So you think the government has nothing to do with the economy?" Me:  "Of course not, that would be absurd.  The federal government can do a great deal to hinder economic activity, and it can do a little to promote it.  But it makes no sense to speak of a president 'getting unemployment below 6%.'   I will not promise what the unemployment rate would be because it is out of my c

I don't like to watch national political debates.  They make me nervous, way more nervous than their consequences warrant.  Perhaps this is partly the experience of dealing with the Bushes, for whom I constantly felt embarrassed.  Naturally, I missed Romney's terrific debate performance last week. I thought Biden was effective tonight.  Not that his arguments were better, but it sounds more credible when you say things repeatedly and loudly and indignantly, and he did that. I thought the moderator was awful.  When Biden interrupted Ryan, her most frequent response was not to try to moderate by giving each an appropriate chance to speak, but by asking a new question -- effectively cutting Ryan off.  She also pressed Ryan on several issues and only once, mildly, pressed Biden. Ryan was remarkably patient, more patient than was good for him, I thought, in the early stages.  Unfortunately, when two people are talking over each other, the one who falls silent first seems to be

The examples I gave in the last entry were clear-cut:  I'm pretty sure that, from the point of view of maximizing your personal pleasure (which is what economics is about), you should not consider the cost to the vendor in your calculations (unless for some reason hurting the vendor was part of your calculations -- but in that case, you would almost certainly be better off not buying from him at all).  The examples in this entry still puzzle me; I'm not sure where the correct logic lies. The first is from The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg, which I thoroughly recommend to everyone.  I found myself agreeing with almost everything in it, but one case still leaves me puzzled.  Suppose you are going to a show of some sort and have bought 2 tickets at $50 apiece for you and your guest.  When you get to the show, you can't find the tickets.  Should you buy more, or should you be unwilling to buy them because you don't want to pay for the same thing twice?  What abo

The discipline of economics is founded on the idea that people are rational, at least to the extent that they will buy less of a good the more it costs.  But people are not always rational, of course (see, e.g., Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational ). Some economists, such as Ariely, think our enduring irrationality is a blow against traditional economics.  I don't agree, but that is a topic for another entry.  What I'm interested in is some examples of apparently irrational purchasing behaviour that I have observed. For example, I once heard someone discussing what toppings to put on a pizza.  "If I'm going to pay for extra toppings, I like to get meat so it's worth the money," he said.  At first, that seems to make sense:  all toppings typically cost the same, but meat is obviously more expensive than, e.g., mushrooms or onions.  But if you think about it, you're not trying to get the most expensive toppings for your money; you're trying to ge

One of the most annoying things about the tolerance police is that their irony meter seems to be permanently broken.  Otherwise, how could we get a comment like this from the mayer of Boston? “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.” ( link ) He's all for inclusion -- as long as you agree with him. Now, I'm not saying there isn't a point that you need to exclude some people to be inclusive of others.  But, come on.  Chick-fil-A advocates for traditional marriage.  You know, the kind humanity has practiced, exclusively, until the last 10 years or so.  To complain that they are threatening anyone with their policies is to degrade the concept of "threat" to the point of meaninglessness.  Even worse, to the point of doubldspeak.

The fact that the nation is stuck with Obamacare is the least problem with the Supreme Court's ruling today, because health care is -- thankfully -- still not a Constitutional right, and the law can be reversed.  The best thing that is likely to come out of the ruling is a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, which will have a mandate to repeal Obamacare as their first order of business.  I was hoping for a different ruling (more on that in a moment), but I can't deny that today's ruling is probably the best boost a Republican campaign could have. (It's probably pretty obvious that the reason for this is that Republicans are more likely to be fired up during this election.  For a more detailed discussion of the phenomenon of voting, see Satoshi Kanazawa's articles here , here , and here .  In brief:  people don't like to lose.  If that effect carries over from one presidential election to another, over four years, it seems likely to have an even lar

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hardest levels

I'm suffering from opinion overload after reading so many comments about the Treyvon Martin killing.  It disturbs me to see everyone so ready to draw conclusions about a case in which a great deal remains unknown.  It's probably no different than what has always happened when information about an event gets disseminated, but it is much easier to see the effects now. There are only two clear things about the case as far as I can tell.  One is that George Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon Martin, and if he had not followed him, Martin would still be alive.  The second is that the police should have launched a formal investigation rather than just taking Zimmerman's word for it. Beyond that, it is mostly speculation.  The key question is how Zimmerman and Martin ended up in a scuffle.  Zimmerman said he was ambushed, which seems unlikely to me, but I have no way of knowing what scenario actually played out.  I'm afraid that no one may be able to learn the trut

Is anyone else concerned that such a thing as "hate crimes" even exists in our law?  I was reminded of their existence because of the decision handed down today against a Rutgers student who videotaped his roommate engaged in a homosexual act ( here and here ).  Admittedly, the law uses the term "bias intimidation" instead of "hate crime," but it is widely reported as a hate crime law, and those words probably came up during the debate in the legislature. The concept of a hate crime seems disturbingly Orwellian to me.  I realize the law considers the mindset of the defendant, whether the act is premeditated, whether he feels remorse, and so forth, but that seems quite a bit different than debating whether he did it out of hate or some other motive.  The end result is the same, and whether the person feels indifferent or antipathy to the victim does not seem to matter much in practice.  Either way, he is sociopathic.  Even if the crime is committed out o

Obviously, Sandra Fluke can't ruin America by herself.  But when too many people share her attitude, they can. I was led into this by the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's description of her as a slut.  At first, I was interested from the point of view of a double standard in the media.  Yes, there is one. But in the course of my research,I went to this page to find out what Fluke really said.  What interested me was that her answer to the obvious question, "In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?"  She responded with a lot of nonsense.  Such as, "We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally."  Why, does Georgetown provide free contraception to men?  She continued that she expected "to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success."  Not giving women free contraception creates an "untenab

I have a large collection of random screws, but I can never seem to find the one I need when one goes missing.  Have you ever tried buying a screw by matching all its characteristics?  Obviously you need to know how long it is and how big around it is, and whether you want Phillips or slotted.  Do you want a point on the end?  How about the lag between the head and the threads?  Of course, you need to know the threads per inch and the thread depth, especially if you are using the screw in a metal object.  The head of the screw can be flat, oval, pan, truss, or hex washer, and I'll be darned if I understand the advantage of any but the flat head.  I particularly like this website , which even has a section for "sex bolts and mating screws," which seems appropriate because of all the double entendres possible when dealing with this form of hardware. So many choices, and all of them dirt cheap.  I keep old screws because I have a hard time throwing anything out, and becaus

Serving in the military is dangerous enough, you would think, without having to worry about your fellow soldiers raping you.  Killing you is bad enough; we know that there are deaths to friendly fire, and almost certainly always will be.  Getting raped by the other side is also a danger that, I would imagine, the laws of war will never completely eliminate.  But there is increasing news coverage of people getting raped by members of their own side. A Democratic Congressman has introduced a bill that would take military rape cases out of the military chain of command.  If the Defense Department is to be believed, there is a veritable contagion of rape among soldiers:  19,000 sexual assaults in 2010 alone.  Even granted that not every sexual assault would qualify as a rape, that's still a staggering figure.  A new documentary called The Invisible War delves into the problem up close and, from what I have read, in a heart-rending fashion. I don't know whether other countries

I have been following the case of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of passing over 700,000 classified documents to Wikileaks, with some interest.  I am curious how so many people seem to be defending him.  Since a preliminary investigation led an officer to recommend his prosecution on all 22 counts, we now get to see how his lawyers are going to defend him.  According to the Huffington Post , "defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010."  Also, "others had access to Manning's workplace computers. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces." In other words, he didn't do it, and they shouldn't have let him near classified information anyway, and, besides, it didn'

I got an email about some training that I have to attend.  It includes the following warning:  "Due to limited seating, please plan to arrive early."  I would like to know what train of thoughts went through the head of the author as he wrote that.  If there aren't enough seats, having people arrive early is not going to solve the problem.  Sure, those who do arrive early might get seats, but that just pushes the lack of seats on to those who fail to arrive early.  No matter how early you tell people to arrive, and no matter how much they follow your advice, they will never produce more seats.

Hardly anyone, probably not even the candidate himself, believes that Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination.  But his strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire have turned him from a marginal figure into major player in Republican politics.  For many, a strong but unsuccessful run to be a party's presidential nominee could be used as a basis for a future presidential run, perhaps by becoming vice president first.  I think it highly unlikely that Paul will become a vice-presidential nominee, however, because he is too polarizing.  Moreover, at age 76, this is likely to be his last run. Is there any hope that the Republican candidate, should he win the presidency, will offer some sort of post to Paul?  Should he?  Paul represents an unusual constituency, a small but dedicated group who differ from Republicans in general on a number of issues.  Every political party is composed of diverse interests, but libertarians present a special set of challenges to incorporate into the pa

Those of a certain age may remember a 1980's band called "Johnny Hates Jazz." Maybe they should have called themselves "Johnny Hates Music," or simply "Johnny Has No Taste." How can you hate jazz? I am a little more understanding of people who hate, for example, country music. I love it, but I grew up with it and it appeals to me in many ways beyond its musicality. Bluegrass is an even better example. I like classical music, but if some people find Tchaikovsky boring, I can totally understand that. But jazz? Jazz is like a cool drink when you're thirsty. Jazz is the feel of water covering your body as you relax in the pool on a hot day. Jazz is a full—body massage with scented oils. I guess improvisation might not be for everyone; it might not be your favourite kind of music. But hate it? I don't understand that. I should qualify that by noting the different types of jazz, some of which are definitely less likable than others. Do you list

In accordance with my contrarian nature, I disagree that the other Republican presidential candidates are not up to par. I don't have a strong favourite among them, but I think almost any would do a good job. I admit that I was excited about Herman Cain briefly. In general, I think it is good to get outside opinions into Washington, so much so that I strongly support term limits. My concern with Cain was that he had no previous political experience, not even on a local level. I was afraid that he might get into office and make some embarrassing mistakes because he just didn't have the political background to know how to handle situations, much as our current president has made a number of gaffes, especially in foreign affairs. I acknowledge that this is a trade-off: you can't ask for an outsider and at the same time get the level of comfort that comes with a political insider. I certainly wouldn't rule Cain out because of his lack of experience, but it was a concern.

Since I am conservative, you might think that I would be following the Republican primaries closely. I used to: when I was in 5th grade, I carefully tracked the race between Reagan, Bush, and Anderson on a piece of graph paper, recording percentage vote and delegates for each state. In the meantime, I have become jaded. Not that there is anything wrong with the process, but I have so little to do with the outcome that I don't bother to learn much about it until it gets much closer to the convention. Being unimportant and ill-informed does not, however, prevent me from sharing my views with the world. I have never been as down on Romney as most people are. To begin with, he is absolutely right about the distinction between state vs. federal mandated health care. Not too long ago, I was arguing this point with someone who said, "Don't be naive, Virginia's constitution is more restrictive than the federal constitution, yet Virginia requires people to buy automobile insu

I am not an isolationist.  I am, however, a lot closer to that position than I was 25 years ago.  Back then, the major threat to the United States was the Soviet Union.  We were in a Cold War, and I thought it was important to fight them and their proxies everywhere. I don't know if my views have changed because we're fighting a different sort of war now, or if it's just because I've gotten older.  Either way, I'm definitely finding more reason to be sceptical of foreign intervention in a whole host of places. I was not a big proponent of the Iraq war.  (Is that how history will know it, as "The Iraq War"?)  Attempts to paint it as a "war for oil" are really hard to take seriously, but I was never convinced that Saddam Hussein and his regime posed an urgent threat to the United States or any of its immediate neighbours.  I was not strongly against the war, as I viewed getting rid of a brutal dictator as a good thing.  My major complaint was t