Solo Trumpet Duet

A rather surprising performance, especially for non-trumpet players like who are not exactly aware of the limits of what can be done with trumpet.

FAIL blog

Necessary reading. A sample.

Alexander Zorach: A True Maverick

Alex Zorach is out to change the world from A to Z. Consider it a Zorach attack. Armed with an M.A. in statistics from Yale and a carved pumpkin, this theoretical ecologist will revolutionize the economy by introducing an alternative currency system, based primarily on reputation and good will. Zorach money could be the next google. Get in early and sign up here!

The Columbia Free Trade Agreement

Obamassiah opposes the Columbia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) despite standard economic theory which strongly argues that free trade tends to increase the size of the economic pie. See here for a classic chart that summarizes the case for removing tariffs. In stark contrast to Obamassiah, Bush wants the CFTA so bad that he will consider bailing out Detroit if only the Democrats would give him the CFTA.

Then why does Obamassiah bulk? You might suspect that the Onion is onto something in its claim that he wants to keep "America's shitty jobs from going overseas." But in this case, the proposed agreement may result in the loss of few American jobs, since Columbia already enjoys tariff-free export into the US on many products.

Probably the loudest argument coming from opponents of CFTA is that a trade agreement would somehow support or perpetuate violence in Columbia, particularly violence against the unionizing workers. Nowhere can I find a clear description of how this would work. Exactly how would lowering tariffs lead to greater violence? Other opponents say that the agreement would hurt small farmers in Columbia, but fail to get specific.

Tariffs hurt business. Before I support Obamassiah's oppression of business, I want to see a much clearer argument for why such oppression is necessary.

Proposition 8

Protesters of California's new law, which defines marriage in a perniciously narrow way, walked through DC's tourism district shouting "What do we want? Equal rights! When do we want it? Now! (Whose idea was it to say "When do we want it" instead of "When do we want them"?)

Protesters carried signs bearing slogans such as "Straight Against 8" and "Married Gays Have Less Gay Sex" and "All I want for Christmas is equal rights." Unlike in some other protests, the crowd did not have a clear target or demon to attack. There were no calls for the impeachment of President Bush or the abolition of Wal-Mart. Indeed, the new law was enacted directly by the citizens of California during an election with record turnout by several minorities.

What was the purpose of the march? More likely than serving as a tool for change, one protester said, the protest was a meaningful activity for those who participated.

Ignore the Stupid Auto Industry

Democrats let by Obamassiah are preparing to approve large loans and/or subsidies for the American auto industries. Supporters of the initiative hope that it will require automakers to increase fuel-efficiency standards and prevent job losses and a deeper recession.

I too worry about job losses and fuel-efficiency. Giving money to Detroit is not a good way to solve these problems. If we give money to Detroit, we are investing in a money-losing industry, and there is no guarantee the this industry will ever manage to heal itself. Imposing fuel-efficiency standards might result in more environmentally-friendly products, but without a guarantee that these products will be of high enough quality to compete with the excellent line of fuel-efficient vehicles currently offered by Honda and Toyota. Moreover, giving money to private industry creates a closer marriage of government and business, which is precisely the kind of thing that Obamassiah likes to pretend he opposes by shunning lobbyists.

At the root of Detroit's problems is a culture of entitlement and unionization. Workers demand far higher pay than their foreign counterparts, and their jobs are protected by elaborate union agreements. This makes it difficult for the car industry to compete internationally. Even now, at the brink of bankruptcy, the unions continue to make demands on the employers which could lead to the collapse of the economy and result in the loss of jobs for everyone in the union. In addition to the problem of unionization, Detroit suffers from poor management: Auto executives failed to forsee the shift in demand from SUVs to compact hybrids.

Giving Detroit money now will only prolong these problems. The unions will not die as long as the industry survives. Imposing additional regulations on the industry, such as fuel-efficiency standards, will only make it harder for these companies to survive. We have no reason to question that the executives primary motive is profit, and therefore we can expect that they will do their best to build the cars that America wants to buy without government proding.

In summary, giving money to Detroit is merely delaying the death of a failing system, at great cost to taxpayers. The money would be much better used to make other investments, such as in education, or to pay off the national debt, or to provide a reduction on taxes for Michigan residents.

What better way is there to address the problem of fuel efficiency? A simple solution is advocated by many leading economists: implement a federal gas tax of $1.00 per gallon. There are obviously many good potential uses for the funds raised, such as subsidizing the development of alternative energy or paying down the national debt.

What better way is there to address the problem of a collapsing Michigan economy and the loss of jobs? I would argue that beyond providing a basic welfare and healthcare option for the unemployed, this problem is best left to individuals to deal with. Self-serving individuals tend to be very good at finding ways to support themselves. After the unions in Michigan have died, and if the government stays out of the way, new companies will come in to Michigan to take advantage of cheap labor, and perhaps a new manufacturing empire will emerge. Or maybe people will migrate out of michigan in search of new opportunites, and the Michigan wildlife will florish in the absence of humanity.

From the Onion

Reproduction

Back in the Old Testament, one of the best blessings that a man could receive from God was to have lots of descendants. God told Abraham that his descendants would be numerous as the stars in the sky.

This never made sense to me. Why should Abraham want descendants? I can see that Abraham might want some kids, maybe five or ten, to liven things up a bit or to take care of him in his old age, or just because he doesn't feel like exercising birth control. But descendants? Hoards of people multiplying and re-multiplying long after Abraham dies?

One way to rationalize Abraham's fondness for reproduction is to say that it was not an explicitly rational urge so much as it was a natural urge. Genes dictated to Abraham that he should reproduce, just as genes dictated that he should eat. Whatever Abraham's motives, much anecdotal evidence suggests that the urge-to-multiply gene is not universal: Many of my friends seem completely disinterested in having kids.

(It's not terribly surprising that the urge-to-multiply gene is not prominent, considering that for most of human history the urge-to-have-sex gene combined with a lack of birth control was sufficient to continue the human species. Now that we've got birth control, you can bet that the urge-to-reproduce gene will have much stronger role in future generations, as the reproductive lines of people who prefer birth control over children rapidly thin out.)

One of these non-reproductive friends of mine says that a reason for him being content without children is that his four siblings are reproducing at a high rate, and he counts each of his siblings children as equivalent to 0.5 children of his own.

According to a geneticist, you share with your siblings about half of the genes that distinguish your from the rest of humanity. Therefore, when your sibling has a child with an outsider, the genetic makeup of that kid is 0.25 of you. By contrast, when you have a kid of your own, the kid has half of your genes (granted, the situation could be completely different for you if you're a member of an exclusive religious sect or if you live in West Virginia). Since 0.25/0.5 = 0.5, it makes sense to count each child of a sibling as half your own.

The conclusion is obvious. I should pay my siblings to have more kids. It's funny, I already acted on this principle, long before I thought about it in these terms. I paid my brother an ipod for his first kid. In retrospect, this was a bad buy, since the kid apparently was already in the works before I dangled the ipod. I'll have to wait until he's sure he's done having kids before I start dangling cars and houses.

According to wikipedia, the urge to treat your siblings' children as your own could be hard-coded into our genes by evolution itself:

Under natural selection, a gene encoding a trait that enhances the fitness of each individual carrying it should increase in frequency within the population; and conversely, a gene that lowers the individual fitness of its carriers should be eliminated. However, a gene that prompts behavior which enhances the fitness of relatives but lowers that of the individual displaying the behavior, may nonetheless increase in frequency, because relatives often carry the same gene; this is the fundamental principle behind the theory of kin selection. According to the theory, the enhanced fitness of relatives can at times more than compensate for the fitness loss incurred by the individuals displaying the behavior.

Tactic #1

If you don't want to sound unsophisticated, never fail to avoid not taking every opportunity to replace affirmative statements with ones which don't necessarily connote a lack of apt disapproval in moments when uncertainty prevents you from disagreeing wholeheartedly.