10 Comments

1. Alan Simpson is very cool.

//comments on 1: I wish all Republicans were more like him. I wonder why he is even a Republican? He is down with gay rights and is basically a feminist. He doesn't think the courts should decide on abortion and he doesn't even think men have the right to vote on the abortion. At best, he argues, the father should perhaps be involved to some extent in the process - but that is it.


2. Sheryl Swoops. Very cool that she came out.

//comments on 2: Dude, while it is nice, her partner is screwed for life. (no pun intended.) Swoops came out and explained that her partner was her boss. That is a big no-no - players screwing their assistant coaches, are you kidding me?


3. Ann Coulter argues that Bush needs to appease his base now and that he ought to appoint an ideologue. Bill O'Reilly responds that Ann can't ever criticize a lefty-nut activist judge if she encourages right-wing ideologuism. He argues that if one asks Bush to put up an ideological judge, it is no different whether the ideologue is left or right wing. He explains that judges should be pro-dialogue, pro-discourse, and not be ridiculously stuck to their ideologies.

4. When Ann Coulter kept referring to things that "we" had to do (she was referring to herself + Bill as a collective conservative unit), Bill responds "who is this we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?" And then basically goes on to tell her to not include him in a "we" when she talks about her support for an ideologically conservative nominee.

//comments on 3-4: Wow ... I was pretty shocked to hear that from O'Reilly. Very interesting.


5. Dick Morris made 3 interesting points. First, it is very good that Miers is gone because it marks the first time the administration has looked to competence as a criterion. Second, that now the administration should nominate one of the 90 appointees to lower courts who got through Congress just fine. Since a number of these guys and gals are right wing ideologues, he can appease his base in the process. Third, the President needs us to get away from oil. Drilling ANWAR is bad. (a) Global warming exists. (b) We have shitty weather b/c of warming. (c) Oil money (some percentage of it) goes to terrorists. (d) We need a new energy source.

6. O'Reilly argues that if you are the President's legal counsel, you do have some experience (obviously) with constitutional law. Miers should have been given her due process.

//comments on 5-6: I've talked enough about Miers so you know my views there. As for oil, see below.


7. O'Reilly rags on oil companies. He argues that oil companies are screwing Americans with price gouging. Record high oil prices and record high profits (Exxon Mobil reporting $12 billion) means that they are screwing the consumers. He went on a tear on Bush's stupid tax exemptions for oil companies!

8. Dean Bakers, Co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), and co-author of growth literature with Krugman and DeLong, explains the reasons for the exploding profits. First, crude oil prices have sky-rocketed. Limited supply and phenomenal demand spikes, especially due to China and India's increasing needs. Second, Katrina knocked out oil refineries so a number of regions have experienced rather large shortages. He argues a way to deal with this is through a windfall profit tax - which essentially is a tax on a large sum of unexpected wealth (take that to mean whatever you want it to be).

9. O'Reilly responds is against windfall taxes because apparently that isn't what capitalism is all about. So instead, he advocates a Gandhi-esque solution: consumers punishing oil companies (whatever that means).

//comments on 7-9: this is what I love about capitalist ideologues. Ok, so their philosophy is the free market. But here is the thing. Economists aren't ideologically pro-free market. They are so because they realized that empirically, things were more efficient in an open market in a situation of perfect competition. (For one thing, oil companies are oligopolistic, not competitive - so I don't even know if O'Reilly's "logic" is applicable.) But more importantly, there isn't some blind adherence to libertarian philosophy in play here. We see above, a fairly respected macroeconomist arguing for intervention in that form, and O'Reilly responds with "capitalism is about people doing what they want". Hell, even conservatives like Gary Becker argue for intervention at times. Even if it interventions to straighten out a market and make it more competitive, or intervention to force insurance purchases upon houses in hurricane-prone regions. The point is, ideological "economic conservatism" or ideological "capitalism" is idiotic. You won't find any respected economist (essentially the proponents and scholars of capitalism) backing such idiocy. So why are strict libertarians so crazy?


10. Catherine Crier is damn cool.

//comments on 10: I wish more conservatives were like her too. But if I had a choice, obviously I would take them being like Alan Simpson.

Ball Control

Tracy McGrady is damn cool. Do you know why? While he and Kobe (and Wade and James) have very similar stat lines, one huge difference (that popular culture won't admit to) is that T-Mac's ball control is just damn better.

(And please, don't retort with things like Kobe has 3 rings. First, I want to specifically talk about ball control. And second, Shaq won those rings and you know it. And if you don't, go watch a higher volume of games - you didn't watch enough games. Just watching 1 game with a big 3 doesn't make you a great "clutch player" or even a winning cause. There were plenty of games where Kobe missed a lot of shots in the clutch, and he certainly wasn't responsible for distorting the offense. Shaq is a huge huge communist style tax upon a defense!!)

Anyway, ball control sets McGrady apart from everyone else with talent. People like D Wade, AI, Kobe, LeBron (all guys with similar assist levels and scoring averages) - all have Turnover Ratios that put them ranked around 50th in the league. Well actually .. Kobe and Dwade are in the 50s, AI is in the 30s. LeBron is in the 20s. Tmac? Tmac sits proudly at #1. He has the single lowest turnover ratio in the league (for a SG +/-). It is ridiculous. He just doesn't lose the damn ball. And last season wasn't a fluke. He has basically led or come close to leading the league for most years in the league. None of the others have even come close.

Now lord knows I don't think T-Mac is the best of the bunch. And I think, if careers develop properly, LeBron being the best on that list won't even be a question. Barring severe injury, D. Wade being #2 on that list won't really be a question either.

But what I am saying is, there is something to be said for someone who can put up these 25/6/6 style numbers while being utterly in control of the ball. We know all of these guys can slice through defenses at will and are damn talented at it. McGrady, though. Damn. He is a lot like that new Adidas commercial they have about him. Runs through an obstacle course of rain, fire, and all hell, but he just elevates above it all, with dragon wings, for a jumper. Phenomenally clean at it and rarely gets stripped. Seriously, it is very in-the-vein-of Michael Jordan.

Next Fed Chair: Ben Bernanke

Well G.W. finally nominated a scholar! By nominating Ben Bernanke as the next Fed Chair (technically - Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve), he has picked someone who seems to be a rather qualified candidate.

I guess it is no surprise on the heels of this Harriet Miers, Katrina, the FEMA fiasco, having a 2% approval rating among blacks (though I guess he doesn't care about that one), etc. Plus Bernanke and Kohn seemed to be the front runners anyway, at least according to the Wall Street Journal polls - which, as I understand, seem to be a reasonable indicator. But then again, with this administration, who knows?

Still, it is something to be pleased about, considering alternatives included Hubbard (yes, Columbia Business School, but still blech) and Marty Feldstein.

I've read a lot of blogs and commentators throwing about economic catch phrases saying how Bernanke is intelligent because he uses model X or an idiot for using Y. Really. Is that so? You can tell, as an untrained fellow lacking in mathematical and economical depth, whether or not a distinguished Princeton Professor is an idiot or not for employing some model that you learned about in your poli-sci meets econ course? Sigh.

Look, I love economics and really want to be an economist. That said, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about about the subject. And the very very little I do know - it is limited to some elementary growth and development theory. I'd wager that I do know more about the economics of the NBA than "normal" economic theory at large. Point being - I certainly couldn't comment with any amount of competence on how a scholar would do his job as the next Fed Chair. It is quite a heavy job, you know.

But what I do understand is the following - Bernanke is a very respected academic. He rarely brings his ideology into his work. Even his closest of friends did not know that he was a Republican until the last few years. He has worked very closely with Alan Blinder (the liberal Princeton economist who I so admire). With Blinder, he did work on some very interesting monetary policy that is regarded as not really being "conservative" or "liberal" but if not anything else, I suppose people could call it "left leaning". And Blinder isn't the only one who says that he is fairly non-ideological in his economic dealings, which is pretty good. Krugman, DeLong, and many others seem to have good words to say about this pick, for the most part. (I do not know whether that is a contextual comment - when comparing him to the alternatives, or whether it is an absolute statement.)

I saw too many blogs trashing him as incompetent, or hailing him a a genius - all on little things such as his mention of the Philips curve. Right, like our sophomoric understanding of the Philips curve is really what Bernanke is relying on when making his decisions. See, I wouldn't really mind if people levied some decent criticisms specific to his arguments and models. But, as usual, I wish for too much. People just make ideological and blanket responses for everything. This is rarely ever good, in philosophy, in politics - and especially in economics.

Why Fantasy Drafting Sucks

Damnit. I forgot to show up to most of my draft in one of my leagues, so I autodrafted a really weird team. I hadn't really finished pre-ordering them, so people weren't in a default order, nor were they even in a specified/better order. Plus I was drafting dead last (10 out of 10) anyway, so it wasn't like I was privy to a Dirk or a Timmy at least. In sum, I am stuck with the following team:

Andrei Kirilenko
Steve Nash
Ben Wallace
Andre Iguodala
Rashard Lewis
Kyle Korver
Morris Peterson
Tony Parker
Chris Kaman
Deron Williams
Damon Jones
Andrew Bogut
Desmond Mason

Well, um ... at least I am going to be reasonably good at .... assists and threes? And then I seem to have a mixed bag that really varies game to game and week to week based on what different people put out. AI^2 and AK47 will give me round numbers through several categories, I suppose. And maybe Big Ben and AK + change give me blocks?

And, well, Bogut and Deron Williams can't both flop, can they?

What do people think about this mess of a team (or lack thereof?)?

More on Harriet Miers

From Professor Brad DeLong's blog:

I'm going to come out in favor of the U.S. Senate advising and consenting to the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

She is a hard working, intelligent, savvy lawyer with a strange fixation on George W. Bush. She has had the experience of making her way as a career woman in late-twentieth century America, which cannot help but have given her a considerable education in what's what and where's where. Back her up with good, moderate clerks and she will do fine.

She will be, I think, likely to be vastly better as a judge than the alternative--which is some "originalist" who doesn't get that James Madison wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

because he didn't want any judges, ever, anywhere in the United States to argue: "You don't have that right because you can't show it to me written down in the Constitution."

I think that she is a terribly unqualified nominee. I would love more experience (or any experience) in Constitutional Law. If not that at least, I would love a lawyer not caught up in corporate fraud. If not that, at least I would love some one with some indicators of being a rather strong intellect. If you don't back it up with other accomplishments, I am forced to default on your education. And Southern Methodist University math major and SMU law school doesn't cut it.

All that said, like I said before, "This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead?"

I disagree with people thinking that we need a more "intellectual" judge even if they are on the hardcore right. They seem to back it up for two reasons: first, that a lot of these intellectuals do move left and second, because at least thought out analysis has more value (for whatever reason). Look - first, the whole conservative moving very left thing really only applies to Souter and Blackmun. Yes, generationally there has seemed to be progressive notions permeating American culture, and I definitely think that the Supreme Court has contextualized accordingly, for the most part. But it isn't inherent - for one thing - and moreover, the right wing of the court over 50% of the time are not as lefty as we would like. Sure, Souter and Blackmun defected, but that isn't a sure thing. Second, I don't care if you have a genius defending some notion that isn't a good notion. I want my idiot voting the correct decision!

So, for my part, I tend to agree with DeLong, I guess. I really fear the apology candidate that Bush will give the Christian right if she doesn't get confirmed.

Pre-Season Thoughts

As advertised...

Knicks
What can I say. Nate Robinson is really good. I mean really really good. Well - not as good as he probably thinks he is, but certainly better than even his fans probably thinks he is. This kid has to learn to control himself and also make a few better decisions (like when not to take a shitty shot, what kind of pass will actually get through 4 defenders, adjusting to the taller players in the NBA, etc). But even with that, he puts out 4 assists, 11 points, 6 boards, and a steal to boot (though quite a few turnovers and fouls as well). All while shooting 5/6. That is remarkably efficient for someone who I just criticized as inefficient. I guess it is all relative people. Plus, man some of the crisp moves he had - fake left, burn his man right, spin to the center avoiding the collapsing help - D, drawing effectively a triple team for a 5'9" guard in the paint - and then, the beautiful quick bounce pass that goes 15 feet through the crowd perfectly finding his man at the 3-pt arc to drain the trey. Pretty shit. What can I say. Also, Eddie Curry still can't buy a rebound. But he is learning some defense - and that's a start. Robinson followed that performance against Dallas with a 2-7, 7 pt, 5 rebound, 2 assist, 1 steal, 3 foul effort against Tony Parker and the Spurs. Channing Frye did remarkably well, especially considering he shared time against Tim Duncan. Frye shot 8-14, grabbing 8 boards in the process for a 19 pt/8 board/3 assist/2 steal/2 block effort. Curry, of course, couldn't do anything.

Suns
Marion.

Nets
Wow ... Richard Jefferson got good? Wth happened. I used to laugh at him. He went out and bought himself a consistent jump shot and some court vision. On a similar note, Jason Kidd isn't really that good anymore. He kind of sucks. At least compared to the J-Kidd of old. He is much much slower, really can't shoot now, and certainly has trouble playing defense.

76ers
AI the 2nd (Iguodala) is awsome. He is like Kirilenko, with worse shooting. But I guess that is ok. He will probably still be the 4th scoring option, perhaps 5th, behind AI, C-Webb, John Salmons and maybe Korver.

Bulls
Janero Pargo shoots too much. He thinks he can drain it like he did in his college days. Call it the AI syndrome (I guess that is why AI takes so many threes even though he isn't particularly great in NBA terms).

Cavs
My oh my. Of the big 4 - James, Hughes, Jones, Gooden, and Ilgauskas (yes I know that is 5 people, but Ilgauskas and Jones count as one person) - if 3 of them are hot, we will see some pretty damn efficient scoring between them. This will be fun to watch. Add in that they all distribute the ball fairly well, and they also have a smart (though not physically able) point guard who loves to pass and can't really shoot (Snow), and the team looks to be pretty solid ... offensively. Defense is a different question. D. Jones sucks, and no one else really is anything spectacular. (Yes, even Larry Hughes. Going for steals is called gambling, not good/effective defense.) And all of this is without thinking of Donyell Marshall who easily should have been a contender for 6th man last year. Maybe not top 3, but still. I mean he is a 4 who can step out and pop the 3. And he was the most efficient Raptor last year by far, though he came off the bench.

Pacers
Danny Granger! The kid has scored in double digits in the last 3 games (11, 19, 12) with (11, 15, 7) boards respectively. He also has always had at least 1 assist, 1 block, and 1 steal per game. He gets to the line nearly 7 times a game, but he seems to foul a lot and his shooting percentage could be better.

Raptors
Charlie Villanueva has been out of control. At just over 17 ppg, 5 rpg, 1 apg, 1 spg, 1 bpg, with 55% shooting, he seems to be a solid rookie. He doesn't get to the line as much as he should, though.

Heat
Oh wonderful. Against the Pistons yesterday, Walker shot 2-10 and Jason Williams shot 2-9. Wonderful. And if you look at how until now he has done compared to everyone else in the league, he leads the league in nothing. He isn't even close to top in anything. Then I had an idea to sort by "FGAP48", i.e. field goals attempted per 48 minutes. Yup. There he is, #8 in the league. Shit, he can't make the list for making shots. But for attempts? Always there. His first game was an inspired effort - 9/14 shooting for 20 pts coupled with 2 boards, 1 assist, 5 steals. But he has been on and off (more off) since then, shooting under 10% twice and under 40% 3 out of 4 games. Then you have Jason Williams, who shoots no less than 7 shoots per game, making only 34% of those at that. All that and averaging an unimpressive 3.5 assists per game. Yuck. And why are 50% of his shot attempts from down town when he is only hitting 18% of them?!

Allowing Skilled Immigrants into America

I thought this was relevant, considering the group of friends that I have from Silicon Valley.

From the mind of Gary Becker:

Scientists, engineers, and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving a green card that allows them to stay permanently in the US. Only 140,000 green cards are specifically allocated annually to mainly skilled workers. An alternate route for highly skilled professionals, especially IT workers, has been to seek temporary H-1B visas that allow them to come for specific jobs for three years, with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota under that program in 2003 from almost 200,000 workers to well under 100,000. The small quota of just 65,000 persons for the current fiscal year that began October 1 is already exhausted!

The right approach is to go in the exact opposite direction: to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals, and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrant workers like engineers and scientists are in fields that are not attracting many Americans. They also work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the well-performing American economy. Over one-quarter of the entrepreneurs and higher--evel employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.

Since they earn more than average, highly skilled professional immigrants contribute disproportionately to tax revenue. They are also considerably younger than average, so they are net contributors to social security revenue. In addition, they and their children have low crime rates and make few demands on the public purse. They have low levels of unemployment, seldom go on welfare, generally have above average health, have relatively small families, and their children do well at school and cause few disciplinary problems.

To me it seems like a win-win situation for the US to admit annually a million or more skilled professionals with permanent green cards that allow them eventually to become American citizens. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages to the US as well as to the foreign professionals. With permanent admission, these professionals would make a much greater commitment to becoming part of American culture rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy rather than with the skills and knowledge they could bring back to India, China, or wherever else they came from. In particular, they would become less concerned with absconding with the intellectual property of American companies, property that could help them advance in their countries of origin, perhaps through starting their own companies.

Basically, I am proposing that the H-1B program and the explicit admission of foreign workers be folded into a much larger employment-based green card program for foreign workers. With the emphasis on skilled workers, the annual quota should be multiplied many times from present limits. Unlike the present admission program, there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds, either in absolute numbers or as percentages, place large countries like India and China with many highly qualified professionals at a considerable and unfair disadvantage.

To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers, such as engineers and scientists, would lower the earnings of American workers they compete against. The effect on earnings from this greater competition would discourage some Americans from becoming engineers or other professionals. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number admitted. But doesn't the US benefit if, for example, India spends a lot on its highly esteemed Institutes of Technology to train many scientists and engineers who leave to work in America?

Many of the sending countries protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain". Yet migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one with a positive sum that usually, although not always, benefits both the sending country and the receiving country. In the case of migration of highly skilled workers to the US, I believe that it is a winning situation both for the US and for the nations that trained them because these emigrants send back remittances, and some of them return to start businesses based on the experiences they gained in the US.

If America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere-Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals. Or they will remain at home and compete against the US through the outsourcing of highly skilled engineering, research, and other such activities. The growth of outsourcing has created an entirely new case for more generous admissions of skilled immigrants. Since earnings are much higher in the US, many of these workers would still prefer to come here or to other rich countries, but if they cannot, they can now compete more effectively than in the past through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The US would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens, and in this way contribute to American productivity, culture, tax revenues, and education than by having them compete from their origin nations.

I do, however, advocate being careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling", but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror.

Other countries too should liberalize their policies toward immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany that have rapidly aging and soon to be declining populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers since this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. Why not take advantage of the preference to come here rather than forcing highly desirable immigrants to look elsewhere?

My first preference is to admit many immigrants through a sale of the right to immigrate (see the discussion in our blog entry of February 21, 2005). Since skilled immigrants would tend to bid the most, that policy too would favor skilled immigrants. But in this discussion I have set aside my preference for a market in entry rights in order to concentrate on the importance of getting more highly skilled immigrants, with or without charging for admission.

So come on guys. About 95% of you guys who may occassionally glance at my blog are immigrants' kids with parents working in IT or something similar. So, what are your thoughts on this?

A Short Parable About a Monk

Say exactly at sunrise, a young Tibetian monk begins to climb up a mountain to meditate at the temple for a few days.

He goes along a narrow and treacherous path. Of course, along the way, he gets very hungry, and he has to stop to eat. Perhaps sometimes he stops to take a whiz off the edge of the trail. (Hey, he is only human. He will publicly urinate if he has to!) He sees some pretty flowers and picks them to decorate the temple with. Obviously his speed of travel varies rather randomly, but eventually he gets to the temple just before sunset. (Lucky for him, because travelling along a treacherous path up a mountain without a flashlight really sucks.)

Once he is at the temple, he spends a few days praying and doing his monk-y things.

A few days later, at sunrise, he stretches, grabs his dried berries, and heads down the path again. Of course, he stops whenever he is hungry or has to pee, and of course, his average speed of descent is faster than his average speed of ascent. So he gets down to the base of the mountain (his house) before sunset.

True or False? There is a point on the trail that the monk was at on both trips at exactly the same time of the day.

On the Harriet Miers Fiasco

"You know, she's a very gracious and funny person," says Joshua B. Bolten, former deputy White House Chief of Staff whom Harriet Miers succeded in 2003, about Miers. "I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific... She is a very good bowler. For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins."

Then it hits him. "What I think made Harriet so successful as staff secretary was that she was a diligent and honest broker, able to digest very complicated material rapidly, and produce a fair resolution for the president, so that the advice that was going in to the president was fully and fairly presented."

David G. Leitch, former deputy White House counsel, also showers praise upon Miers. "You might think anybody who was preparing something to go to the president would already have taken care to see that it was perfect. But Harriet always scrubbed them one more time, and managed to come up with things that people hadn't seen or thought of before, from the broad wording of an issue to errors in punctuation." Well, of course, the ability to strictly scrutinize punctuation is one of the top 7 qualifications to become a Supreme Court justice.

But controversy looms over her ability to properly dot the i's and cross the t's. David Frum, a former White House speechwriter explained that perhaps, this overbearing emphasis on proper punctuation brought along inefficiencies, saying, "It wasn't that she didn't do the job right, but the way she did the job rules her out of being a person you would think of as capable of handling this enormous responsibility."

So what are my thoughts on Harriet Miers?

Well, Harriet Miers was never a judge before. Honestly, I would prefer some judicial experience in my nominees. But it is definitely not unprecedented, so I suppose that is ok. So what about her philosophy on constitutional law? Well, that is not really known. Quality legal experience? Miers has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. I guess, maybe, perhaps, that might be sort of partly okay ... a bit. But I would have preferred at least some hardcore experience as a lawyer - at least if she never was a judge before.

So what did she do? Well from 1972 (2 years after graduating from law school) to 2001, she worked for Locke, Liddell, & Sapp. She was the first female employee, and later became the first female president. During her time as president, she was sued for aiding a client in defrauding investors, and the firm settled a $22 million. Beautiful.

Oh and, she has basically been George W.'s biggest fan and bitch for the past 16 years. Which, I suppose, is nice and all for him, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me having her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

So there has been this huge controversy over her qualifications right? Peopl thought - hey no judicial experience, no hardcore legal experience, no hardcore reputable law school experience, no legal academic experience - so who is this woman?? Man, I really love the administration's response. Obviously, Bush & Co. decide to come out and defend their woman. So, first, what do they do? They note the following. Fine, Miers didn't go to Harvard or Columbia or Yale or something. But she did go to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas! No joke - they were completely serious about this.

Wow. Really!? Third best law school in all the land of Texas! Yay! How wonderful for me!

Look, I don't mean to be a name-hugging ass here or anything. And definitely many fantastically smart people come out of non-name schools. But here's the deal - those fantastically smart people have done something worthwhile. And because they are deemed "worthy", they get the acclaim. Here, I see a woman who really doesn't have a super stellar legal resume. And I'm just thinking, fine, at least give me one indicator that you are among the top 9 legal minds in the country. Or you know what - at this rate - screw top 9. What about some indicator that at least you are in the top 90. Or 900. Please. Some indicator - at least a legit academic background if not anything else!

I'm just saying (and this is by no means comprehensive), take a quick look at at least how we could have justified something like this by percentages if she had some pedigreed law school background. Most of these guys, except for the U Chicago guys, are/were on the U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard (Blackmun, Roberts, Souter, Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy, Brennan, Powell, Frankfurter, Burton)
Columbia (Ginsburg, Reed, Douglas, Stone, Cardozo, Hughes, Blatchford, Jay)
Yale (Thomas, White, Stewart, Fortras)
U Chicago (Scalia [Prof], Coase [Nobel Prize Winner], Mikva)
Stanford (Rehnquist, O'Connor)
Northwestern (Stevens, Goldberg)
Berkeley (Warren)
William Mitchell (Burger)
University of Maryland (Marshall)
UT Austin (Clark)

Ok. Then we get to Southern Methodist University's Law School, which the administration proudly argues to be the 3rd best law school in the great state of Texas. Wonderful. Obviously Miers is the only alumnus that one can name from the law school. What about the university at large? Well, here. I can name 4. Cathy Bates, Laura Bush, Patricia Robertson (yes, the Home Improvement mom), and Lauren Graham (Lorelai on Gilmore Girls). Damn, we are going to be in awsome shape, aren't we?

So it is a lot like how Larry Miller put it on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Screw Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. She went to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas. I mean, that is like being the 4th tallest person in Japan! .......yah, it doesn't really count for much.

So the administration gets flack for that. Pressured, they turn to the one thing that they know could help the reputation of their star woman. As an undergraduate, she majored in mathematics! Again, I am not kidding. This is actually what they argued to justify her "intellectual capacity". Well, aw shucks. She was a math major at SMU. She must be a genius!

Hey guys, wait a minute. I'm a math major at Columbia University. We have a top 7 mathematics program. By the administrations standards, that must be justification enough of my abilities to help warrant my nomination to the Supreme Court! Oh wait, maybe I should obtain a quick law degree and get sued for defrauding people first. Hm?

I absolutely love that both the right and the left are pounding Bush on this. This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead? But if she does, is she going to be ostracized by the other judges? Boy this will be interesting.

All Taxes are Distortionary!

So say I put a tax on coffee. Theoretically, it should alter the way I consume coffee. In an Economics (or Intuition) 101 course we learn that I go to Starbucks and now buy tea instead. Fairly straightforward, right?

This is we call a "distortionary effect" of a tax. Basically it changes incentives from what you would have done to what you will do now. And in doing so, it changes the combination/proportions of goods you would have consumed, since you substitute away from one in favour of another. (More tea, less coffee in this example.)

What if I taxed labour (with an income tax)? That causes some distortions as well right? Depending on disposition, people may substitute away from labour to leisure or, since they feel poor, they may start working even more to compensate. Most labour theorists argue that very poor people will tend to work more, since they cannot afford to not work, but wealthier people may cut back on work and purchase more "leisure" because working becomes more "expensive" since they are taxed.

So here is what bothers me. A lot is said of "non-distortionary taxes". People like to argue that a certain tax is not distortionary for such and such reasons. The most frequent example is the lump sum tax. This tax is basically a per-head tax - every person has to pay $X just for existing. The end. People seem convinced that, theoretically, it just shrinks a person's overall income, but doesn't really distort their incentives to purchase some goods over others. It just shrinks their overall budget. This makes sense right? (You should be shaking your head "no", since I am going to argue that it doesn't.)

In fact, I was talking to a TA of mine who went to Harvard for his undergraduate education. He was telling me how in his basic macro class there, they taught him that concept. Same I've heard from people going to all sorts of schools for undergrad, including schools as far and wide as MIT, UT Austin, Columbia, Berkeley, and -yes- even U Chicago! (Note: this isn't done at the graduate level, or even at an advanced undergraduate level, as I understand it. But most business folk do not pursue Ph.D.s in economics, so they run off into the business world with stupid ideas like these...)

So what is my problem with the notion that there are some non-distortionary taxes? Well, I like the Sala-i-Martin mantra that "all taxes of distortionary - people are just stupid". Here's why. Take the example of the lump sum tax. The common argument goes: since lump sum tax paid cannot be changed by individual behavior, i.e. since I pay $X no matter what, there is no reason to view it as changing my choices. In all other choices, I pay $Tax based on how much coffee I buy or how much work I do, or whatever. But here, I am stuck paying $X - too bad, so sad.

See, the thing is, the argument is flawed because if we look at this way, we aren't looking at the right model. I will show that the model excludes a key market and therefore appears to be non-distortionary, even though it clearly is! For an analogy, say we take a model where we fix how many hours we work per week. Say I work 40 hours per week no matter what, and my wage is held constant. And in this model I examine the effect of a tax on consumption (sales tax) and a tax on wage (income tax). But since from year to year my wage is still taxed at the same rate and I am stuck, by assumption, in a state of working 40 hours per week, it looks like this tax isn't distortionary. I am stuck paying the tax no matter what, and I cannot avoid it by substituting leisure for labour! But wouldn't it be silly to conclude from this model that wage taxes aren't distortionary? It would seem so because my model assumes that I cannot change my behaviour by reducing labour hours. Obviously, in the real world, there would be effects - the problem here is with the model. My model made labour exogenous (outside of the model) - it was fixed. And therefore, that key market was missing from the analysis so it seemed as though income tax was non-distortionary!

Similarly, here is the thing. There is a market for children. The number of children "bought" varies per income level. Introducing a lump sum tax per head is basically a tax per how many coffee cups are bought - i.e. how many children are bought. Right? It is just that most models treat the "fertility market" as exogenous (outside of the model). Since the models exclude markets such as these, they obviously fail to see that the lump sum tax has distortionary effects!

In sum, all taxes are distortionary. There are just people who distort reality and conclude otherwise, and those who do not.

A "Conservative" Economic Justification of the Welfare State

My thoughts on the welfare state - atleast from an economic perspective. I will mark the sections without math so if this gets annoying, you can just skip to those. I hope they are accessible.

I am not going to make any Keynesian macroeconomic assumptions here for a few reasons, first being that I think it beocmes too easy to defend the welfare state and second that in the long run I think they are not necessarily right. My goal is also to demonstrate that "conservative economics," i.e. macroeconomics under New Classical assumptions and neo-classical production functions, is not incompatible with welfare structures. In fact, I argue, it encourages the existence of welfare states - especially in the regions I care about dearly (the developing world).

Ok. I will do any math in discrete time, and try to skip over anything that isn't really important to show. I just want to show the general results, because they are pretty interesting.



[General Argument (no math)]
Basically, I want to show the following: whether or not I assume the government to be productive, it is productive. And thus we have a justification for the welfare state.

I will show this by, first, assuming that the govt is 100% productive and second assuming that it is 0% directly productive, and show that we end up with basically similar results.

The first model allows us to deal with taxes. Say the govt infrastructure (roads, hospitals) was 100% effective and not wasteful at all. And say that it directly enters each firm's production function positively. I will show that ultimately, we end up with a growth function that has the following property: when government revenue = 0 (because of tax rate = 0), we have negative growth and when govt revenue = "max" since they steal everything when tax rate = 1 (i.e. 100%), we will also experience negative growth. Rolle's theorem tells us that if f(a)=f(b), then there exists some c within a,b such that f'(c)=0. i.e. if a function takes on the same negative growth rate because of 100% tax and 0% tax, it takes on some maximum growth rate with some intermediary tax. (ok sorry for the rolle's theorem bit, but i mean that is fairly intuitive right?)

The second model allows us to deal with the welfare state. We will assume that the government is not at all productive. 0% productive. All it does is redistribute from the rich to the poor. We will assume that inequalities decline as there is more distribution, and since distribution means taxes, inequalities decline as taxes rise. We will also assume ( rather fairly, I think) that too much inequality leads to instability. I mean, at the extreme, there will be revolution - we see this intuitively. So as taxes rise, instability goes down. Finally, we look at firms and direct impact to growth rates. There is a probability that a firm retains its own product. As we get more unstable, the firm is more likely to have people loot it and steal it. So basically, this probability is higher when there are really high inequalities, and lowere when there are low inequalities. The end result of this model will be, we will see, the same thing as above. That if taxes are too low or two high we end up with negative growth. So at some point in between, at some optimal tax rate, there will be an optimal welfare state contributing to growth and the government expenditure is effectively productive, though - by assumption - it wasn't!

Thus we can conclude that welfare structures are essential to strong economic growth under these assumptions. Notice I never assumed that the welfare was being used for anything other than appeasing the disgruntled masses. I could have leaned on things like externality benefits of education - I didn't.



[Feel free to ignore this part - I justify my growth eqn (Math)]
Assume: 1. infinite horizon of love. Basically parents care about their kids, and they about their kids, etc. So they take this into consideration - but they prefer themselves. 2. Also, say they prefer to smooth consumption over time.

To make it straightforward to write down, let's deal with it in discrete time. We will end up with Growth=1/J(r-p) where J is the curvature parameter on how they want to smooth consumption, r = rate or return on saving, and p = the preference of themselves.

Now say I assume a neo-classical production function (constant returns to scale, diminishing returns to capital, and these things called Inada conditions that we don't really need to go into ...). The basic deal there is ... if I double my inputs I will double my outputs. But if I only buy machines, and hold workers constant, then hell - I can't make a whole lot more Tickle-Me-Elmo dolls because it is hard for the same number of workers to operate more machines.

What we get is, r = f'(k)-d where f'(k) is marginal product of capital and d = depreciation rate of our machines. So we end up with Growth=1/J(MPK-p-d)



[The First Model: Governments 100% Productive (Some Math)]
A firm's output is given by y=f(A,k,g) where A = state of tech, k = capital, g = govt spending. Now let us assume that a government finances g with a tax at rate t. Assume it is flat for now. The govt can borrow and lend too, but in the long run, they cancel out (Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis) so we just look at G = tY is the Govt tax revenue. So in per capita terms, g = ty. If we substitute this into a neoclassical production function, we end up with Growth=1/J((MPK of y-ty) - p - d) since at the end of the day, f'(k) for a firm now is f'(k)-taxed amount.

So we have Growth=1/J((1-t)MPK-p-d). Now remember that MPK is y'=f'(A,k,g) here. But A = state of technology is exogenous, so we can make y'=Af'(k,g). But recall that g=ty. Then MPK = Af'(k,ty))=Af'(k,t*f(k,ty)).

Point being that we end up with: Growth = 1/J((1-t)Af'(k,ty))-p-d)
Notice that, taxation rate has 2 effects:
1) in the (1-t) term, it slows down growth. This is the "distortion effect" of taxes.
2) in the f'(f,ty) term, it increases growth. This is tax revenue given to firms by government (in forms of roads, etc).

Also notice:
1. if t=0 then f'(k,ty) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d)
2. if t=1 then (1-t) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d)

Then, apply Rolle's Theorem to see that there is a maximum in between. Hell, we can solve for this maximum quite easily with basic calculus. Now it really depends on the type of production function, so say we go with our neo-classical production function, and we find that the optimal taxation rate is the government share of contribution to the firm's output. i.e. if the government contributes 0.3 out of 1 to producing 1 good, they should tax at 30%.

In Growth-Tax space, our curve is basically parabolic in form (more or less) taking a maximum at 0<1.



[The Second Model: Government is 0% Productive (Some Math)]
So here, y=A*p*f(k). g=ty is purely redistributive. In(t) = Inequality as a function of tax is a decreasing function. As t increases, inequalities fall. p(In) = probability of business keeping their product as inequality changes is a decreasing function. As inequality rises, probability drops. But then, p(In(t))=is probability depending on taxes. Realize that the probability of keeping product increases as t increases (since inequalities are falling).

So our MPK of (y-ty) is (1-t)*A*p(In(t))*y.
Thus we have:
Growth=1/J((1-t)*A*p(In(t))*y-p-d)

Notice that t again axts in 2 places.
1. if t=0 then p(In(t)) becomes 0 - i.e. 100% inequality leads to revolt so firms get screwed and have a 0% chance of holding on to their goods so growth is negative at 1/J(-p-d).
2. if t=1 then (1-t) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d).

These results are identical to the taxation scheme we produced above, meaning that, by applying Rolle's theorem we see an maximum growth level exists at some t in between 0 and 1. Thus, the welfare state should exist to maximize economic growth. It also shows that welfare spending can be productive even if it is assumed not to be productive - since the A*p(Int(t)) term acts in the same manner as government spending financed by t acted when g was productive!

Thus, in Growth-Tax space we basically have the same curve.



[Tax and Welfare Policies (no math)]
Prof. Aaron Director at the University of Chicago discovered that, generally speaking, rich countries tended to tax beyond the optimal and poor countries would tax under the optimal (for whatever reasons). Thus, most econometricians, who collect data in OECD (rich) countries and plot taxation vs. growth rate see a declining relationship - that as these countries have more taxes = are more welfare oriented = have less inequality, they grow slower. This leads people at the WB, IMF, and conservative ideologues to argue that we should encourage everyone (even developing countries) to cut taxes and welfare to grow. I.e., they should privatize everything to grow. But what this neglects is that, poor countries usually don't have good data, since well - they are poor. So there is a bias. We are only looking at the part of the parabola that slopes downards - the part beyond the optimal taxation level (at which there is max growth). Since this is where rich countries reside, the conclusion is obvious.

But poor countries, they reside in the realm of under taxation. It is hard for them to collect taxes, for one thing. And there are a host of other reasons. But, our growth equation says that they will grow more if they indeed provide more welfare programs and tax more. Government spending would be good for growth. However, conservative ideologues (and WB and IMF) seem to blanketly apply the rich-country lesson that they should tax less and remove welfare structures to grow. That they fail to understand that the same model that accounts for the fact that rich countries probably have too much welfare also accounts for the fact that poor countries do not have enough social services. So over-privitization and encouraging minimal states in developing nations is idiocy.

Development aside, we also see that arguments for "minimal states" in any state is crazy - at least on economic grounds (with a conservative production function!). Unless, of course, by minimal state we mean optimal level of taxation. But I, for one, would call that cheating. Of course, our model didn't even take into account things like external benefits to education or welfare policy or health policy etc. All we did was considered completley unproductive government welfare-spending and we found that, by and large, there is definitely a productive element to this notion of "useless welfare" alone. Then take a minute and consider what it means for "useful welfare". Yah, that's what I thought. So people who think economic arguments blanketly reject welfare are sorely mistaken. In fact, we just demonstrated, using a "conservative" economic framework, whatever conservative means, that completely useless welfare is useful.

So let's not forget that a lot of time, a smarter economic policy might not be the thing that your conservative ideologue might be supporting!


**Disclaimer** Now this welfare justification on sheer basis of political volatility has no relation to social security. It's not as if old people are going to revolt any time soon. And social security is a huge expenditure. So that is for a different day. I am just making the case that, welfare states to whatever degree need not be only justified by political philosophy or Keynesian economics. There are definite structures in New Classical economics that support welfare states.

Author of Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card on Serenity

For those of you who know who Orson Scott Card is, just skip ahead. For the others: he is the author of a little book called Ender's Game, and a subsequent series in the Ender-verse. Ender's Game by and large is regarded by most as one of the best works of sci-fi ever written. It is damn interesting, has a lot of depth (seriously I am talking Huxley-ian, if not Orwellian levels), and is really well written. Add to the mix the fact that characters are crafted masterfully, and you've got a piece that by and large everyone from "literature people" to "epics people" to "philosophy people" love. And love it they do.

So it seemed interesting as to what Mr. Card had to say about the sci-fi film Serenity. Take a look:

"I walked into this movie reasonably aware of the advance word-of-mouth (though not obsessively so) and only as the film actually began this afternoon, the day of its premier, did it occur to me that I had not heard a whisper of a breath of the actual plot of the movie. All I heard was, "It's great, you'll love it."

Well, guess what.

It's great.

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

Let me put this another way. Those of you who know my work at all know about Ender's Game. I jealously protected the movie rights to Ender's Game so that it would not be filmed until it could be done right. I knew what kind of movie it had to be, and I tried to keep it away from directors, writers, and studios who would try to turn it into the kind of movie they think of as "sci-fi."

...For me, a great film -- sci-fi or otherwise -- comes down to relationships and moral decisions. How people are with each other, how they build communities, what they sacrifice for the sake of others, what they mean when they think of a decision as right vs. wrong.

Yeah, even comedies. Even romantic comedies -- it's those moral decisions.

Wow, that sounds so heavy. But great film is heavy -- out of sight, underneath everything, where you don't have to be slapped in the face by it. On the surface, it can be exciting, funny, cool, scary, horrifying -- all those things that mean "entertainment" to us.

Underneath it all, though, it has to mean something. And the meaning that matters is invariably about moral decisions people make. Motives. Relationships. Community. If those don't work, then you can gloss up the surface all you want, we'll know we've just been fed smoke. Might smell great but we're still hungry.

So here's what I have to say about Serenity:

This is the kind of movie that I have always intended Ender's Game to be (though the plots are not at all similar).

And this is as good a movie as I always hoped Ender's Game would be.

And I'll tell you this right now: If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made.

I'd rather just watch Serenity again.

...On that ship we had an interlocking community with a history, rather like what has been a-building with Lost and what was developed over the years with Friends (but what never existed in Seinfeld because the main writer, Larry David, doesn't seem to believe in anything, and you can't build a powerful community on a sneer).

The key to this kind of movie is that you create a community that the audience wishes they belonged to, with a leader that even audience members who don't follow anybody would willingly follow. That will be the key to Ender's Game if the movie is ever successfully made; and it is the key to Serenity.

It won't be obvious in a literary-novel kind of way, where the writer is sure to point out his trivial little "central metaphor" and all his "deep" characters who are for some reason still mad at the writer's Mommy and Daddy.

It will feel like adventure, like a bunch of macho strutting, like a lot of whizbang and dead bodies and violence and vaguely weird language until all of a sudden you realize: I care about these people. I like these people. Even the unlikeable ones, I care about. Even the villain really is somebody.

Think about this: Hamlet has a lot of violence and death, intrigue and betrayal; it's downright gothic. In fact, if you hadn't already been told it was a "great work" and somebody told you the plot, you'd think, what a bunch of junk.

Only it isn't, is it? And why? Because, of course, it's very well written -- but more than that, it's about something. Relationships and moral dilemmas and -- oh, wait, I've already given you that list.

Lots of sense-of-wonder (oooooh, a ghost!) and sudden shocks (don't kill the man behind the curtain!) and grim deaths (Ophelia did what?) and the gratuitously macabre (oh, look, let's play with a dead friend's skull) -- but it holds together because it's about something.

Well, not only is Serenity about something, it's also extremely well written. Joss Whedon has invented a kind of weird future slang that is still perfectly intelligible but is different, with snatches of foreign languages and obsolete English words that make it clear that it's not ordinary English they're speaking.

The effect of this -- at least in Whedon's deft hands -- is to allow himself something of the kind of heroic language that was possible for Shakespeare -- and for Tolkien. It allows him to be eloquent.

And then he turns around and deliberately clanks with some humorously abrupt language that makes us laugh for the sheer startlement of it. Just as Shakespeare did, when he'd drop from blank verse to the funny coarseness of comic prose.

Will everyone like it? Not a chance. It really is too strong for some people -- there are indeed dead bodies and cruelty and unspeakable violence, and you don't want to deal with the nightmares that young children will have. Plus the storyline is smart enough and mature enough that some people simply won't get it. Can't be helped -- it's all there on the screen, though.

Charlie Kaufman's movies have been great science fiction, but without being completely open and accessible to the mainstream audience.

Joss Whedon is not as artistically edgy, but is every bit as inventive, and he has the common touch. Like Shakespeare, he doesn't have to show off to prove himself an artist, he only has to tell the story his way, and the art takes care of itself."
-Orson Scott Card, Review of Serenity.

The Ridiculousness that is Serenity

"Joss Whedon's unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas's aggresively more ambitious screen entertainments." - The New York Times

Serenity has received some (not?)surprisingly strong reviews (depending on what you expected from a Whedon-big screen production). It really depends as to what you expected of the creator of Angel, Buffy, Firefly, as well as co-writer (with Joel Cohen) of Toy Story, and co-writer of X-Men (the movie) as well as several X-Men comics.



THE STAR WARS COMPARISONS

"I can't believe I am saying this, but I think Serenity could be the new Star Wars. It's hard for me to avoid the comparison because Serenity reminds me, in a good way, of the first Star Wars movie back in 1977 (now called Star Wars IV: A New Hope). It's a movie that makes sense and entertains the hard core fans as well as newbies who have never heard of Firefly, while taking a deeper step into the future with the storyline and characters, who could be Whedon's biggest assets...In short, Serenity is amazing, even if you don't like Sci Fi movies. It's a fantastic film with a great story, great action and classic characters." - Wafflemovies.com

"Whedon has a distinct gift for writing witty dialogue and creating intricate mythologies that inspire legions of devoted fans (such as myself). His talents are on full display in “Serenity,” a film filled with thrilling action sequences, some well thought-out social commentary, intriguing characters and plenty of funny dialogue. This is the film that the last three “Star Wars” sequels should have been." - Sean McBride

"George Lucas could learn a thing or two from Whedon. "Serenity" flies with sass and spirit, qualities that have been in palpably short supply in that "Star Wars" series since, well, "Star Wars." - Newsday

" For a number of reasons I've discussed many times, I kinda liked the most recent trilogy of "Star Wars" movies... I'm here to tell you that if you think the "Star Wars" prequels are a disease, then "Serenity" is the cure." - The Oregonian

"In its own unassuming, self-effacing way, Serenity is the epic sci-fi adventure that the latter years of Star Wars could only dream of being. The problem, of course, is how to sell Serenity, which boasts nary a star, to the many people who have no idea who nerd-genius Whedon is. (He's the guy behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, which is unlikely to pique the interest of anyone who hasn't watched either show.) Happily, this is the rare occasion when movie critics serve some actual purpose." - Phoebe Flowers, South Florida Sun-Sentinel



GENERAL REVIEWS FROM GENERAL REVIEWERS

"There are two sorts of people in the world: those who believe Joss Whedon is a genius and those who are wrong. And even if Whedon's first feature film Serenity doesn't quite match the dark, witty brilliance of his TV creations Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, it's still a lot more sweaty fun than the last three overhyped, sterile, for-dorks-only Star Wars cartoons. George Lucas' menacing bad guys were a bunch of cheeseball robots and an effete Englishman with an acne problem; Whedon offers space cannibals who could take on the Empire and still lay a whipping on the zombies from 28 Days Later." - The Miami Herald

"Serenity shows what might have happened if Han Solo had been the focus of the original Star Wars instead of whiny Jedi wannabe Luke Skywalker. Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) leads his grubby band of intergalactic robbers under the radar of an oppressive government that wants to wipe out sin while avoiding the voracious Reavers, who enjoy killing, raping and eating their victims, not necessarily in that order." - The Miami Herald

"Serenity is precisely the sort of movie that people always "discover" five years after it hits theaters and then feel bad for not checking it out sooner -- like Dark City or The Iron Giant. This flick is not only a wondrous piece of science-fiction adventure; it's an absolute homage to science-fiction itself. Don't just turn your nose up because it's an odd concept starring no-name actors. You'd still feel pretty silly, to this day, if you were the guy who once yelled "Jawas? Tractor beams? Mark Hamill? Nah, I'll just stay home and watch Welcome Back Kotter.... Yes, I just compared "Serenity" to the original "Star Wars." Now you're REALLY curious, aren't you?" - eFilmCritic

"“Serenity” is a fun flick that has just enough going for it in terms of design (the Asian-influenced imagery, iconography, and even philosophy is interesting), character, and action (the solid CGI and outer space handheld camera effects are nifty) to distinguish itself from its born-on-TV trappings. The acting is uniformly solid (Fillion does most of the heavy lifting, and does it well) and the hand-to-hand combat scenes are great – oddly, it’s a reminder that the stunt work on “Buffy” was better than most CGI-laden features." - Brian Juergens, Freeze-Dried Movies

“Serenity” does have riveting battle sequences, compelling characters, and just enough humor to balance the underlying social commentary in the film, but it’s a weird mix of genres." - About



THE BIG GUNS

"The film, right down to the tagline ("You can't stop the signal"), is one big middle finger to Fox TV executives." - The Village Voice

""Serenity" does for serious Lucas fans what Lucas hasn't done for them lately. It evokes the wild-and-woolly zing of the first three "Star Wars" pictures, when the series's myth-minded self-seriousness was the stuff of subtext and its dumb jokes could bring down the house. If "Serenity" takes off and spawns sequels (as it seems destined to), it's crucial that Whedon take a lesson from Lucas's greatest flaw and never stop laughing with us." - The Boston Globe

"They're a futuristic King Arthur's round table, or Dirty Dozen, or Robin Hood and his Merry Men; heck, they're even "Seinfeld." And no matter what's coming their way, post-apocalyptic doom or gloom, this James Gang of the galaxy is just plain fun to watch." - The Washington Post

""Serenity" is made of dubious but energetic special effects, breathless velocity, much imagination, some sly verbal wit and a little political satire. Like Brave New World and 1984, the movie plays like a critique of contemporary society. There are also scenes of real impact, including a planet where -- but see for yourself." - Roger Ebert

"Joss Whedon's unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas's aggresively more ambitious screen entertainments." - The New York Times

"The characters and their relationships are more credible than in most serious dramas, while Whedon's unique dialogue - a self-aware jumble of teen-speak, technobabble, literary swagger and merciless Cantonese swearing - serves up some dazzling one-liners. .. The eye-candy doesn't stop at the cast either - the special effects will make you goggle, and there's a space battle that blows Revenge Of The Sith's out of the sky... Once you are invested in the characters, the emotional stakes just rise." - BBC

"The writing is as good as in the best "Star Trek" episodes, while offering a thoughtfully bleak vision of the future that brings to mind "Blade Runner." After his decade of solid work as a television and movie writer specializing in sci-fi and fantasy, this could be the accomplishment that puts Whedon's face alongside those of James Cameron, Ridley Scott and Sam Raimi on the geek Mount Rushmore." - San Francisco Chronicle

And then from the review that I tend to hold with the highest regard:
"Joss Whedon's feature-film debut, the science-fiction western "Serenity," is beautifully made, written with more wit and intelligence than we get from most contemporary movies of any genre, and features an ensemble of actors whose rhythms are almost supernaturally in tune..."Serenity," like "Firefly" (and like "Buffy" and "Angel" before it), is an exploration of the meaning of community, maybe even the meaning of democracy....And there are spiritual quests in "Serenity" that go much deeper, and are far more unsettling, than the mere question of whether or not God exists. There are moments in which good men do unspeakable things, and malevolent men do noble things... "Serenity" is a trim little picture of epic proportions...as a piece of filmmaking, I'm hard-pressed to find much fault with it" - Salon.com


I thought the film was damn good. After an amusing opening sequence, the first shot in the spaceship Serenity borrows from Woody Allen or Paul Thomas Anderson - or hell, even The West Wing. It is a continuous shot that lasts nearly 4 minutes in which we are introduced, one by one, to the entire crew as Captain Mal Reynolds makes a round through his ship. No Michael Bay (or even Star Wars) 15 second cut scenes here. The attention to detail is especially satisfying - ranging from things like turbulence not making "air wooshing" sounds when they leave atmosphere - because in outerspace there is no air, duh - to the way canisters and barrels lying around the ship are labeled. The storyline is Whedonesque in that it takes a fairly standard storyline of a genre and weaves into it far more important philosophical questions - no it is no Angel and you won't find reference to Foucault in this Space-Western, but it certainly has depth. For me, especially because I was very skeptical of a TV series becoming successfully translated to the big screen, Serenity was a pleasant surprise. It was the same effect that watching Pirates of the Caribbean had on me - a sort of - what the hell, why is this that good?! Of course, I am a fantasy fan (somewhat less of a "sci fi fan"), so I do like my epics.

I would recommend, if at all possible, watch some Firefly if you have the chance, before watching this film. (I have access to all the episodes.) I found that it made a lot more sense to me that way. But I have heard great things about it from most people - and as we all know - most people have no idea as to what Firefly actually was. Anyway, I say go watch it - you shouldn't be disappointed.

Political Tests and the Like

So I thought it might be interesting to take a few random surveys to see where I come out on various political compasses. Especially to see whether I have moved a whole lot after being at Columbia for 2+ years. Plus it seemed interesting to see if the tests were reasonably consistent.

The first one was a reasonably short politics test from OK Cupid.

You are a Social Liberal (78% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (60% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The second one was a very very short (read: horribly inaccurate?) 10 question test, but the break down does indeed seem reasonable.

Your Political Profile

Overall: 40% Conservative, 60% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

The next one was the most comprehensive test. Political compass is probably the best known of the three.

There I get the following results:
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.00


Lastly, at the distributive justice site I got:
Social creation game: Welfare state > Meritocracy > Minimal State = Strict Egalitarianism > Communism
Distributive Justice Theory Game: Pluralist

I don't know if there is really a cohesive result to any of this, but you get the general idea.

Shawn Marion, NBA Elite?

"Marion."

That's all you hear on an ESPN highlights reel as you see him nail another dagger from downtown to add to the Suns' lead. And that about sums up the general consensus on this player's talent - "Well, it's Marion ... he brings a 20/10/2/2/2 a night. That's what he does. That's what he do." The Matrix might as well be re-nicknamed as The Taken-for-Granted. That's what we do.

Marion is among the most underrated players in the NBA. Yes, yes, the 2-time All-Star is now on a 7-year, $79 million dollar contract. Still underrated. Only an All-Star twice?! And the max contract is pretty meaningless in an era where Joe Johnson and Michael Redd pick up max contracts.

I think Marion seems to even fall through the cracks of many models for the same reasons Rasheed Wallace and Kirilenko do. Players who do a bit of everything, but don't do everything of everything (i.e. Bird, MJ, Magic, Pip), have trouble being statistically analyzed in the usual sense such as through "similarity scores". We generally get huge errors in trying to gauge similarities between these players and others. This is very clear when you look at who these guys match up to best - their best scores are in the 800s (out of a perfect match of 1000), meaning they didnt match up with anyone in the 900s - whereas for most any player you always have people matched up in the 900s.

These guys are so rare and so unique that they are really hard to understand. For my part, I think a cohesive understanding of their skill comes from looking at the big picture instead of just relying on a Rtg or PER or similarity score model. We should take a look at their per-40 min productions, their Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, Net Rating, PER, points per shot attempt, rebound rating, effective FG%, TrueShooting%, and Win% (where win% refers to how many wins v. losses they are responsible for). Why? Because they do so damn well in every category, it is worth noticing that they work it with the best of them in nearly any category.


Legitimizing Marion as an All-Star
Marion is pretty stunning for a number of reasons:
On a 40-minute basis, he is 20/10/2/2/1.5 hitting around 46%. More impressively, around a fourth of his shots attempted are 3's and he hits them at 35%. And in previous years has hit at over 39%.

This all seems nice, but I'm sure that the intuitive response is - so what? While these resemble Duncan-esque numbers (with a few less blocks but a better 3-pt shot) it is nothing to cheer over - Antoine Walker also puts these up, if not better. Take a look at Walker: 20.5/9/4.3/1.4/0.6 with 42%, 32% from downtown. And his own best has been 36%.

The point is, these "stunning numbers" are great only to the degree that you can differentiate Antoine Walker from Gordon Giricek. But it's difficult to distinguish between Duncan and Walker. Or Marion and Walker for that matter.


Why Marion (2-time All-Star) is no Walker (3-time All-Star)
I am sorry to knock Walker like this. Wait, no ... I am not. But here it goes. Let's start with Hollinger's PER. By this index Marion recieves a 20.5 (with 15 being league average). This puts him on par with Allen Iverson, but under Dwyane Wade or LeBron James, and well under league leaders KG and Duncan (around 28). Walker is a mere 16.7. Since this is approximately a normal distribution, the number of people with a 16.7 far exceeds the number of people with a 21. So, in a nutshell, Marion >> Walker.

More specifically, however, let us look at what Marion does better. There is a rating called RbR (rebound rate) which is an index of rebounding efficiency. The much larger Walker posts a 12.8 while Marion posts a 14.5. Thus, Marion not only gets more loose balls per 40 minutes, but he also gets them more efficiently - meaning that those he doesn't go for are either ones he can't or ones he opts not to so that a teammate can grab it.

Next, if we take a look at the Net Rtg (Offensive Rtg - Defensive Rtg), i.e. how well they man the offense v. how inefficient they make the defense, we see that Walker posts a -6 (yes, that is negative 6). Marion? He posts a happy +11 over his career. His lowest ever has been a +5, and his highest wasn't even with Nash! It was his sophomore year with a +15 (he also had this with Nash). It must be noted even more that this discrepancy happens because of two reasons: First, Marion is very efficient offensively (even more than Duncan at times). Second, he is very strong defensively (despite the Suns' woes, he actually plays very very legitimate defense). Meanwhile, Walker is very inefficient offensively and just an average defender. So you see how this goes. Why does efficiency in NetRtg matter? For one thing, this means that you score when you have to, and make the offense more well oiled meaning that it tends to score more with your presence (as opposed to less). Moreover, if your offense is scoring at a faster rate than your opponents, i.e. if ORtg > DRtg, then you win the game by definition. Thus, Walker tends to be instrumental in the losing tendencies of his team, while Marion is essential to the wins of his own team.

Which brings me to ... win%. I will be brief since I laboured over NetRtg and because this is an annoying index to explain. But the short of it is that Marion's win% is around 80% (before you applaud, understand that true greats such as Duncan post at 90%). But here is where you can cringe. Walker's win% is (no joke) 29% - and he has actually posted in the teens 3 times! In fact his max was a 46% win%. Contrast that to Marion's highest of 88%.

I could also complain about how Walker has a very low PSA while Marion's is rather high (psa = points per shot attempt), but I won't do that. I just want to put the nail in the coffin by looking at 3-pters. Since, of course, Walker is very well known as a 3-baller. Let's take a look at last year when they each made 1.5 3's per 40-min. Walker, of course, was launching up way more 3s than Marion. In fact, since the Suns began using Marion as a 3-pt threat (2002), over the last 4 years Walker has never shot better from downtown than Marion. Yep.

So that is why the 2-time All-Star far exceeds the 3-timer in player quality.


Why Marion deserves a place among the elites
Let me make a list of the consensus elites:
Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, Wade, KG, Amare, AI, T-Mac, Kobe, Big Ben, JKidd (well for old time's sake)

People who are considered elite who are not in my book:
Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'Neal, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, Vince Carter (let's wait and see for another year), Richard Jefferson, Antawn Jamison, Larry Hughes, Rashard Lewis (I like the kid, but let's not kid ourselves - he is no elite)

People who are not considered elite who are in my book:
Rasheed Wallace, Manu, Yao, Kirilenko, Chauncey, Marion

I am sure I missed people. But anyway here is the point. Marion belongs in that first group. Why? For one thing, his PER is more in sync with and rivals group I. That said, he definitely is a straggler there. He probably comes in dead last or near dead last in that group. But again, I don't like ratings for their own sake - models are metaphors. So what do I actually mean? Well generally speaking, elite players usually tend to do most of these: play really solid defense, are very efficient scorers, break down offenses, do a number of things including boarding, passing, screening, all while preventing the opposing team from doing the same. And reasonable measures of these are eFG%, TS%, ORtg & DRtg (hence NetRtg), RbR, etc.

For example, Marion's NetRtg far exceeds either Kobe's or McGrady's despite similar physical build. While he doesn't score as often nor does he pass as much, he scores far more efficiently than either of the other two. Moreover, he runs (though he doesn't bring the ball up the court) the offense far more smoothly than they do and it is a more efficient machine. Moreover, he guns from downtown far better than either of these guys (with TMac > Kobe in this category). In addition, his rebound rate rivals a power forward's, despite his size. And, lastly, he is a far better defender than either Kobe or McGrady (despite some stupid hype of their being excellent defenders). Now add to this the fact that Marion is undersized a lot of times when he guards players and he still blocks more. His own contributions to wins also far exceeds both Kobe's and T-Mac's. All that said, he clearly isn't as good of a guard-forward crafted in the vein of MJ. He can't break down defenses like AI, Kobe, or McGrady. And may not be a franchise player in the sense that they might be. (Though I doubt either of them are either.)

I am not saying that Marion is a "better" player than Kobe or T-Mac, whatever "better" means. But here is my point: Marion should definitely, definitely be in the same conversation as other elites of the NBA today. In the long run? Sure, I doubt it. But then again I doubt that Kobe and T-Mac will even deserve to be in the long run discussion.