-
No comments on Presty the DJ for June 19
-
As the Legislature starts working on the state budget (and remember Otto von Bismarck’s observation about laws and sausages), the MacIver Institute reminds us of our tax hell:
-
Christian Schneider provides a bit of Wisconsin and political history:
In 1889, a Milwaukee Journal reporter had a great scoop: the Wisconsin Legislature had just passed the Bennett Law, which required that children between the ages of 7 and 14 attend school for 60 days a year. The law was sure to be controversial — a Journal editorial griped that no 7-year-old child should be forced to go to school.
But as former Journal reporter Robert W. Wells noted, the reporter blew the real story. On the day before it was to be signed into law, someone at the newspaper read the fine print and realized that the new statute mandated that classes be taught in English — a direct shot at the German communities around the state that had yet to assimilate into American culture. “The Bennett Law required every school in the state — parochial as well as public – to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and American history in the language spoken by Queen Victoria, not Otto von Bismarck,” noted Wells.
When a Journal front page headline blared “MUST USE ENGLISH,” it sent the German community into action. Many Catholic and Lutheran schools in the Milwaukee area taught all their classes in German, as the parents demanded. The German newspapers incited their readers to oppose the law — even the Milwaukee Sentinel, a Republican paper, suggested that changes be made to the law that its own favored legislators had enacted. Soon, Republicans who voted for the law were cast from office, as Democrats won the governorship in 1890.
This week, Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio proposed an amendment to the much-publicized federal immigration bill that would require illegal immigrants to pass an English test before being granted American citizenship. Rubio’s amendment is more stringent than the original bill, which only required that an applicant be enrolled in an English language course.
The bill’s opponents have derided the proposal as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, but Rubio’s amendment further demonstrates why that claim is bogus. The English requirement is one of the many hurdles illegal immigrants would have to cross in order to earn citizenship — a process that could take up to 13 years. (In the 1880s, all one had to do to be a resident of Wisconsin was to live in the state for a year and sign an oath of loyalty.) …
And while the Bennett Law that the Madison State Journal supported wasn’t the right prescription in the 19th century, the compulsory instruction of English now appears to be an aid, not a hindrance. The immigration bill is a chance to verify that people currently living beneath the shadows of the law learn English and get the tools to move up. Failure to pass an earned legalization bill will deny too many people the economic mobility that America promises.
-
Today in 1967 was the Monterey International Pop Festival:
Happy birthday first to Paul McCartney:
-
The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman starts by asking …
… a simple question: Do you trust the federal government not to misuse its power?
Libertarians like myself, as well as ACLU-type civil libertarians, generally don’t. Some liberals do, at least as long as someone like Barack Obama is in the Oval Office. Some conservatives feel the same way, but only when Republicans control the White House. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review Online, argues, “The problem here is not government power. It is the government officials we’ve elected to wield it.”
I think he has it backward. It’s guaranteed that any government power will sooner or later wind up in the hands of the “wrong” people or party. So it’s essential to restrict that authority — or else not grant it at all. Otherwise, we are inviting intolerable abuses.
James Madison understood all this, which is why he favored sturdy checks and balances to keep power under control. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” he wrote in The Federalist papers. “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
The problem with existing counter-terrorism laws is that those checks have been neutralized. Congress seems to have had only a dim idea what the NSA was doing, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that approves such programs operates in secret, without hearing the side of anyone who might oppose broad monitoring of citizens.
Without effective checks on executive power, we’re dependent on the people in the White House to control themselves. The experience with George W. Bush and Barack Obama suggests that’s a losing bet.
Steve Spingola is similarly unconvinced with the Obama administration’s commitment to the truth:
The controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) metadata collection of the telephone records of Americans has resulted in statist politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, alleging that the NSA is not examining the content of our communications.
With history as our guide, Americans should know that the NSA is an agency that, to put it mildly, has a track record of being less than truthful, not only to the American people, but also to congress. This is because its leaders believe that the misinformation they provide is justifiable under the ‘noble lie’ doctrine.
A “noble lie”—as defined by Plato in his book The Republic—is misinformation disseminated by members of the elite and/or governing classes to reduce social anxiety or to advance a hidden agenda. As those who have worked in law enforcement know it is perfectly lawful for an agent of the government to lie to the public, but a crime for a member of the public to lie to an agent of the state. This is the ultimate ‘do as I say, not as I do’ rule of the governing class. …
William Binney is a former NSA engineer turned whistleblower. While employed with the NSA, he designed a program that would have allowed the spy agency to identify the electronic communications of terror suspects while protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans. The NSA rejected this program outright. Binney has emphatically stated that the NSA is retrieving the domestic telephone, e-mail, and Internet content of Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM
Author and NSA expert James Bamford mentioned a few of the NSA’s eavesdropping programs in his outstanding book, The Shadow Factory. Because much of the world’s electronic communications has shifted from satellites to ocean-buried fiber optic cables, the NSA has sought and obtained access to these cable links. One example is the AT&T center in San Francisco, where, with that company’s consent, the NSA established a so-called listening room; whereby, NSA operatives installed software that records and catalogs the electronic content Americans’ communications.
Ironically, while the federal government requires companies to provide consumers with privacy notices, the same government has granted telecoms that violate these privacy agreements, by providing users’ information to the NSA, with immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. Moreover, the government also forbids these telecoms from disclosing that their privacy policies are worth no more than the paper they are written to those they service.
In other words, our own government is feeding its citizens one noble lie after another.
This is precisely why those who pay attention to the NSA believe that the agency has recorded, cataloged, and stored between 21 – 25 trillion telephone conversations, many involving Americans, since 9/11. The purpose of the 1,000,000 square foot Utah Data Center, built at a cost of $2 billion, is to retrieve, record, and store telephone conversations, e-mails, credit card transactions, faxes, and even encrypted data. That way, should an individual later be identified as a person of interest, federal investigators can obtain a warrant from a FISA judge to access the content of their NSA dossier. …
As we learned during the Nixon administration and, now, during the current Obama administration’s IRS scandal, sensitive information in government hands can be used by political hacks to gather dirt on political opponents of the government or to embarrass those who dare speak out (as the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover did to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
This of course gives the lie to such Obama statements as …
- “When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program is about. … What the intelligence is doing is looking at phone numbers, and durations of calls; they are not looking at people’s names and they’re not looking at content. … If the intelligence committee actually wants to listen to a phone call they have to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation.”
- “With respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the United States.” (Wrong.)
- NSA agents “cherish our Constitution. The last thing they’d be doing is taking programs like this to listen to someone’s phone calls. … You can shout Big Brother or program run amok, but if you actually look at the details, I think we’ve struck the right balance.”
- “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”
Actually, he’s right about the last one. We do have some problem here. Absent actual evidence, not merely assertions, there is no reason to believe the Obama administration (last seen using the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservatives) nor their sycophants (including the Republican ones) in Congress that the Obama administration has been successful in stopping even one terrorist plot.
Remember: You can love your country and hate the government.
-
Use as many of these words as possible in a written composition.
-
The number five song today in 1967 …
… was 27 spots higher than this song reached in 1978:
Birthdays start with Jerry Fielding, who composed the theme music to …
-
Dueling ex-Beatles today: In 1978, one year after the play “Beatlemania” opened on Broadway, Ringo Starr released his “Bad Boy” album, while Paul McCartney and Wings released “I’ve Had Enough”:
The number six song one year later (with no known connection to Mr. Spock):
The number eight single today in 1990 …
… bears an interesting resemblance to an earlier song:
Put the two together, and you get …
-
Today in 1956, 15-year-old John Lennon met 13-year-old Paul McCartney when Lennon’s band, the Quarrymen, played at a church dinner.
Birthdays today start with David Rose, the composer of a song many high school bands have played (really):
Nigel Pickering, guitarist of Spanky and Our Gang:
-
I’m always amused when non-sportswriters try to explain sports.
It’s not that sportswriting is a mysterious art that requires decades of study. (Although writing does require a lot of not study, but, well, writing to get better at it.)
Before Thursday’s Miami win over San Antonio that tied the best-of-seven NBA Finals at two games each, the Washington Post discovered this novel theory of how the Spurs won the third game over the Heat:
To understand why the Spurs won — and why they have been one of the best teams in the league over the last decade-plus — it helps to read a certain 1990 paper in an economics journal. “Arbitrage in a Basketball Economy,” by Kevin Grier and Robert D. Tollison, explained a principle that remains useful: Successful basketball strategy resembles the financial concept of arbitrage.
Arbitrage is the principle that when there is a mispricing in a market, someone will trade to exploit the difference, making a profit for themselves and ending the mispricing. For example, the exchange rate between the dollar and the yen should be consistent with the dollar-to-euro and euro-to-yen exchanges rates. If those prices don’t line up — if there is free money to be made by trading dollars for yen, then exchanging the yen for euros, then euros back to dollars — somebody will do it almost instantly, and the mispricing will evaporate.
So, what does that have to do with the NBA?
In their paper in the journal Kykos, Grier and Tollison asked whether the question of who takes shots on a basketball team could or should obey the same principle.
Think of it this way: A basketball team has five players on the floor at any given time, and any of them can shoot from any point on the floor. Each shot has an “expected value” in terms of points. For a point guard shooting from just behind the three-point line, there might be a 45 percent chance of scoring three points if he sinks the shot, a 10 percent chance of being fouled and getting foul shots, a 25 percent chance of missing the shot but a teammate getting the rebound and allowing another scoring opportunity, and a 20 percent chance of missing and the opposing team getting the rebound. Multiply those out as a weighted average, and you would expect something like 1.4 points, on average, for every time the point guard takes that shot.What you want as a coach (or a fan, for that matter) is for every shot your player takes to have the same expected value. Your star forward driving to the lane? A big-but-slow center hogging the space under the basket and putting up an easy shot? A mid-range jumper by your journeyman point guard? They should all have the same expected value when all the possible outcomes and their relative probabilities are factored in.
If that’s not the case — say, your journeyman guard’s jumper has a higher expected value than your star forward’s inside shot — there’s an arbitrage opportunity. The coach should demand more shooting by the guard and less by the forward.
The best players will still end up taking more shots and scoring more points than the weaker players. But if defenses are guarding the stars more tightly and leaving easier opportunities for weaker players, a well-coached team will exploit the opportunity. Yes, to be a successful team you need to have good players. But to be a great coach, you need to deploy those players smartly so that there is no low-hanging fruit of higher-than-average expected value shots not being taken.
In their 1990 study, Grier and Tollison found that coaches’ success on this frontier — not just of winning more games or fewer, but on properly arbitraging what shots are taken — matters. “We show that managers who allocate shots better increase team victories and improve their own job security,” they wrote.
Which brings us back to Gary Neal and Danny Green, the stars of last night’s NBA finals game. The Heat defense was focused on stopping the Spurs’ biggest stars, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Those three combined for only 25 points, less than half that of the Neal-Green combo. In the first half, even as the Spurs were leading, Duncan looked physically dejected at times.
But because he is a great coach, Gregg Popovich, ensured that his team was able to exploit whatever opportunities the opposing defense left open. And in this case, the fact that Neal and Green are journeymen who will probably never star in a sneaker commercial wasn’t a reason why they shouldn’t lead the Spurs offense. As the Bleacher Report puts it, “Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is the kind of guy who discovers $20 bills in his laundry, finding money seemingly everywhere he looks.”
Exploiting “whatever opportunities the opposing defense left open” is hardly a novel concept in basketball. It’s usually called “finding the open man.” The principle behind help defense is that defenders slide from the player they’re assigned to defend to whoever has the ball. That should leave someone uncovered by anybody; if the guy with the ball gets the ball to the uncovered man, and he doesn’t have hands of stone, the offense scores.
That’s not even a concept limited to basketball. Iowa football coach Hayden Fry described his offense as “scratch where it itches,” which for you non-Texans meant an offensive strategy contrary to the defense’s emphasis. If the defense was geared up to stop the run, throw; if the defense had one receiver double-teamed, throw it to the open guy. Indianapolis won a Super Bowl by successfully running the ball despite having future Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning. Baseball pitchers “pitch around” a hot hitter to try to get out a less-hot hitter. Wayne Gretzky won Stanley Cups not just because of his world-beating skill, but because other Edmonton Oilers stepped up. When Gretzky left the Oilers, he stopped winning Stanley Cups because the teams he was on had lesser supporting casts.
