Chances of Getting Struck by Lightning: 1 in 709,260
The Post has a features piece today on the region's impending "Big Game" lottery drawing, currently valued at around $155 million. There's always something desperately sad about the stories newspapers and local news shows do right before a big jackpot is awarded. The minimum wage convenience store clerks, the blue collar lottery addicts, and the ill-concealed self-loathing of players who have no better strategy for improving their lives than playing 76,000,000-to-1 odds. Even the stoic souls who refuse to be seduced by vain dreams of unearned wealth seem unhappy. They aren't even allowing themselves to dream.
Take 64-year-old tour bus driver Jesse Johnson, who spends $20 a day on lottery tickets. Even if he only bought them on weekdays, that's still over $5,200 a year, with no jackpot to show for it thus far. Of course it's not as though players like Mr. Johnson get nothing out of the transaction. I've spent enough time daydreaming about the possibilities of windfall wealth with lottery-playing friends and relations to know that there are pleasures to be had just from holding the ticket in your hand.
What continues to surprise me, however, is the consistently modest scale of people's lottery fantasies. A new dream house seems to be the biggest ambition most lottery players have for their future wealth. Even with jackpots like this week's that would allow the winner to take an immediate lump sum payment of over $80 million. None of the man-on-the-street interview subjects plan to start their own foundation, build a charter school, or assemble a harem of nubile young pleasure servants. They want to buy a new truck, go on a tropical vacation, or help a friend with medical bills. Things that many of them could actually do if they saved and invested the money they spend, year after year, on the lottery. I wonder what would happen if they all eventually realized that.
Tuesday, April 09, 2002
Professor Bush
Has President Bush finally shaken his reputation as a policy simpleton? According to the Washington Post's Eric Pianin, George W. has become as good at slinging Beltway jargon as anybody:
"Lately, Bush has been throwing these terms around as if he were a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. 'Zinni will stay there,' Bush said on March 30, 'to push for a process that will ultimately get us into Mitchell.' Three days earlier, Bush noted that Zinni would 'work with both parties, regardless of whether or not they're headed to Beirut,' in hopes of 'getting into Tenet.' Bush dropped 'Beirut' as shorthand for the Arab League meeting, 'Tenet' for cease-fire and 'Mitchell' for a peace deal.
Will Molly Ivins issue an apology for implying that the President is a borderline Mongoloid who needs extensive prep-work to keep from drooling on himself in public? I doubt it. Fortunately, though the President has maintained enough of his folksy 'plain-spoken' style to address straightforward, barnyard issues:
"At his news conference last month, Bush reverted to Texas form while describing a trade dispute over poultry. 'We've got a issue on chickens,' he said. 'We've made it pretty darn clear to them that I think we probably ought to get this chicken issue resolved and get those chickens moving.'
Amen. Let's roll, and let's get those chickens moving, too.
Has President Bush finally shaken his reputation as a policy simpleton? According to the Washington Post's Eric Pianin, George W. has become as good at slinging Beltway jargon as anybody:
"Lately, Bush has been throwing these terms around as if he were a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. 'Zinni will stay there,' Bush said on March 30, 'to push for a process that will ultimately get us into Mitchell.' Three days earlier, Bush noted that Zinni would 'work with both parties, regardless of whether or not they're headed to Beirut,' in hopes of 'getting into Tenet.' Bush dropped 'Beirut' as shorthand for the Arab League meeting, 'Tenet' for cease-fire and 'Mitchell' for a peace deal.
Will Molly Ivins issue an apology for implying that the President is a borderline Mongoloid who needs extensive prep-work to keep from drooling on himself in public? I doubt it. Fortunately, though the President has maintained enough of his folksy 'plain-spoken' style to address straightforward, barnyard issues:
"At his news conference last month, Bush reverted to Texas form while describing a trade dispute over poultry. 'We've got a issue on chickens,' he said. 'We've made it pretty darn clear to them that I think we probably ought to get this chicken issue resolved and get those chickens moving.'
Amen. Let's roll, and let's get those chickens moving, too.
The Sky is Warming! The Sky is Falling!
Many people have come to believe that global warming is the most serious threat facing human beings in the next few hundred years. On the other hand, the planet also faces global peril on the same scale from natural causes - such as a large asteroid impact. Yet which one is a more scientifically demonstrated risk? Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has an interesting answer.
Many people have come to believe that global warming is the most serious threat facing human beings in the next few hundred years. On the other hand, the planet also faces global peril on the same scale from natural causes - such as a large asteroid impact. Yet which one is a more scientifically demonstrated risk? Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has an interesting answer.
Monday, April 08, 2002
Aloha from London
Yet another Blog-trend piece in the Financial Times, judged well and fairly as usual on The Scene. The theme is that now that Andrew Sullivan has announced his profitability, the trend is worth noticing. I'd say it was worth noticing before. The Hawaiian-sounding Louise Kehoe also mentions the lame Alex Beam piece from the Boston Globe, reporting that "His column had bloggers fuming ad nauseam." True enough, if an awkward use an unnecessary Latin phrase.
Yet another Blog-trend piece in the Financial Times, judged well and fairly as usual on The Scene. The theme is that now that Andrew Sullivan has announced his profitability, the trend is worth noticing. I'd say it was worth noticing before. The Hawaiian-sounding Louise Kehoe also mentions the lame Alex Beam piece from the Boston Globe, reporting that "His column had bloggers fuming ad nauseam." True enough, if an awkward use an unnecessary Latin phrase.
Taking the Long View
In most public policy debates, it's not possible to reach a conclusive verdict during an individual's lifetime. The debate over whether socialism was superior to capitalism as a practical political system, which began for real with the Bolshevik revolution, didn't end for most people until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Strom Thurmond was already in high school and assumably observing world affairs by then, but most people involved in the struggles of those days never lived to see if their side won. Because history tends to remember the winners best, we often get a lopsided view of history. Today it's difficult to imagine, for example, just how many smart people in 1935 thought that American-style democracy was doomed, and that the rest of the developed world would slowly move farther and farther toward the socialist model.
In an attempt to hold such people responsible for their wrong-headed predictions and reward visionaries who saw the shape of the future while all others called them mad, the Long Bets Foundation was established, allowing future-focused thinkers to put their cash on the line while making predictions on issues "of societal or scientific importance." Most bets so far tend to be on slightly more quantifiable events, such as whether by 2030 a significant number of commuters will be flying in pilotless airplanes. But the idea is a fascinating one that can easily be expanded to any number of different areas. Minimum bet is $1,000 and any winnings will be donated to a charity of the bettor's choice. Challengers welcome.
The Long Bets Foundation concept recalls the famous bet between the late economist Julian Simon and the biologist (and Malthusian alarmist) Paul Ehrlich about natural resource depletion and the ability of human ingenuity to overcome such obstacles. Simon won, by the way.
In most public policy debates, it's not possible to reach a conclusive verdict during an individual's lifetime. The debate over whether socialism was superior to capitalism as a practical political system, which began for real with the Bolshevik revolution, didn't end for most people until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Strom Thurmond was already in high school and assumably observing world affairs by then, but most people involved in the struggles of those days never lived to see if their side won. Because history tends to remember the winners best, we often get a lopsided view of history. Today it's difficult to imagine, for example, just how many smart people in 1935 thought that American-style democracy was doomed, and that the rest of the developed world would slowly move farther and farther toward the socialist model.
In an attempt to hold such people responsible for their wrong-headed predictions and reward visionaries who saw the shape of the future while all others called them mad, the Long Bets Foundation was established, allowing future-focused thinkers to put their cash on the line while making predictions on issues "of societal or scientific importance." Most bets so far tend to be on slightly more quantifiable events, such as whether by 2030 a significant number of commuters will be flying in pilotless airplanes. But the idea is a fascinating one that can easily be expanded to any number of different areas. Minimum bet is $1,000 and any winnings will be donated to a charity of the bettor's choice. Challengers welcome.
The Long Bets Foundation concept recalls the famous bet between the late economist Julian Simon and the biologist (and Malthusian alarmist) Paul Ehrlich about natural resource depletion and the ability of human ingenuity to overcome such obstacles. Simon won, by the way.
Teenagers for Free Speech
The number of groups challenging the constitutionality of the recent campaign finance bill just got a little bigger. The Christian Coalition and a group of apparently anonymous teenagers are adding their suits to the ones filed by Sen. Mitch McConnell and the NRA. According to AP, "The teen-agers are contesting language that bars minors 17 years and younger from making political contributions, ... [and the Christian Coalition] is contesting provisions that they believe would make it illegal to send out voter guides before an election." I wonder who organized the group of 17-year olds. Maybe it was a high school civics project. In any case, good luck to them. The fight for freedom of expression is as likely as any to produce a strange bedfellows-type coalition.
The number of groups challenging the constitutionality of the recent campaign finance bill just got a little bigger. The Christian Coalition and a group of apparently anonymous teenagers are adding their suits to the ones filed by Sen. Mitch McConnell and the NRA. According to AP, "The teen-agers are contesting language that bars minors 17 years and younger from making political contributions, ... [and the Christian Coalition] is contesting provisions that they believe would make it illegal to send out voter guides before an election." I wonder who organized the group of 17-year olds. Maybe it was a high school civics project. In any case, good luck to them. The fight for freedom of expression is as likely as any to produce a strange bedfellows-type coalition.
Friday, April 05, 2002
Taking the Crazy Train to Washington
According to the BBC and The Express, George W. is a big fan of MTV's The Osbournes, and has invited Ozzy for a White House visit. I looked for an April 1 date on this story, but it appears to be genuine. I assume I'm not the only one unnerved by the idea of the President rescheduling calls with world leaders so that he can watch Elijah Wood help clean dog piss off of Sharon Osbourne's new couch, as entertaining as that is. Then again, if celebrities are going to be invited to the White House, Ozzy beats out Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin any day.
According to the BBC and The Express, George W. is a big fan of MTV's The Osbournes, and has invited Ozzy for a White House visit. I looked for an April 1 date on this story, but it appears to be genuine. I assume I'm not the only one unnerved by the idea of the President rescheduling calls with world leaders so that he can watch Elijah Wood help clean dog piss off of Sharon Osbourne's new couch, as entertaining as that is. Then again, if celebrities are going to be invited to the White House, Ozzy beats out Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin any day.
A Week to Remember
First Alex Beam's Boston Globe article trashes the blog concept and now it gets fawning praise from Norah Vincent in the Los Angeles Times. She sees political blogs as part of a right wing counterrevolution, assumably in league with talk radio and Fox News (which of course has its own weblog feature on foxnews.com). Perhaps that's so. As many, many writers have pointed out, most political blogs seem to come from a conservative or libertarian point of view.
It's interesting, though, that she rips into "the self-important New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and their toady satellites, much of whose reporting has become hardly less biased than the bloggers'" in a piece published in the Los Angeles Times op-ed page. That fact that her piece was published in a large newspaper would seem to be at least a partial rebuttal to her thesis that the elite media is threatened by the popularity of blogs.
Virginia Postrel also posted an especially good and critical dissection of Vincent's column at The Scene.
First Alex Beam's Boston Globe article trashes the blog concept and now it gets fawning praise from Norah Vincent in the Los Angeles Times. She sees political blogs as part of a right wing counterrevolution, assumably in league with talk radio and Fox News (which of course has its own weblog feature on foxnews.com). Perhaps that's so. As many, many writers have pointed out, most political blogs seem to come from a conservative or libertarian point of view.
It's interesting, though, that she rips into "the self-important New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and their toady satellites, much of whose reporting has become hardly less biased than the bloggers'" in a piece published in the Los Angeles Times op-ed page. That fact that her piece was published in a large newspaper would seem to be at least a partial rebuttal to her thesis that the elite media is threatened by the popularity of blogs.
Virginia Postrel also posted an especially good and critical dissection of Vincent's column at The Scene.
Thursday, April 04, 2002
Dirt Bikes for Freedom
The New York Times editorializes today on off-road vehicles on federal lands, urging the Bush administration not to allow people to use snowmobiles, dune buggies, and the like in national parks. The Times seems to feel that the only people in favor of off-roading in places like Yellowstone are "snowmobile manufacturers and local dealers," who recently put pressure on the Administration to reverse a ban on off-road vehicles originally issued by the Clinton administration. This scenario follows an old pattern - if there's a policy that is considered anti-environment, it must be the result of corporate meanies out to rape the wilderness for disgusting profits.
Then again, maybe the policy reversal has something to with the over 10,000,000 off-road vehicles in the country, and the people that like to ride around in them. After all, where did the nation's snowmobile manufacturers get so much big-money clout unless there are legions of Americans who purchase their products? The truth is that millions of Americans like off-roading. Possibly even more Americans than read the New York Times editorial page or start hyperventilating at the thought of someone enjoying their horsepower in the pristine wilderness of Yellowstone. That, no doubt, is why the Times made sure to dismiss the idea that people should be allowed to pursue the activities they actually enjoy, and instead be required to swallow a big dose of enviro-statist cod liver oil: "Giving local communities — or political leaders — what they want is not a sound basis for rational policy on the federal estate." Of course not. What could be more irrational than giving people what they want?
The New York Times editorializes today on off-road vehicles on federal lands, urging the Bush administration not to allow people to use snowmobiles, dune buggies, and the like in national parks. The Times seems to feel that the only people in favor of off-roading in places like Yellowstone are "snowmobile manufacturers and local dealers," who recently put pressure on the Administration to reverse a ban on off-road vehicles originally issued by the Clinton administration. This scenario follows an old pattern - if there's a policy that is considered anti-environment, it must be the result of corporate meanies out to rape the wilderness for disgusting profits.
Then again, maybe the policy reversal has something to with the over 10,000,000 off-road vehicles in the country, and the people that like to ride around in them. After all, where did the nation's snowmobile manufacturers get so much big-money clout unless there are legions of Americans who purchase their products? The truth is that millions of Americans like off-roading. Possibly even more Americans than read the New York Times editorial page or start hyperventilating at the thought of someone enjoying their horsepower in the pristine wilderness of Yellowstone. That, no doubt, is why the Times made sure to dismiss the idea that people should be allowed to pursue the activities they actually enjoy, and instead be required to swallow a big dose of enviro-statist cod liver oil: "Giving local communities — or political leaders — what they want is not a sound basis for rational policy on the federal estate." Of course not. What could be more irrational than giving people what they want?
Wednesday, April 03, 2002
Queen Mommy Dearest
Who can take the memory of a beloved elderly woman and recast her as an idle, reactionary philistine? Why, Christopher Hitchens can. In Monday's Guardian he spares not the memory of the dear Queen Mother, recounting everything from her frequent drinking to her embrace of Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich. Reading it makes one realize just how baroque and irrelevant the British monarchy has become, even as a figurehead institution. As an American, I find the idea of a hereditary head of state (even an essentially ceremonial one) repellent. As a distant observer of island kingdom, however, I find the contemporary reaction to the royal family fascinating. As long as its members no longer have the power to blockade Boston Harbor, I say long live the House of Windsor.
Who can take the memory of a beloved elderly woman and recast her as an idle, reactionary philistine? Why, Christopher Hitchens can. In Monday's Guardian he spares not the memory of the dear Queen Mother, recounting everything from her frequent drinking to her embrace of Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich. Reading it makes one realize just how baroque and irrelevant the British monarchy has become, even as a figurehead institution. As an American, I find the idea of a hereditary head of state (even an essentially ceremonial one) repellent. As a distant observer of island kingdom, however, I find the contemporary reaction to the royal family fascinating. As long as its members no longer have the power to blockade Boston Harbor, I say long live the House of Windsor.