8th Grade Math Is Easy

I'm pretty sure I knew how to do this in 8th grade, too. In any event - if this is what standardized tests require 8th graders to know, the students have it pretty easy.

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

I always hear how "hard" the standardized test are. But from the questions I've seen from them, they err on the side of too easy. It's just a shame that students that fail these things blame anyone other than themselves. I can guarantee you that everything on those tests is in every curriculum in the country. The really disappointing thing I've found though is that schools are basing their curriculums around these exams, which seems to me to be dumbing down the curriculum. This is stuff that should be a given to an 8th grader, stuff they learned on the way to learning to other stuff - not what the 8th grader should be striving to learn.

The Modern State of the Music Industry

I can't see anyone giving an interview like this any more.

Thurston Moore, Beck, and Mike D - hilarity ensues. My favorite part is when Beck throws his shoe. Unfortunately most of the music is cut out.

I can't think of a single current modern band (released a debut album post-2000) that can compare. The Strokes, maybe; But they're more "drunk" than "goofy." The rap folks all take themselves entirely too seriously to "lower" themselves to some good ol' "fuckin' around in front of the camera because MTV was dumb enough to let us." The Jackass guys (Bam Margera, etc.) would - but a) they aren't musicians, and b) it's what they do for a living.

The beauty of the interview is that there is a sense of sincerity to it, which just makes it weird. It's not people stupid for the sake of being stupid. Well, there's some of that. But it's just 3 guys being goofy in front of the tv, because that's how they've chosen to be that day. I get the feeling in watching the video that Beck answered many other questions that day by throwing a shoe.

Anyway. Amusing. It's about 6.5 minutes of 1994 goodness.

Sectarian Stupidity

Sectarian: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences"

Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group

Prior to yesterday I hadn't heard the word "sectarian" more than 5 times in my entire life. Maybe 5 times. Tops. Between yesterday and today I have heard the word AT LEAST 7 times. NY Times headline, Washington Post headline, NPR yesterday (twice), and NPR this morning (three times! in less than 30 minutes!!!). It's like everyone forgot this word existed and now there is mad dash to see who can use it the most.

Some headlines from around the world:
Iraq Imposes Daytime Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Voice of America)
Curfew in Baghdad after sectarian violence (Telegraph - UK)
Iraq sectarian violence kills 130 (Reuters)
Analysis: Iraq sectarian bloodshed not yet civil war (Middle East Online)
Iraq Imposes Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Update1) (Bloomberg)
SECTARIAN VIOLENCE EXPLODES ACROSS IRAQ (SF Chronicle)
Iraq under curfew to quell sectarian violence (CNN International)
Sectarian Violence in Iraq Limiting US Military Response (ABC News)
Nigerian Muslims flee city as sectarian violence subsides (Irish Examiner)
Nigerian Muslims Flee Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
Sectarian violence continues in southern Nigerian (Jeruslem Times)
NIGERIA: Dozens dead as sectarian violence continues in southern Nigeria (Reuters)
U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future (NY Times)

And the two that started it all:
Sectarian Fury Turns Violent in Wake of Iraq Shrine Blast (NY Times)
Shrine Bombing Sparks Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)

I mean, WTF?!? And speaking of "sectarian violence." I have the sneaking suspicion we are about to witness some here in the good ol' US of A. Apparently the state of South Dakota (is that even still a state??) is going to pass a law that makes performing an abortion a felony. Yes, that's right. Good ol' political antagonism. Apparently pissed off that Tom Daschle got beat out for the Senate seat in South Dakota the Republicans are on the warpath there and are going to piss off the entire country. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, the Republicans think that now that they have a stacked deck in the Supreme Court they can finally get that damned Roe v. Wade case over-turned. Even if they COULD get Roe v. Wade overturned, how many states would ban abortions? South Dakota? So, the South Dakotans who need abortions sneak over the border into North Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Wyoming. Or Montana. Or the doctors there perform them and take the risk. Seriously, what purpose do these people think banning an abortion would serve? Congratulations, you have forced someone who doesn't want a kid and probably can't afford the kid to give birth (additional medicare expenses) and raise it (more welfare) in crappy living conditions (low-income, low-literacy). And if they give it up for adoption there's even MORE strain on the state budgets. I'm not saying we should all be out having abortions; it's not like it's fun and games. I'm sure the people who go through with them think about the consequences very, very seriously before doing so. And hopefully they are having them done by competent medical professionals. But now, this ban would prevent competent medical professionals from performing them. And quite frankly, if I were a competent medical professional I wouldn't move to practice in South Dakota. And, as an attorney, knowing there are fewer competent medical professionals in South Dakota, I might just move there - seems like a money-making proposition for me. So, congratulations South Dakota, you've added another social cost to the stupidity - increased medical malpractice costs from suits and increased insurance premiums.

Oh, I guess I'm not the only one to draw the connection.

Stop Snitching (backdated)

First off, this post is backdated because I think the one above it is better and I didn't want people to not see that one. So, this story that I'm linking to actually was posted on 2/24/2006. Anyway.

The greatest quote I've read in a long, long time:
"In its a priori dismissal of the "Stop Snitching" campaign, the general public has failed to acknowledge the moral complexity and legitimacy of an anti-snitching position." (emphasis in original)

Whenever I hear about the "stop snitching" stuff, I'm always reminded of grade school bullies. Do I have an "anti-snitching position"? No, not really. I can guarantee that if some jackass guns down a friend of mine while I'm standing 2 feet away I will snitch. So, if you're one of those people that will get upset if I snitch - don't gun down my friends while I'm standing there watching. Bastards.

I can tell you, though, that I do, in fact, recognize the "moral complexity and legitimacy" of the "anti-snitching position." I fully support other people's right not snitch. But, recognize that, at least in my mind, there is a significant difference between not snitching on someone for stealing your lunch and not snitching on someone for SHOOTING you (or someone else).

Greed and Loathing in the United States

Verizon
Mobil
Shell
BP
Alaska

Anyway, you get the idea. I can understand the need to make a buck. I can understand the need to satisfy shareholders. I even understand the arguments that "social welfare" isn't exactly compatible with corporate objectives and isn't necessary from a "free market" point of view. The unfortunate problem is that we don't live in a perfect free market. For example, utilities, such as oil, phones, internet service, water, electric, etc. are not "free markets." You and I cannot just start up an electric plant and start competing with ComEd. You and I cannot just start up a telephony company and start competing with AT&T (or SBC or Cingular, or whoever the hell AT&T is these days). You and I cannot just throw down an oil rig and start competing with Mobil, BP and Shell. There are significant barriers to entry to each of the utility markets. Some are practical: high costs of capital, high costs for fixed assets, labor intensive, technical knowledge, etc. Some are regulatory: licensing for operation, licensing for drilling, licensing to dig to lay down fiber, licensing from entities that already have lines down to use their lines, etc.

Unlike Microsoft's "monopoly" which is more the failure of the market to create a competitive product than the doings of any over-arching conspiracy, the utility "oligolopy" creates a bigger threat. The current players spend millions of dollars a year lobbying congress for two things: deregulation and rigorous licensing standards. The reason is obvious, though maybe not intuitive.

Before deregulation of most of the utilities in the 1980s, the government set hard caps on the prices utilities could charge, the markets they were allowed to enter, and the number of them that exist. The companies argued that with de-regulation there would be greater competition and lower prices. (why would the government listen to the companies?? Did they really think that industry was interested in more competition and lower prices?!?) With deregulation, these barriers were removed, they could charge whatever the market would bear. They could buy up whatever markets they wanted. And they could consolidate into a very few large national companies. These companies have no incentive to "compete" against each other. Rather, they have a large incentive to compete with each other. One agrees to lay down the infrastructure, the others agree to lease it from them. The leases ensure that prices have a floor - at a minimum, no company is going to charge less than what they have to pay to lease the line. High physical barriers to entry ensure that start-ups cannot compete. If a start-up manages to get its foot in the door, deregulation ensures that one of the few can buy out the company before any significant threat is realized.

Going hand in hand with that is difficult and laborious licensing procedures. The companies that already exist already have the licenses. Getting one more isn't going to present a problem. On the other hand, a start-up faces the daunting task of getting all them before they even begin. The minutia involved and the local political grumblings practically ensure that no one other than the big players can lay lines without the permission of the entity that's already there.

What all of this means for the consumer is prices that bear no resemblences to "free market" competition. The companies don't compete against for lowest price to attract customers. For the most part the utilities are necessities of daily life - the consumer cannot boycott the high prices. So, the companies have no incentive to keep prices low; it's not like they are going to lose customers. They only have to ensure that they stay within a reasonable distance of their competitors. And it's a leap-frog up the chain instead of down. Company A charges X, Company B charges X.01; while everyone might go to Company A to start, Company B still makes some money (for instance, BP routinely is .01 above its surrounding competition because of its advertising and 'status' as a 'premium' supplier, it's why they spend so much money to keep clean stores and good lighting). Having no incentive to keep prices low, Company A gets greedy, they realize that they can charge X.02. They can do this because Company B has no incentive to keep their price at X.01 - their shareholders demand increasing profits, so they have every incentive to keep up by charging their "loyal customers" (you know, the ones with the Company B "discount" card) X.03. And so on and so forth. And in the meantime, customers have no recourse because they can't not buy the resource.

Oil prices are at an all-time high. Yet the oil companies are making record profits. Cable and Electric prices are all-time highs, yet they are bending truths to wring more money out. And meantime, we, the customers are bending over and taking it because we have no choice.