The Professor's Notes

Ever want to listen to music, but just don’t know what you want?  Try a completely random, stream of consciousness playlist.  Go to the search window (see below) and type in the first word that comes to mind.  This will search all your songs for that word in the title, artis, and even in the descriptions.  Start the playlist, and enjoy what plays.  For an additional serendipitous variation, select randomize when playing this playlist.

BONUS:  Can you guess which songs were selected when I searched on “photo” and my library came up with these three artists?

There’s an entrepreneur making the rounds of talk shows etc. selling an internet product that teaches you how to cheat and steal (legally of course) from your fellow citizens.  Let us reason together as we explore the rationalizations of his chosen hook to fame and fortune.

So apparently, not a few Americans were counting on housing prices to become even more overvalued than they already are.   You know, those “Flip That House” people who buy undervalued properties, hold and/or fix them up, and then resell them for much more than they were really worth.  Or the (here in Dallas, TX) $60k/year maintenance man who purchased a $375,000 home with the full expectation that he would be able to convert his “interest only” loan (for the first five years) into a conventional mortgage by refinancing based on the increase in value . . . oops  (his home is now priced at $290,000 with no offers).

So back to our Robin Hood guy.  He has a web-based service that ” . . . walks you through the steps of how to manage your foreclosure to your advantage!”  Uh-oh.  The premise is that you can stop making your mortgage payments and continue to live in your [sic] home for 9 months to a year (based on the laws in your state).

And nobody gets hurt!  It’s a Win-Win!

As the great philosopher Homer (Simpson) would say: ” . . . Wai-ai-ai-ai-ait A Minute!”

 The rationale is this:  since the market is depressed, the mortgage company wouldn’t be able to sell the home anyway, and by squatting on the property you are actually doing the lien holder a favor; by keeping the property occupied and maintained, you are preserving the inherent value in the home!  Suh-weet!

A rose by any other name . . .

I recently received an email, containing an article entitled Less Money, More Pain — The Bonfire of Capital By Mike Whitney. The comment sent with the article was “This tells me that 2008 will be a very bad year for everyone.”  Wow.  Must be a compelling article, well researched, and written by someone with significant credibility.  Well, perhaps not.

Let’s start with the credibility.  I wondered about the credibility of the author of the article. So I read the credentials listed at the end of the article “Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com” He lives in Washington STATE! Yes–of course, How could I miss that credential! I should listen/pay attention to him. (And does anyone else find it, um… odd, that Mike’s email address is “FERGIE?”)

Now, I would like to take a brief moment to encourage everyone to do something called “research.” You may recall, as regular readers to this site, that I often encourage one to practice academic and intellectual honesty. Stop. Check the data. Question the sources. Challenge the techniques.

First, and most simply, I found that clicking on the source link for the article (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney/02222008.html) results in a “connection timed out” error. (as of 2/25/08, 1118hr EST) That could mean that everyone is going there and resulted in the site being overloaded, or it could mean that the article on the site has been “pulled.” Either way, the credibility of the source is now questioned. Especially since the main site, Counterpunch.org is also returning a “connection has timed out” error.

Second: There are statements that should be easily verifiable in the article. For instance, the author (Mike? Fergie?) writes: “The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds…” which is quite a bit of news! Did anyone see this high bond rate reported? Can anyone find a news source that reported this? I would think that, if Fergie/Mike was able to find the information, then it should be “findable” right? I am not saying that the information isn’t there–but I am wondering why sources aren’t given.

Now, actually, it wasn’t that hard to do. I did find this snippet:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for instance, is paying $390,000 in interest this week on one $100 million bond that cost just over $83,000 last week, before a failed auction pushed the rate on the bonds to 20 percent from 4.2 percent.

Now, I also found numerous other sites that actually state, verbatim, what Mike/Fergie wrote. For instance, the Free Market News reports:

The credit storm which began in July when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were forced to liquidate, has continued to intensify. Last week the noose tightened around auction-rate securities, a little-known part of the market that requires short-term funding to set rates for long-term municipal bonds. The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds — a new benchmark for short term debt.

That should count, right? Well, one might think so, except it really is a summary of the article written by Mike/Fergie, and points back to the (unavailable) site. Move along. Nothing to see here.

And, while I could continue, I will end with this: given that the document written by Mike/Fergie is posted on a website, and created for electronic distribution, he/she should have taken the time to provide links to the actual sources for his/her information. “Good” bloggers at least hold themselves to that standard. Heck, even bad/poor bloggers (like good ol’ Eric over at A Liberal Dose) link to sources where they get the information they then distort. This may well be a maelstrom that consumes all in the fiery demise of the world economy. But then again, without sources (reputable or otherwise) this is simply another pundit, among the many, touting gloom and doom.

I like Huckabee, and after much thought, I have decided I will be voting for Mike come our primary, even if his nomination becomes a “mathematical impossibility.” Why? Well, I do believe in miracles (nod–Katherine Kuhlmann). But also, I believe a primary should be the event where we register what, and who, we really want for and in a President.

That said, enjoy the following clip from YouTube and Saturday Night Live.

The trap was set (by the Demmicans), was fully entered (by the Republicrats), sprung, and now we all get to watch.

It has been High-Larious watching the Surprise, Shock, and Outrage! at the Scurrilous Left-Wing Dominated MSM (TM) for daring to issue a negative (albeit only from a certain viewpoint?) “smear” story about candidate McKooky.

Surprise?  Get a clue.

Shock?  You ain’t seen nothing yet (pinata in a bat factory).

Outrage?  Take a chill pill and get over it.  Don’t be mad at the pain you feel after poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick.  As ”Dr. Laura” reminds women complaining about their abusive/unloving/ne’er do well husbands:  “YOU PICKED HIM!”

 I am getting a lot of amusement out of watching the ObamaNation though.  He just did a SRO rally in Dallas yesterday.  He got 3+ minutes of wild cheering and applause (with appropriate level of shrieking and swooning) just for BLOWING HIS NOSE!  I’m not kidding- his biggest cheer line was when he literally “hocked a loogie.”  Fabulous.  We are living in 1931 Germany.

 the other steve 

Full Disclosure:  I have been involved in my fair share of flame wars since I was rapping through a 300 baud acoustical coupler “back in the day.”   Have personally been the victim of some pretty scurrilous, underhanded, unethical, and somewhat disturbing personal smear campaigns.  [eg crossposting threads after removing the home thread; allowing the protagonist to edit the victims comments and republish in other forums without the victims knowledge, etc.]  I am here to tell ya though- today’s level of intolerance seems somewhat intense, relative to our freewheeling chats of yore.

Maybe it’s because- in part at least- we have morphed from the Newsgroups being a “Public Forum for Discussion” into Blogs becoming “My Private [unlicensed] Broadcasting Company.”

With ownership comes, well, ownership. 

Case in point:  So there’s this blog on the internet, topic not important to the point at hand, and a dialogue gets going, point-counterpoint style.  Apparently the arguments on one side of the issue start falling apart, and more posters started coming around to the alternative point of view.  It got re-e-e-e-eal quiet from that side.  [I guess they were hunting wabbits]

[wait for it]

Surprise! Someone took their ball and went home!  The Blog “owner” shut down comments for the specific thread- of course, after posting a snarky “it’s my medium” blast of pique.

It isn’t about “dialogue” anymore; it’s about “broadcasting one point of view!”

So

Care to guess which side of the political spectrum was engaged in (polite, reasoned) dialogue . . . and which side decided that tolerance with respect to another’s ideas had gone just about as far as it was going to go, mister!?

Well, o.k., silly question . . . we all know which side of the (artificially defined by the two-headed single political party in the US today) political spectrum is tolerant/intolerant of opposing viewpoints . . .

But putting that aside

Internet: Two way communication; or just another transmission medium for digitized vomit?

Hello?

Scorch aka the other steve

It appears, according to the BBC, we are another step closer to a compressed air car. Let’s start with the highlights:

• Runs on compressed air
• Seats 5
• Will cost about $5,000 (that’s £2,500, imagine what it will be like if the dollar gets stronger!)
• Will be licensed to manufacturers to produce locally
• uses fuel only on long drives to heat the air

Sounds pretty ingenious, eh? And the article points out that “producing no emissions at all in town.”

I like a couple aspects of this car. First, I do like a $5K car. An affordable car! And the use of compressed air, on the face, has me saying “w00t!” It would appear that, from an environmental perspective, we have at least removed the various particulate contaminates from the local air. In fact, I was pleased to see the article specify no emissions “in town” since obviously producing the energy to compress the air will in most places result in some emissions.

I am also quite intrigued with the “produce locally” concept. Unfortunately, that will mean that the cost to manufacture will be different depending on locale, so the actual price of a car will vary widely by market. But then again, as we look at global supply chains we see once again the pressures of transportation costs pushing back to either larger inventories, local production, or both.

There are a few questions left open, as I await it’s delivery to the US.

• Will US Manufacturers step up to the idea of “make locally?”
• Will US Citizens buy a “ride” that isn’t all “pimped out?”
• Will the vehicle pass the US’s strict safety requirements?
• Will “gas” stations still only charge a quarter for their air?

The article itself mentioned the issues of the amenities, and the issue of safety. It is not clear from the article that the creator of the car understands all the issues with safety. According to the BBC:

Mr Negre says there’s no issue with safety – if the air-car crashes the air tanks won’t shatter – they will split with a very loud bang. “The biggest risk is to the ears.”

This does beg the question of impact safety, roll-over safety, and so forth, but it’s a start!

I suppose we wait, and see.

Thanks to my brother, I have once again become engaged in a discussion of what can be “proven” and “dis-proven.” Or more to the point for this discussion, whether one can “prove” a negative.

Apparently, there is an on-going debate amongst biblical scholars (minimalists, and maximalists) concerning whether one can accept the historicity of biblical texts. As I understand it, the maximalists argue that barring evidence to the contrary the historicity of biblical texts should be accepted as fact. The minimalists instead argue that without additional evidence those texts are to be viewed as “not true” and thus not trusted.

That’s all well and good.  Except for one thing. According to my brother, they then proceed to tell you what they think “really” happened.  So maximalists (according to the minimalists) make the fatal error of believing documents contemporary  to the time under study, while the minimalists are able to, through some other means, discover the “real truth” with testimony.

Magic…

Of course, as part of the on-going discourse Dr Jim West decides to critique the “contemporary text” which my brother wrote, and create his own (mis) interpretation of what was written. He then goes on to address the error of my brother’s interpretation of my brother’s own writing.  Interesting.

So, let me ask you, dear Reader, how do you (knowing my brother writes, on his own blog) interpret my brother’s line:

Dr. Jim West (I am a doctor as well, just not a “real” doctor, as my grandmother will tell you) calls this an “impossible impossibility” and says that you cannot prove a negative.

So, in this case, what struck me as interesting, is that we have a microcosm of exactly what the debate is about.  The text seemed, clear, and we were even provided the author’s own statement of intent.  And yet, a minimalist chooses to tell us what “it really meant.”

At the end of the day, I found myself wondering how we are able to communicate at all, if such a simple sentence is so easily misunderstood.

I was originally going to title this post “John McCain on September 5th 2008″ but thought that would give away the “spin” of the article too much! (insert appropriate emoticon here)

I am unable to listen to my favorite drive-time AM talk radio anymore. I know you’re all crying for me. It seems like my (heretofore arguably semi-rational) talkbots are downloading their RNC talking points again, and the message is “John McCain is the Republican Candidate, Everebody Get In Goosestep err Lockstep err I mean Line!”

Now I don’t have a dog in this fight at all. As a card-carrying Civil Libertarian, I only get mildly interested in RepubliCrat (DemmiCan?) follies when our interests overlap (social issues for D’s, economic for R’s generally).

However- the argument from the bullies on the right now seems to be “We Need To Support McCain Because Otherwise We Will Get Hillary.” In various forms- the message is if you don’t support McCain, you are supporting ClintAma. BarIllary? What-ev.

Now a few years back (when I was doing my cypherin’ on coal shovels by candlelight) I took a class in rhetoric. I vaguely remember something about the logical fallacy called “The False Dilemma.” Sound familiar?

The underlying, unspoken assumption of the Bullies on the Right is that McCain would actually stand a ghost of a chance against Hillary Nation. Or the OpraBamicans. So therefore, all good soldiers of conservatism must abandon their principles, hold their noses, and line up behind McCain in order to not “throw their votes away and put HillAma in office.”

So- here we all are on September 5th, 2008. The “Dream Ticket” of McCain-Whoever has now taken up the battle standard and marches off into the meat grinder . . . then what? Will McMaverick enjoy the benefit of the free ride he has been getting so far once he goes up against a “true” progressive? Keating 5, Keating 5, hmmm . . . voting record, voting record, hmmm . . . old white guy, old white guy, hmmm . . . war pig, war pig, hmmm . . . do you think the MSM will let McCain’s and Hillary’s stench factor cancel each other out, and focus on “The Issues?” Not likely.

McCain is a pinata in a Louisville Slugger factory, he just doesn’t know it yet.

The “national polls” showing McCain competitive against Barillary in a head to head matchup (taken today) are a phantom. Give the MSM a couple of months to proctologize over John McCain and it will be a BLOWOUT.

You heard it here first.

So for my on again/off again friends on “The Right:” you can die with your swords in your hand or your [male genitalia] in your hand . . . choose wisely!*

Scorch

*apologies to my USMC friends for stealing part of their culture to make this point

 . . . heck is this guy; and why is he posting to The Professor’s Notes?  Please allow me to introduce myself.  I’m a colleague/associate/friend of the “owner” of the blog.  Steve and I go back to our shared military service for the Air Force.  We were both professors teaching (Logistics and Supply Chain) at the Air Force Institute of Technology in the 1990s.  We have not always seen “eye to eye” on various issues over the years; but our mutual colleagues have suggested that the entertainment value of our discussions were worth the price of admission! [ref Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes?]

After a couple of posts to a variety of blogs on some issues of mutual interest, Steve invited me to step up as a “Guest Contributor” (all of the hassle, none of the pay?) on topics of my choosing.  Since I am new to this whole “blog thing,” I would ask you all to “be gentle” with me . . . Yeah, Right!

Let the games begin!

Scorch aka “The Other Steve”