Abraham Lincoln Duel

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln almost dueled someone with a sword? You didn't? You idiot! Educate yourself!

If At First You Don't Secede

So, as y'all may or may not have heard, you can petition the White House over the internet these days.  Any petition that garners over 25,000 signatures gets an official response from the Obama Administration.  It just so happens that a petition for Texas to secede from the Union has gotten a bunch of signatures--120,000 as of the last time I checked.  I had a passing interest in just what this petition had to say, so I headed straight for Google and got this:

Yup, that seems about right.



Bonus pic, via Paul Windle and the NYT:

Random Post-Election Thoughts

Here are some quick impressions I had from the recent election that are going here because they're too long for my twitter and cover too substantive a topic for facebook. Sometimes I back up my arguments, claims, etc. on this page with empirical data. Not this time, however. With that understanding, here we go:

• I thought Romney ran a decent campaign.  This may come as a surprise considering that he failed to defeat a President who has presided over an underwhelming economic recovery; however, I think Romney performed about as well as he could have.  He was always going to be fighting an uphill battle, considering that he's not very likable (which is subjective), not at all cool (which is objective), and uninspiring.  Note that none of these adjectives reflects on his competency, which I don't really question.  It's not fair to Romney that part of this election was a popularity contest, but politics isn't about what's fair.
• I'm interested to see where the GOP goes from here.  Do they adopt more moderate stances on social issues?  Their platform is clearly out-of-touch with a large share of Americans.  Republicans may make the facile argument that only economic issues should cross your mind when deciding whom to vote for, but I disagree.  Yes, the President has no direct control over the legality of abortions, and only very slight indirect control (nominating Supreme Court justices, for example).  Even if the Court were stacked with Republican nominees, odds are that Roe wouldn't be overturned.  Still--at some point, doesn't the GOP need to be punished for its stance on social issues?  That's how I felt, especially in this election, where the Democratic alternative was a pragmatist as opposed to a socialist, despite what some may claim.  Hey GOP, you can't just condemn gay marriage and attempt to revoke a woman's right to choose whether to abort her fetus/baby with impunity.  Not with me, at least.  (That's not to say that I voted for Obama; it's just that I didn't gloss over the GOP's social platform like some Republicans would've wanted.)
• I saw that about 75% of Asians voted for Obama.  This number surprised me.  What's the cause for such strong support of Obama among this demographic?  Romney's stance on immigration must play some part, I suppose.
• I wonder where Romney goes from here.  Obviously, he won't be running for President again.  Does he re-enter politics at all?  Probably not.  
• Nate Silver knocked it out of the park.  As Jon Stewart put it (and I'm paraphrasing), it was a victory for arithmetic.
• I'll leave y'all with this.  Not sure how I feel about it, but it's worth watching.  I've never seen a President cry before. 

The First Amendment

This morning, I randomly came across a series of tweets from Richard Roeper (best known for his work as a film critic). Apparently, Roeper had made some comments (not necessarily via Twitter) defending the legality of an employee getting fired for making racist comments on her Facebook page. (The fact that she got fired is only relevant is background information, which is why I'm not getting into specifics.) Roeper must've taken some heat from people, and they must've said something like "the First Amendment protects our freedom of speech" or something like that. That, in turn, led to this tweet.

Amazing how many people don't understand the First Amendment. Have they even read it?

— Richard Roeper (@richardroeper) April 5, 2012

Roeper implies that a reading of the First Amendment is sufficient to understand one's constitutional right to free speech. Okay, that sounds reasonable enough. Let's all read it together:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (source)


Okay, that wasn't too painful. So, according to our close reading of the text, Congress can't make a law that abridges the freedom of speech. That must be the limit and extent of our constitutional right to free speech, right, Mr. Roeper?

Of course, it's not that simple. For example, did you know that, in addition to Congress, States also can't make laws that abridge our freedom of speech? How could you, if all you did was read the First Amendment? (The First Amendment, like most of the Bill of Rights, applies against the States just like it applies against Congress. I touched on this concept, known as "incorporation", in an earlier post.)

Also, guess what: Congress can make laws that limit our right to free speech! You wanna drive a sound truck around at 2 AM? The government can stop you. Want to falsely advertise your product? The government can stop you. Want to wear a jacket that says, "Fuck the Draft" into a courtroom? Turns out the government can't stop you on that one. But of course, you already knew all these things, because you read the First Amendment and were able to infer from that one sentence the contours of your right to freedom of speech. Right, Mr. Roeper?

I'm not taking issue with Roeper's arguments concerning the legality of firing the employee. I don't know one way or the other whether he's correct, because I haven't looked into the dispute or even read the facts anywhere. I do take issue with his suggestion that a person need only read the Constitution to understand the extent of his rights. It's more than simplistic; it's plain wrong.

Post-Hoc Lottery Thoughts

[First: I don't like using footnotes in these posts because it's annoying and distracting to scroll down to find 'em.  I couldn't help it here, though.  I encourage you not to worry about the footnotes until the end; they usually just address technicalities that you're probably not concerned about anyways.]


The Mega Millions jackpot reached a record high a few days ago.  It was estimated to be worth $540 million, but with late-minute sales driving up the number, the final jackpot turned out to be $640 million.  (That's if you take an annuitized payment, of course.  If you take a lump-sum, you "only" receive $462 million.)  Your odds of winning are 175.7 million-to-one.  The price of a ticket is $1.  Therefore, it was +EV to play the lotto, right?

Well, that answer is a bit complicated.  I think the concept of EV gets oversimplified too often.  When you're playing a game like poker, it makes sense to do whatever's necessary (within the bounds of your own morality, of course) to maximize your winnings.  That's because the way you beat poker is by getting more money than your opponents.  As a result, every EV consideration begins and ends with a calculation of how much money you stand to win/lose over the long run with each available option (bet, call, raise, fold).  There are no other factors brought into the calculus.  Again, this is because the way to "win" poker is to make as much money as possible.

Is that really our goal for life, though--to win as much money as possible?  Of course not.  So, it logically follows that our EV calculation would take other factors besides the economic ones into consideration.  Here's an example:* you've just been hired out of college to start your first full-time job.  When discussing salary, your boss offers you a choice: you can take $60k a year, or you can choose to gamble.  You get to flip a coin--if it comes up heads, you get $120k a year.  If it's tails, you get $20k a year.**  Obviously, if you're only looking at economics, the flip is the +EV play.  Just as obviously, it almost certainly doesn't make sense for you to limit yourself to economic factors.  The difference between $60k and $20k is enormous--you'd almost have to move into the YMCA on $20k a year.  The difference between $120k and $60k, however, isn't as large.  You'd have a slightly nicer apartment and a slightly faster car.***  For many people, taking the guaranteed $60k is the +EV play.

So, back to the Mega Millions.  First, let's get the simpler question out of the way.  Even if your only goal is to maximize your money, playing the Mega Millions a few days back would have been -EV.  Here's a great article that explains why.  When taking subjective factors into play, however, maybe it would make sense.  It's almost impossible to make this calculation, though.  You'd have to assign numbers to concepts like happiness, frustration, etc.  That's not easy to do, despite what Jeremy Bentham would have you believe.  Also, people have trouble conceptualizing just how slim their odds are.  I'm guilty of this, too, sometimes.  "It could happen to anyone."  "Someone's gotta win."  Sound familiar?  There's a psych term for this, but I didn't take enough psych courses to learn/remember it.

I don't really have a neat way to wrap this all up, so enjoy this Simpsons clip instead.







_____________________________
*This example comes from an economics textbook whose name and author I never learned.  I came across this hypo while shelving books at the NU bookstore.

**You're not allowed to quit, ask for a raise, etc., because you're signing a one-year contract.  Okay, technically, you could quit but then you could get sued for breach of contract and that'd be -EV.

***remember, in this example you're straight out of college.  If you're married with a large family to support, it's conceivable that the difference between $120k and $60k is indeed bigger than the difference between $60k and $20k.  Also, yes, I realize that some people who are straight out of college are married with a large family.  Sorry for my imprecision.










 

This Deserves Its Own Post

Chicago recently experienced an especially violent weekend, even for a city historically (and internationally) associated with gangsters: 49 people shot and 10 fatalities (source).  Just a few days ago, Chi-City endured its 100th homicide of the year (source).  It's March.


I've got nothing profound, controversial, or interesting to say about these facts.  I just thought that they deserved to be publicized.

Things on Cars

"Keep Austin Weird" is my current hometown's unofficial motto, and one way Austinites do so is by adding some individualism to their vehicles.  I try to snap some pictures (using my low-quality phone camera) of the more interesting ones.  Here's some of what I've seen over the past few months.

Dirt McGirt a/k/a Osiris a/k/a Ol' Dirty Bastard

I couldn't get a great photo of this, but if you look closely, that's a brake light in the shape of a Texas longhorn.  Hook 'em.

Nothing like some good ol' Texas nationalism.

...which is nice.

This blog has been a bit negative lately.  (I blame everyone but myself.)  So, to right the ship, here are some things I'm happy about:

• Spaghetti and eggs are cheap.  Antonio Alfonseca can count on one of his hands the number of things I know how to cook.  Fortunately, two of these meals are very inexpensive to make.  Eggs cost what, $1.25 for a dozen, and spaghetti costs about the same for a package.  Even when you factor in the price of marinara sauce, some frozen meatballs, and some garlic bread, you're still saving yourself a bunch of money.  If these foodstuffs cost more, I'd be a lot poorer.
• Daylight Savings Time.  Yes, missing that hour of sleep is never fun, but it's worth it.  It's so nice to run errands after my job and still have some sunlight.  Plus, now it's easier to squeeze in 12 to 15 holes of golf between work and dusk.
• Paying Bills Online.  What a hassle it must have been to get statements in the mail, to send out checks, to buy stamps, to balance the checkbook, etc.
• Every restaurant in Texas offers Dr. Pepper.  This one is self-explanatory.

Postscript on Northwestern

Well, unlike Anelia (who left her blog's readers in suspense for months about whether she had a baby or not), I'm not one to leave y'all in the dark.  Unfortunately, I don't have good news to report.  NU lost its game against Minnesota (in overtime, no less), which sealed its fate.  They're currently alive in the NIT, which is essentially a giant consolation tournament.

NU fans console themselves by reminding themselves of their lofty academic standards for athletes.  (How lofty is a question no one outside of Evanston can say for sure.)  Here's a story that may not be true, but let's just pretend that it is so we can feel better.

"[The Northwestern head coaching position] was not a plum job. Seven years earlier, in 1993, 27-year-old Duke assistant Tommy Amaker was interviewed for the same position. The school made him an offer after two meetings, but Amaker turned them down. The rumor that’s been circulating around Evanston for years is that at the very end, Amaker handed the interview committee two résumés, without names, and asked if he could get those players into the school. The interviewers looked at the transcripts, discussed among themselves, and said no. What they didn’t realize was that they’d rejected Bobby Hurley and Christian Laettner, the duo that had just led Duke to two straight national titles. That was enough for Amaker. He went back to Durham."  (source)


I'll  be back soon with a new post so we can all move on.

Wildcats and Wheels

Northwestern just had a huge win today over Iowa.  (For those who don't know, NU has never made the NCAA Tourney.  They've been on the precipice for the last few years but have always fallen just short.)  Conventional wisdom says that they needed to beat Iowa and win their next game in order to lock up a spot in March Madness.  A loss today would have been fatal.  After letting Iowa climb back into the game near the end of the second half, it felt like NU was going to rip its fans' hearts out one more time.  Thankfully, Iowa missed a go-ahead three-pointer with a few seconds left and NU held on for the win.  They're one victory away from breaking one of the most embarrassing streaks in college sports...ONE TIME!

On an unrelated note, I saw a thirty-year-old guy wearing these shoes and wheeling around in 'em:

Props to this guy for not caring what society thinks.  Who cares that Heelies are for pre-teens (and went out of style a few years ago)?  If it makes you happy and it doesn't hurt anyone else, do it.