The Triangle is the "SMARTEST" metro area in the U.S. Because we are so smart, of course, we knew that already.
But it is important for the rest of you pusillanimous poltroons to overcome your unexpurgated nescience, and worship us as your divine daddies! Complete list here....but for the top five:
1. Raleigh-Durham, NC....2. San Franciso-Bay Area, CA
3. Boston, MA............4. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
5. Denver, CO
Two factors worked in Ral-Dur's favor, I think. (Well, three, since Raldur sounds like the name of one of the Elvish lords in Lothlorien).
1. Raleigh-Durham is less than half the size of the other areas in the top five. Since the ranking is done "per capita," this is a big help. Not clear WHY it is per capita, but there you are. On the other hand, this Forbes story used percentages, which is even sillier than an indexed per capita measure. The Triangle was only 14th in the Forbes ranking, well behind that metropolis of intellect situated at (wait for it...) Columbia, MO. Columbia came in at #11. (If you could see me, you would see my, "I don't THINK so!" face right now.)
2. The ranking appears to have been conducted back when Angus and Ms. Angus* were living in Raleigh-Durham. An enormous advantage to ANY metro area to have that kind of brain power. It's like we were cheating, bringing in ringers.
I do have to give a big KPC shout-out to #55, the worst metro area in the U.S.: Fresno. Here is the description....
#55, FRESNO (CA.) Metro Area Population: 1,335,429
Daily Beast IQ Score: 3
The race to the bottom wasn’t even close. The largest city in California’s San Joaquin breadbasket, Fresno, had deficiencies across the board. College education (less than 20 percent of the local population have four-year degrees), graduate studies, academic institutions (not much besides Fresno State), book purchases, voter engagement—it ranked in the worst 5 percent in almost all of our categories. Problems with gangs and crystal meth tend to deter the best and brightest.
*(And also Mr. Tootie, of course)
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Has it really come to this?
Are things so desperate in our Republic that mothers are willing to sacrifice their children for ........ CARDBOARD??
An Alabama woman has been charged with endangering the welfare of a child after police say she let her daughter ride in a cardboard box on top of their van. Albertville Police spokesman Sgt. Jamie Smith said the 37-year-old woman was arrested Sunday after police received a call about a minivan on a state highway with a child riding on top.
Smith said the woman told police the box was too big to go inside the van, and that her daughter was inside the box to hold it down.
No Mom could be that callous, could they? There surely must be some mitigating circumstance, some justification. What's that Maam?
Smith said the mother told officers it was safe because she had the box secured to the van with a clothes hanger.
See, I told you!
Smith said the woman told police the box was too big to go inside the van, and that her daughter was inside the box to hold it down.
No Mom could be that callous, could they? There surely must be some mitigating circumstance, some justification. What's that Maam?
Smith said the mother told officers it was safe because she had the box secured to the van with a clothes hanger.
See, I told you!
Best Methods Question Ever
I read PSJR once a week, and it rarely fails to amuse. This week, there was a gem of a question hiding in the rocks:
I'm doing a logit estimation in Stata and want to generate predicted values afterward. The problem I'm finding is that my dataset includes cases that are blank values for the dependent variable -- and when I enter the "predict" command, Stata imputes predicted values for those blank cases. I don't want this, but can't figure out a way to tell Stata to just generate predicted values for cases in which there's a value for the dependent variable. Any thoughts?
A helpful person was able to think of an answer, after long (I assume) deliberation:
Delete the cases with missing values on the dependent variable before you estimate the model.
This is, I submit, sound advice. Of course, another later commenter also has good advice:
Become a qually. It's not too late yet.
Again, on the mark. For quallies, confused obscurantism passes for profundity.
I'm doing a logit estimation in Stata and want to generate predicted values afterward. The problem I'm finding is that my dataset includes cases that are blank values for the dependent variable -- and when I enter the "predict" command, Stata imputes predicted values for those blank cases. I don't want this, but can't figure out a way to tell Stata to just generate predicted values for cases in which there's a value for the dependent variable. Any thoughts?
A helpful person was able to think of an answer, after long (I assume) deliberation:
Delete the cases with missing values on the dependent variable before you estimate the model.
This is, I submit, sound advice. Of course, another later commenter also has good advice:
Become a qually. It's not too late yet.
Again, on the mark. For quallies, confused obscurantism passes for profundity.
We Get Letters!
KPC friend Mark P writes....
Water Taxi Fiasco
Here’s a great example of how our government works:
This weekend, I visited family on the North Carolina coast near the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Cape Lookout is among several barrier islands that are uninhabited and accessible only by boat. The area is a popular recreational destination for locals and tourists. There is a thriving cottage industry here that provides water taxi service to the islands. About ten different businesses run small water taxis that carry patrons to the lighthouse and the nearby islands. Each has their own docking facilities on the mainland, scattered over a broad area. The destinations are virtually anywhere on the islands. Their schedules are flexible and fees reasonable. All of them are family owned and operated. Many have grown to multiple boat operations that employ local citizens.
Well, the National Park Service has discovered that private enterprise has found a profitable niche. The Park Service is now preparing to explore a single source provider to replace the small operators. The plan appears to be to contract with one firm to use larger ferries that have only one or two departure points, thus accessibility will be reduced. Landing will also be limited to only two islands, one dock on each. The schedules would of necessity have to be rigid and the fees will be regulated. As with many other national park services the bidding process is likely to result in a contract with a large corporation rather than the smaller businesses currently providing services as well as employment to local citizens. Adding insult to injury the consolidated operation will result in greater congestion at the departure and arrival sites and severely reduce the flexibility of services that are currently available to those wishing to visit the park areas. This action will effectively shut down all the local water taxi services that are currently available year-round.
The results will be less access, less flexibility, no competition, local families out of business and numerous unemployed local workers. Such is the wisdom of our federal government.
My question for Mark, and for all, is: Why is this so hard to understand? Mark's description pretty much contains all the essential elements of an economic explanation of government failure. Anyone reading this, it seems to me, should be persuaded. (An example of an existing "water taxi"/ferry service)
And yet we are going to do the wrong thing. Now, these boats operate at a profit. The "new" service is going to require a subsidy, at least in the form of building dock facilities. Ooooooh, I could just SPIT.
Water Taxi Fiasco
Here’s a great example of how our government works:
This weekend, I visited family on the North Carolina coast near the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Cape Lookout is among several barrier islands that are uninhabited and accessible only by boat. The area is a popular recreational destination for locals and tourists. There is a thriving cottage industry here that provides water taxi service to the islands. About ten different businesses run small water taxis that carry patrons to the lighthouse and the nearby islands. Each has their own docking facilities on the mainland, scattered over a broad area. The destinations are virtually anywhere on the islands. Their schedules are flexible and fees reasonable. All of them are family owned and operated. Many have grown to multiple boat operations that employ local citizens.
Well, the National Park Service has discovered that private enterprise has found a profitable niche. The Park Service is now preparing to explore a single source provider to replace the small operators. The plan appears to be to contract with one firm to use larger ferries that have only one or two departure points, thus accessibility will be reduced. Landing will also be limited to only two islands, one dock on each. The schedules would of necessity have to be rigid and the fees will be regulated. As with many other national park services the bidding process is likely to result in a contract with a large corporation rather than the smaller businesses currently providing services as well as employment to local citizens. Adding insult to injury the consolidated operation will result in greater congestion at the departure and arrival sites and severely reduce the flexibility of services that are currently available to those wishing to visit the park areas. This action will effectively shut down all the local water taxi services that are currently available year-round.
The results will be less access, less flexibility, no competition, local families out of business and numerous unemployed local workers. Such is the wisdom of our federal government.
My question for Mark, and for all, is: Why is this so hard to understand? Mark's description pretty much contains all the essential elements of an economic explanation of government failure. Anyone reading this, it seems to me, should be persuaded. (An example of an existing "water taxi"/ferry service)
And yet we are going to do the wrong thing. Now, these boats operate at a profit. The "new" service is going to require a subsidy, at least in the form of building dock facilities. Ooooooh, I could just SPIT.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Zombieland
Went to see Zombieland. Many other reviews have been written, and so I will just hit some high spots. Remember, I have stated my standards in advance, so don't blame me for being consistent.
Downsides: 1. Electricity? Really? I don't think so.
2. There is a claim that wearing zombie make-up, to look like a zombie, will protect you, because "zombies don't really mess with each other." Wrong! And the reason is....
3. These are not zombies, because they are not dead. They suffer from a virus that makes their brains swell, and makes them crazy. Thus, they would also go after each other, and anything else that moved....leading me to.....
4. They are FAST, so they are not zombies. If they were dead, and slow, then sure the make-up thing might work, because zombies only want to bite the living. These creatures are simply deranged, smelly, poorly dressed, back-biting ammoral humans, like you might find in Duke's Literature Department. Sure, they are scary, but they are NOT zombies. So, instead of a zombie movie, "Zombieland" is really more like "28 Days Later" or the "Modern Language Association Meetings." Terrifying and blatantly anti-intellectual, sure.
Upsides: 1. Woody Harrelson. I have tried to think if anyone else could have played this as well. I think not.
2. The not-zombies did at least play by the "chase and bite only" rule. They did not use weapons, and they did not coordinate. They simply keep on coming in infinite numbers. Well done by the director, Rubin Fleischer.
3. Woody Harrelson is at one point on a roller coaster with an Uzi. Now, for the rest of my life, I want to take an Uzi onto a roller coaster. Each of those things is really fun. Together, unbelievable. Add zombies to kill....well.
4. The movie carries the premise through pretty well. Extremely gross, but once you get used to that, very funny. Very, very funny.
5. The "rules" that the kid used to survive were a nice touch. But the director seemed to get bored with them, and they nearly disappeared. Likewise the kid's "irritable bowel" problem: important at the outset, seems to get cured halfway through, and never mentioned again. Still, the rules were a nice touch, and to be fair the rules do come up again twice in the final "Playland" scene.
6. The two female characters are good. Everyone knows that the older girl is the smartest of the whole group, and they just accept that. It did seem natural. Less posturing in a world with with survival on the line; go with the smart person to lead. The older girl (Wichita) also offered the boy (Columbus) an "intentional walk" to first base, but the kid got picked off. To be fair, the girl had a really deceptive move.
7. 80 minutes long. Not one of these over-blown, when-will-this-ever-end, epics of ego. Lots of noise, lots of gunfire, boy meets girl, girl becomes murderous zombie, boy smashes girl's skull with ceramic toilet cover (double tap), boy meets new girl, some adventures...and we're done. Heartwarming.
Overall: B+. And it's only not an A because the zombies are alive, and fast.
LAGNIAPPE: Two quotes from the WikiPedia page....
1. The zombies in Zombieland have been described by the casting director as:
"Ferocious, infected people that move erratically. They are diseased, as opposed to undead. These are not the lumbering walking dead of Romero’s zombie movies, but instead the super jacked up 28 Days Later/Dawn of the Dead zombies. They are scary and gnarly and gross."
2. Shortly after finishing the filming of Zombieland, Woody Harrelson had an altercation with a TMZ photographer at New York City's La Guardia Airport. His defense was that he was still in character and thought the cameraman was a zombie.
Downsides: 1. Electricity? Really? I don't think so.
2. There is a claim that wearing zombie make-up, to look like a zombie, will protect you, because "zombies don't really mess with each other." Wrong! And the reason is....
3. These are not zombies, because they are not dead. They suffer from a virus that makes their brains swell, and makes them crazy. Thus, they would also go after each other, and anything else that moved....leading me to.....
4. They are FAST, so they are not zombies. If they were dead, and slow, then sure the make-up thing might work, because zombies only want to bite the living. These creatures are simply deranged, smelly, poorly dressed, back-biting ammoral humans, like you might find in Duke's Literature Department. Sure, they are scary, but they are NOT zombies. So, instead of a zombie movie, "Zombieland" is really more like "28 Days Later" or the "Modern Language Association Meetings." Terrifying and blatantly anti-intellectual, sure.
Upsides: 1. Woody Harrelson. I have tried to think if anyone else could have played this as well. I think not.
2. The not-zombies did at least play by the "chase and bite only" rule. They did not use weapons, and they did not coordinate. They simply keep on coming in infinite numbers. Well done by the director, Rubin Fleischer.
3. Woody Harrelson is at one point on a roller coaster with an Uzi. Now, for the rest of my life, I want to take an Uzi onto a roller coaster. Each of those things is really fun. Together, unbelievable. Add zombies to kill....well.
4. The movie carries the premise through pretty well. Extremely gross, but once you get used to that, very funny. Very, very funny.
5. The "rules" that the kid used to survive were a nice touch. But the director seemed to get bored with them, and they nearly disappeared. Likewise the kid's "irritable bowel" problem: important at the outset, seems to get cured halfway through, and never mentioned again. Still, the rules were a nice touch, and to be fair the rules do come up again twice in the final "Playland" scene.
6. The two female characters are good. Everyone knows that the older girl is the smartest of the whole group, and they just accept that. It did seem natural. Less posturing in a world with with survival on the line; go with the smart person to lead. The older girl (Wichita) also offered the boy (Columbus) an "intentional walk" to first base, but the kid got picked off. To be fair, the girl had a really deceptive move.
7. 80 minutes long. Not one of these over-blown, when-will-this-ever-end, epics of ego. Lots of noise, lots of gunfire, boy meets girl, girl becomes murderous zombie, boy smashes girl's skull with ceramic toilet cover (double tap), boy meets new girl, some adventures...and we're done. Heartwarming.
Overall: B+. And it's only not an A because the zombies are alive, and fast.
LAGNIAPPE: Two quotes from the WikiPedia page....
1. The zombies in Zombieland have been described by the casting director as:
"Ferocious, infected people that move erratically. They are diseased, as opposed to undead. These are not the lumbering walking dead of Romero’s zombie movies, but instead the super jacked up 28 Days Later/Dawn of the Dead zombies. They are scary and gnarly and gross."
2. Shortly after finishing the filming of Zombieland, Woody Harrelson had an altercation with a TMZ photographer at New York City's La Guardia Airport. His defense was that he was still in character and thought the cameraman was a zombie.
Gogol West, Young Man
My older son (the EYM, now a sophomore at UNC) just showed me his new tatoo.
Gogol. A Gogol ambigram.
Yes, the Russian writer. On his leg (my son's, not the writer's), in 2 inch tall letters that read as an ambigram.
Who tatoos "Gogol" on their leg?
The LMM is NOT amused.
Gogol. A Gogol ambigram.
Yes, the Russian writer. On his leg (my son's, not the writer's), in 2 inch tall letters that read as an ambigram.
Who tatoos "Gogol" on their leg?
The LMM is NOT amused.
Not My Job....
The "not my job" award candidate....
Not at ALL clear that this is legit, of course. No documentation that I could find that this comes from a real source. And that looks like a possum. Are there possums in AZ?
UPDATE: A commenter notes, "The picture has been around for more than a decade." Well, I think that is not exactly big news. If the white text is correct, it has "been around" for nearly two and half decades. Clearly, I am not claiming to have taken this picture myself, recently, since the date on the thing says "85"...
Not at ALL clear that this is legit, of course. No documentation that I could find that this comes from a real source. And that looks like a possum. Are there possums in AZ?UPDATE: A commenter notes, "The picture has been around for more than a decade." Well, I think that is not exactly big news. If the white text is correct, it has "been around" for nearly two and half decades. Clearly, I am not claiming to have taken this picture myself, recently, since the date on the thing says "85"...
Two Articles by Peter Berkowitz
Catching up after being away so long, I have finally read to articles on my "to-do" list. Both are by Peter Berkowitz.
And both are worth reading. The first is "Conservatism and the Curriculum," from the WSJ. I might quibble with his omission of Duke's courses on "The History of Conservative Thought," and other courses in the Gerst/American Values curriculum, but basically he makes good points.
The second is "Constitutional Conservatism," in Policy Review. Some points he makes on the "way forward":
A constitutional conservatism provides a framework for developing a distinctive agenda for today’s challenges to which social conservatives and libertarian conservatives can both, in good conscience, subscribe. Leading that agenda should be:
• An economic program, health care and social security reform, energy policy, and protection for the environment grounded in fiscally sound, growth-oriented, market-based solutions.
• A national security policy that maintains American military preeminence because it is indispensable to the defense of freedom at home and to the discharge of global responsibilities abroad, and which, in its commitment to defending the nation against the new threats of megaterror, is as passionate about individual liberty as it is about security and is prepared, based on constitutional principles, to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful tradeoffs.
• A foreign policy that builds on the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine by recognizing America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty and democracy abroad while realistically calibrating undertakings — military, diplomatic, and developmental— to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.
• An orientation toward international relations that promotes free trade, respects international law and institutions while protecting the legitimate prerogatives of national sovereignty, and seeks alliances and opportunities to operate within multilateral frameworks but, particularly where vital national security interests are at stake, is prepared to act alone.
• A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.
• Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.
• Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-lawful immigrant.
• A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.
• A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.
• The appointment of judges who understand that their duty is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, who bring to their task a presumption in favor of vindicating constitutional principles and protecting individual liberty, and who, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.
I should point out that these plausible proposals have NOT risen to the forefront of the Republican agenda. (Yes, even these proposals are pretty tepid, and would hardly satisfy a Libertarian, but I am thinking in directional terms here: The Rs are still going fast in the wrong direction!) And so I am still most definitely not a Republican. You folks who send emails proposing that I am "really" a Republican need to realize that the Repubs are "really" full of goose dung.
And both are worth reading. The first is "Conservatism and the Curriculum," from the WSJ. I might quibble with his omission of Duke's courses on "The History of Conservative Thought," and other courses in the Gerst/American Values curriculum, but basically he makes good points.
The second is "Constitutional Conservatism," in Policy Review. Some points he makes on the "way forward":
A constitutional conservatism provides a framework for developing a distinctive agenda for today’s challenges to which social conservatives and libertarian conservatives can both, in good conscience, subscribe. Leading that agenda should be:
• An economic program, health care and social security reform, energy policy, and protection for the environment grounded in fiscally sound, growth-oriented, market-based solutions.
• A national security policy that maintains American military preeminence because it is indispensable to the defense of freedom at home and to the discharge of global responsibilities abroad, and which, in its commitment to defending the nation against the new threats of megaterror, is as passionate about individual liberty as it is about security and is prepared, based on constitutional principles, to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful tradeoffs.
• A foreign policy that builds on the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine by recognizing America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty and democracy abroad while realistically calibrating undertakings — military, diplomatic, and developmental— to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.
• An orientation toward international relations that promotes free trade, respects international law and institutions while protecting the legitimate prerogatives of national sovereignty, and seeks alliances and opportunities to operate within multilateral frameworks but, particularly where vital national security interests are at stake, is prepared to act alone.
• A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.
• Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.
• Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-lawful immigrant.
• A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.
• A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.
• The appointment of judges who understand that their duty is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, who bring to their task a presumption in favor of vindicating constitutional principles and protecting individual liberty, and who, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.
I should point out that these plausible proposals have NOT risen to the forefront of the Republican agenda. (Yes, even these proposals are pretty tepid, and would hardly satisfy a Libertarian, but I am thinking in directional terms here: The Rs are still going fast in the wrong direction!) And so I am still most definitely not a Republican. You folks who send emails proposing that I am "really" a Republican need to realize that the Repubs are "really" full of goose dung.
The British Driving Test
The test to secure a full driver's license in G Britain is notoriously difficult. It takes less than "the Knowledge," but it's still pretty hard.
And, rather strangely anachronistic. Here are two examples of questions from the actual test:
Which THREE should you do when passing sheep on the road?
a) Go very slowly b) Be ready to stop
c) Allow plenty of room d) Pass quickly but quietly
e) Briefly sound your horn (correct answers are a, b, and c)
A person herding sheep asks you to stop. You should
1 ignore them as they have no authority... 2 stop and switch off your engine
3 continue on but drive slowly... 4 try and get past quickly
(correct answer is #2, though of course #1 is clearly the Angus/Mungowitz approach to this, and to ALL other of life's great questions)
Tommy the Englishman notes, in an email: AND I mocked the North Carolina test for asking questions about travelling with passengers in the back of your pickup!
Aye, Tommy: That'll DO, sheep!
UPDATE: I want to add my own favorite topic from the test, having looked at the questions here....The problem involves riding a horse on the road (really, it does):
Before you take a horse on to a road, you should
-ensure all tack fits well and is in good condition
-make sure you can control the horse
-Always ride with other, less nervous horses if you think that your horse will be nervous of traffic. Never ride a horse without both a saddle and bridle.
Now, if *I* obey the command to ride only with other "less nervous" horses, it simply must be true that at least one, and strictly speaking ALL, of my companions are breaking the rules. If their horses are less nervous than mine, then mine must be MORE nervous than theirs. Blimey!
The book also suggests that one should make the horse wear a "fluorescent/reflective tail guard." I'm not sure, but I think that Angus and I once went to a club in New Orleans where the dancers were wearing those, at least at the start of their dance.
And, rather strangely anachronistic. Here are two examples of questions from the actual test:
Which THREE should you do when passing sheep on the road?
a) Go very slowly b) Be ready to stop
c) Allow plenty of room d) Pass quickly but quietly
e) Briefly sound your horn (correct answers are a, b, and c)
A person herding sheep asks you to stop. You should
1 ignore them as they have no authority... 2 stop and switch off your engine
3 continue on but drive slowly... 4 try and get past quickly
(correct answer is #2, though of course #1 is clearly the Angus/Mungowitz approach to this, and to ALL other of life's great questions)
Tommy the Englishman notes, in an email: AND I mocked the North Carolina test for asking questions about travelling with passengers in the back of your pickup!
Aye, Tommy: That'll DO, sheep!
UPDATE: I want to add my own favorite topic from the test, having looked at the questions here....The problem involves riding a horse on the road (really, it does):
Before you take a horse on to a road, you should
-ensure all tack fits well and is in good condition
-make sure you can control the horse
-Always ride with other, less nervous horses if you think that your horse will be nervous of traffic. Never ride a horse without both a saddle and bridle.
Now, if *I* obey the command to ride only with other "less nervous" horses, it simply must be true that at least one, and strictly speaking ALL, of my companions are breaking the rules. If their horses are less nervous than mine, then mine must be MORE nervous than theirs. Blimey!
The book also suggests that one should make the horse wear a "fluorescent/reflective tail guard." I'm not sure, but I think that Angus and I once went to a club in New Orleans where the dancers were wearing those, at least at the start of their dance.
Old wine in less old bottles
And by wine I mean the Kadane brothers, Matt and Bubba. Bedhead was one of my favorite bands in the 1990s. I highly recommend them and was sad when they quit putting out music.
However, I somehow missed the memo that the Kadane's re-formed, calling themselves The New Year. I just found this out and got two of their recordings, "The End is Near", and "Newness Ends". Both are very good, with The End is Near being my favorite and borderline fantastic. It still seems like Bedhead, but with a bit more variety and a bit faster paced.
By the way, my favorite Bedhead albums are "Transaction de Nova" and "Macha Loved Bedhead".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)