Oh Greg!

On Tuesday, one of my personal guides through the financial crisis demonstrated that otherwise smart people can sometimes totally not get it. Concerning the AIG bonus flap, Professor Mankiw wrote in Trivial Pursuit:

The AIG bonuses now being debated in Congress and everywhere else represent about .001 percent of annual GDP. Regardless of how outraged you are about the AIG bonuses, it is probably not an optimal allocation of resources for our elected leaders to spend large amounts of time and energy on the topic.

Conventional wisdom says that our populist rage is unleashed on this particular topic because, unlike many topics in the financial crisis, we understand it. People understand companies going insolvent, getting bailed out, then paying $400,000 bonuses to a chosen few. And they don't like it, regardless of the fact that the bonus fund is .001 percent of GDP.

Mankiw would have done better to have stuck to prior criticisms of recovery legislation, which focus on the inefficiencies and mistakes that are inevitably made when so much money is spent so quickly.

As it turns out, Mankiw's lack of faith in the wisdom of congress (evidenced by the last paragraph of his post) was supported by today's House vote to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent. Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out on Olberman that such a law is unconstitutional because it is both retroactive and targets a specific group (Article I, Section 9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.)

Penalty Shoot Outs: Fair or Foul?

Happy Pi day! March 14 is 3/14, the first three digits of pi (3.14159 and so on).


Natasha Kai, Striker, USWNT

On Wednesday the US Women's National Soccer Team tied Sweden 1-1 in the finals of the Algarve Cup in Portugal. The game was particularly exciting as the US tied the score during stoppage time, which is the few minutes that are tacked on at the end of each half to make up for stoppages (e.g. injuries, ball chasing). In this tournament, the rules call for a penalty shoot out to determine the tournament winner if the teams are tied after ninety minutes. In other tournaments, such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup, two fifteen-minute overtime periods are played, so each team has a chance to defend both goals, and the penalty shoot out occurs only if the teams are tied after that.

In a penalty shoot out, each team takes five penalty shots, alternating between teams. For each shot, the ball is placed directly in front of the goal, twelve yards away. The goalkeeper must remain on the goal line until the shooter kicks the ball.

If they are tied after five shots each, they start sudden death penalty shooting. Unfortunately for the American women, Sweden prevailed 4-3.

Most soccer fans, players, and coaches dislike penalty shoot outs because soccer is a team sport and shoot outs are individual competitions. Shoot outs also feel like flipping coins. A penalty shot heavily favors the shooter because if she can kick the ball near a post, the goalkeeper cannot stop it. Goalkeepers are allowed to move along the goal line prior to the kick, so they typically dive one way or the other in anticipation. The shooter fails if she fails to put the ball in the frame or kicks the ball near the goalkeeper. But with skilled players, the shot hits the net seventy to eighty percent of the time.

There are several alternatives to the penalty shoot out. In golden goal, a sudden-death overtime period is played where the first team to score wins. There are two problems with this option. First, because soccer is played outdoors on a field, one team may have an advantage due to wind or other conditions. Second, the influence of the referees on the outcome is increased, as they can disallow a goal (e.g. by calling offsides) or award a penalty kick (e.g. by calling a major foul). This may put the refs at risk of violence should the crowd disagree with their calls.

A variant of golden goal is silver goal, which is the same as golden goal except that after a goal is scored, play continues until the end of the current overtime period. Unfortunately, as an overtime period nears its end, silver goal becomes golden goal, so it's not much of an improvement.

So how should tied games be decided? Penalty shoot outs are leave too much to chance and emphasize the individual over team play. Golden and silver goals may give one team an unfair advantage and put too much power in the hands of refs, in addition to the risk of crowd violence.

Why not let the teams keep playing overtime periods? If tied after the two fifteen-minute periods, two ten-minute periods are played. If still tied, then two five-minute periods. If still tied, then two more five-minute periods, and so on until the tie is broken. Additionally, the number of players is reduced; eleven in the fifteen-minute periods, nine in the ten-minute periods, and seven in the five-minute periods. Players are selected from the eleven that were playing at the end of regulation.

Others have suggested similar schemes. Why not give it a try?

Have You No Shame, Sir?

©Comedy Central/Gavin Bond ©CNBC Photo

This week, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been showing clips of Jim Cramer, the host of a financial entertainment show on CNBC called Mad Money. Stewart was making fun of the fact that Cramer gets it wrong sometimes and zeroed in on his recommendations on Bear Stearns. On Thursday night, these two faced off on The Daily Show.

It wasn't funny, which is a problem because The Daily Show is supposed to be funny. First of all, the premise that Cramer should be chastised for giving bad advice is absurd. No one can predict the stock market reliably, much less individual stocks. Second, Stewart was acting like Chris Matthews, that is, he was asking long questions and then turning it into a multiple choice by giving the answers himself. He was getting all serious on us. Not funny. Third, Stewart was showing clips from 2006 of Cramer talking about borderline illegal activities of hedge fund traders. These clips were a bit obscure and not funny. If Stewart has an issue with them, why didn't he bring it up two years ago. Finally, Cramer was not himself and was not funny. He sat there like a contrite little boy and said CNBC could do better. Not funny.

The show I was hoping for would have Cramer trading punches with Stewart. He could have shown clips of Stewart's lapses, you know, other times when Stewart is not funny. Times when he does impersonations, badly. Times when he is a star-struck sycophant during a celebrity interview/movie promotion. Times when he says something and the audience goes "ewwwwwwwwwww".

I can credit The Daily Show for the opening, which admitted that the whole Cramer vs. Stewart thing was about ratings. That was funny.

Fortunately for Comedy Central, The Daily Show is just a warm-up for the highly-awarded The Colbert Report and the hilarious and talented Stephen Colbert.

Update: The NYT TV Decoder's The Comedian as Media Critic provides a good summary of what happened. Alessandra Stanley's Economic Meltdown Not a Laughing Matter says "Mostly, the much-hyped Thursday night showdown between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the mercurial host of “Mad Money” on CNBC, felt like a Senate subcommittee hearing," which is similar to my take on it. The Huffington Post scored a big win for Stewart. The comments that follow these blogs show overwhelming support for and thanks to Stewart for revealing that CNBC may simply be PR for the companies they cover, that they help to spread rumors, and that they give bad advice. As to who really won, I like the Huffington Post's Tim Berry's call.

So who's winning the Cramer vs. Stewart battle? Cramer and Stewart. Both are smart enough to keep it going as long as they can. And, along with them, Comedy Central, and NBC, and all the news media that cover them.

Domestic Partnership Initiative

Two straight southern California college students now have an initiative in circulation which, if passed, would turn all married Californians into "domestic partners" and put government out of the marriage business. To get on the ballot, the backers must obtain 700,000 signatures by early August. Their proposed text states...

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8. (09-0003.)

This initiative appears to address the objection of gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would "redefine" marriage.

I predict that the initiative will either fail to qualify for the ballot or, if on the ballot, will fail to pass, as just about everyone has reason to not like it. Consider these objections:

1. The initiative redefines marriage by removing government support. If you are against any redefinition of marriage, you will be against this initiative.
   
2. Some fundamentalists who are against homosexuality based on their interpretation of scripture will want to maintain the status quo, which denies same-sex marriage or civil unions.
   
3. Some gay marriage supporters will not be willing to settle for a "domestic partnership" solution. They feel that they have a right to be "married", just like straight couples.
   
4. Some married straight couples will be annoyed that they will be "domestic partnered" rather than "married." If they want to regain their "married" status, will they have to have another ceremony?
   
5. Some fundamentalists will be annoyed that gay domestic partners will be able to obtain marriage from a church which is accepting of gays and lesbians.
   
6. Some who are indifferent or hostile to religion will object on the basis that the initiative is kowtowing to religion.
   
7. Not really an objection, but some married people will claim that the state has nullified their marriage and they are now divorced. I doubt their claim will stand up, but am fairly certain someone will try.

A simpler version of this initiative is to repeal Prop 8 and reinstate gay marriage. Non-governmental institutions (i.e. churches) can then issue or deny "the sacrament of man-woman matrimony" to whoever they wish.

Silly Robo Call

I just received a robo call from Anthem Blue Cross, telling me that they are now providing free language assistance in compliance with a new California law. The robo caller was speaking english and gave me no opportunity to switch to another language.

So if I speak english, I now know that my health insurance company provides a service I don't need. And if I don't speak english, I don't know what the robo caller said.

Silly Robo Call!!!!

Big Love Too?

HBO's Big Love (not actual polygamists but play them on TV)

On March 6, the California Supreme court heard oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8, which took away the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Regardless of their decision, the right to gay marriage will eventually be guaranteed to all Americans, as suggested by our progress in extending to the few those civil rights which are enjoyed by the many.

One question that occurred to me is... if we legalize gay marriage, why not do the same with polygamy?

There are two differences between gay marriage and polygamy that persuade me to allow the former while denying the latter. First, people are born gay and culture can only suppress that fact, not change it. The trend in our society is to not deny civil rights based on who we are at birth (e.g. sex, ancestry, disability). One might argue that men are hardwired for polygamy in that they seek out multiple sexual partners, however, being born with a desire to have sex with multiple women is not the same as a desire to be in concurrent marriage with the same.

Second, there is no benefit to society in denying gay marriage; in fact, there are costs, such as complicating the legal and financial situation of committed couples. Simply put, it's bad for business. On the other hand, there is benefit in denying polygamy. In past cultures where a minority of men commanded all the wealth, women may have benefited from being one of many rather than the sole wife of a pauper, however, that is not the world of today. Society suffers if men are unable to find wives. Their chances improve if other men can only marry one woman at a time.

I write about this topic because it adds to the debunking of the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then the door to the marriage tent is open to anything, including fruit salad.

McCain's Tweets

Maureen Dowd's Stage of Fools piece in the NYT discusses the content of Senator John McCain's efforts on Twitter, focusing on his top ten lists of stimulus pork. As that ground has been plowed, I will confine my remarks to his tweet style.

First of all, I believe that Senator McCain is posting his own tweets because they don't appear everyday. If this task had been assigned to a staffer, I would expect to see more regular output. For example, he does not tweet on most weekends and he skips some weekdays, such as February 9. Also, when not pork listing, he maxes out at 3 or 4 tweets.

McCain uses tweets primarily for three things: a public day timer (e.g. "I am working in my office on Capitol Hill today."), a promo (e.g. "Watch my interview with Fox & Friends LIVE @ 8:15 am"), and to garner media attention by listing pork (e.g. "$95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio"). This last use subverts the whole concept of Twitter, which is micro blogging or the publishing of a tweet, a self-contained 140 character message (or less). By assembling a lengthy communication into successive tweets, he is exploiting Twitter's ability to stream messages into mobile devices in real time, but making the recipients read the message in a start/stop fashion. For example, on March 5, he started his list at 6:41am and ended it at 1:35pm. A list is more easily read from the archive once it is posted in entirety, which means that Senator McCain should be blogging, not Twittering.

Another style issue is prefacing, or sending a tweet to say you are about to send a tweet (e.g. "and the #1 project is..." ). To me, it's just getting around the 140 character limit.

The Twitter homepage states that a tweet is an answer to the question "What are you doing?", however, my experience with the Facebook status feature suggests that micro blogs are just as concerned with what people are thinking or feeling. We rarely get that from Senator McCain. On occasion, he might twitter something like "I appreciate Senator Byrd speaking in favor of my Constitutional point of order", but not very often.

Tweets (as I experience in Facebook) can also be funny. I am seeing no humor in Senator McCain's thumb jockeying. OK, Congress is serious business but he is using something called "Twitter." Throw us a bone every once in a while. Actually, the "Happy Birthday Joe Lieberman!!" tweet on Feb 24 was a little bit funny.

One cute thing McCain does is to start some tweets with ICYMI, which I have never seen before but assume means "in case you missed it". I find it cute because it's almost always unnecessary. In 159 updates, he has yet to utter a single LOL, ROFL, or WTF, which one might expect given his history of salty language.

In the final analysis, there is nothing really wrong with McCain's tweets. Hey, it's a free country. He is simply using a new technology, getting some media attention because of it, and possibly shedding a bit of his internet-illiterate image. But he has not embraced the spirit of micro blogging, which is more related to social interaction than public relations, at least this week.