Measuring the dependency of different variables

The traditional politician’s fallacy runs as:

1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, this must be done.

Amazing how many health-care discussions follow exactly this pattern:

1. The health care system in the US has problems and there are many ways in which it could be changed for the better.
2. Congress and Obama are proposing to change the health care system.
3. Therefore, we need to be ready to support whatever change will come out of Congress.

*

This is embedded into the question “Do you support health care reform?” which is, properly speaking, a trick question. It seems to be asking whether you agree with proposition 1, but it really asks for support of proposition 3.

Just a week ago, I decided I should try shopping at Wal-mart every once because of what it represents, but wasn’t really looking forward to going to a new super-market (I’m a creature of habits).

Turns out I can still shop at Whole Foods with a clear conscience (I had forgotten that the CEO of WF is a contributor to the reason foundation).

After two years, Bill Clinton was a failed President. In the end, he turned out to be “the best Republican President of the 20th century.”

When it comes to the environment, cost-benefit analysis is just a right-wing ploy to take government regulation out of the market place and, besides, who can meaningfully put a dollar value on clean water or a human life? It’s just immoral.

When it comes to health care, cost-benefit analysis is just a left-wing ploy to put government regulation into the market and, besides, who can meaningfully put a dollar value on good health or a human life? It’s just immoral.

When I started reading blogs, Sunday was the busiest day in terms of blog posts. Now, the blogs I respect the most generally do not post on Sundays.

A bookshop, with cardboard boxes of books. I look through one cardboard box, but it’s full of second rate novels.

As I’m about to leave, an older man looks at me and informs me that the bookshop is closing down and that those books will be put out for free later, but there are others (like him) already waiting to get first picks when the books are put out. I comment that Yes, books shouldn’t go to waste.

Bond Holder was walking down the street when he was approached by a strange fellow.

“Give me your wallet” the fellow said.

“No” said the Bond Holder.

“Alright, I’m going to be reasonable. Give me half.”

And still the Bond Holder refused.

He was being unreasonable. After all, the other stake holder in the conversation had already compromised and was willing to take only half of what he had asked for in the beginning (a mighty sacrifice, you must agree).

Besides, the Bond Holder might not really deserve the money. Maybe he cheats on his wife. Maybe he serves over cooked pasta to guests. Who knows what sins he committed in the past.

Your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people’s money.

Arnold Kling

Print Jury awards $1 to professor fired for 9/11-Nazi essay.

A professor was fired after calling the 9/11 victims little Eichmans. The university claims it was because of sloppy scholarship (he was a professor of ethnic studies—is there anything but sloppy scholarship in those fields?).

The jury found in his favour but only awarded him $1. Is this a form of jury nullification?

The canvas tag is supported by all major web-browsers, with the exception of Internet Explorer.

Bespin Presentation