Category: General

I am officially a student at the University of Minnesota. The process of taking classes is dizzying compared to what you had to do at Macalester. In a small liberal arts school, your options were pretty limited. At the U, its crazy. Each department lists their own requirements in their own way. There are different colleges within the University, and different departments within the colleges. As of yet I have no clue how my past credits will transfer, but I find it funny that I could get a degree (with 3 majors nonetheless) from a semi-elite liberal arts college, yet possibly not fulfill all the liberal arts requirements at a big land grant university.

I’ve signed up for one course, but I think I screwed up already (which doesn’t bode well for me I guess) and signed up for the wrong course. I’m prepared to take 2 courses this semester, but no more. Given that I should have most of the math and liberal arts stuff done already, that shouldn’t be too big of a deal. Honestly, I never liked taking four classes in a semester because I could only really focus on about 2 classes seriously (plus being on the debate team).

There are a LOT of departments at the U. A fair chunk of them are bogus. There are no subject that I think are off limits in terms of academic research, but there are a lot of subjects that I think we produce too many graduates in. Speech is a good example. I know, by virtue of having been in debate, quite a few people who have Ph.Ds in speech communications. Speech is good. Everyone should take a class or two in argumentation and persuasion. However, once you get beyond some of the basics, I’m totally at a loss for its relevance or need. This is a sore point because I know I’m basically saying that the chosen career of some of the people I know is bogus. If you look at a course catalog, I think that 10% of the speech courses are really, really valuable, and 90% are totally bullshit.

Do we need to produce speech Ph.Ds? Yes. How many need to get churned out in a given year nationwide? I’d guess less than what is produced now, but I conceded I could be wrong about the demand. Its not just true in speech communications. There is a glut of Ph.Ds out there in the humanities and social sciences. The reason why you see a glut of Ph.Ds in the humanities and a shortage in the hard sciences is pretty obvious, yet something which isn’t mentioned often: math and science is harder than the humanities. Period.

I think I can speak to this because I have taken ample classes in both. Look at the foreign students at any given American university. They are overwhelmingly in hard science departments. Why? Science = real jobs. Since my last post, no fewer than three people have told me they are considering going back to school to get a further technical degree. Why? More money.

At Macalester, I didn’t take biology or chemistry, but I remember hearing horror stories from my friends who took organic chemistry. It was the class that separated the poseurs from the studs. If you came out of it with a C, you’d feel happy because you at least got out of it alive. There was no such class in Political Science. In fact, Political Science was what you did if you washed out in biology/chem. No one washed out in Political Science.

I took Pol Sci classes to boost my GPA. Period. I attended some Pol Sci classes drunk. Hell, I got drunk in the middle of some. (Sean, if your reading this, you can vouch for me)

There was no way in hell I could do that in math classes (or economics for that matter). Traveling with the debate team was no problem taking Pol Sci classes, but it did hurt my grades in Math classes. My lowest grades in college were in Math, mostly because I’d miss half the classes in some parts of the year, and you just can’t do that and expect to ace upper level math courses. (If I could go back and do it over again, I’d either not debate, or debate all out and actually cut some cards and not take math classes)

My advise to anyone going to college is whatever you do, come out with something technical (that would include foreign languages) in addition to anything else you do.

During my undergrad years, my goal was to get my PhD in economics. (and win the Nobel Prize) Somewhere along the way I decided not to. I think it was a combination of factors that pulled me away from the grad school path.

1)My politics (or lack thereof) didn’t really fit into a career path that would have allowed for academic advancement.
2)I have little tolerance for political bullshit you have to put up with in grad programs, and for jumping through hoops they require.
3)I realized that my love of economics didn’t require further study nor devoting myself to a career in it.
4)I’d probably have been forced down some route where I’d have to focus on some obscure minor area of research, and that just doesn’t interest me.
5)I really prefer being a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. The marginal utility I get from the time spent learning something brand new is greater than what I’d get out of yet another econ class.

My Aeron chair broke again. The seat cracked in the same spot. I know its the symbol of 90’s over indulgence and speculation, but I love the chair and now I have to sit on a folding chair until I can get it fixed and my ass hurts.

After many aborted posts, this time I’m going to actually put something up on the website.

Hall of Fame Voting
================

I can’t argue too much with Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley being in the hall, but the BBWAA seems to be pretty stingy the last few decades with their voting. There are at least five other guys that are currently on the ballot that I think deserve to be in the hall: Ryan Sandberg, Bruce Sutter, Rich Gossage, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson. Lee Smith just doesn’t do it for me, and I know he’s the all time save leader, but I don’t see that record lasting too long. He was never great, he just spent a long time being good….and if that was the criteria for being in the Hall of Fame, Rusty Staub’s autograph would be worth a lot more.

I really like the Baseball Hall of Fame. I’ve been there twice. Cooperstown is a great town. The museum itself is great. I love the controversy surrounding the HoF elections. While there are some players in the hall that shouldn’t be there, the baseball hall of fame is much more prestigous than the hall for any other sport.

I enjoy following baseball more than I enjoy watching baseball. If they didn’t have stats, I could probably care less about it.

Apple
======

I want to like Apple. I watch every speech Steve Jobs gives online. I respect the company and root for them, but I don’t think I can bring myself to get a Mac. There are two reasons: 1) cost, 2) the UI isn’t as good as windows. I know its a cliche to say how great the Mac UI is, but honestly, while it had its start as the superior GUI, it never really improved. With Windows, I can look at my desktop and see what applications are running. I can’t with a Mac. You can shut a window, but the app can still be running. You need a drop down menu to see what is running. Also, the menu bar is common to every window, which really annoys me. I want each window to have its own menu bar. All the Linux GUI’s I’ve seen act more like Windows than the Mac OS, and I think there is a reason for it. For all I know, there might be a setting that lets you do that in OSX, but I dont’ know about it.

….that and the mouse with one button. While I know you can get a multi-button mouse for the Mac, if they solved the menu issue, I’d be very tempted to get a Mac. Very.

I don’t think I’m alone in this. Its the one GUI issue that really sets the Mac apart, and maybe that is why they keep it, but I think it hurts them in sales. If they put an option in the OS to make it a little more Windows-esque while keeping the general Mac-ness of it all, I think a lot of barries might fall.

But that’s just me.

Back to School
===============

I’ve applied to the University of Minnesota. I’m not applying for Graduate School, but to get another undergrad degree. Most probably in Physics.

Why?

Why not. Getting a physics degree was something I always wanted to do and honestly, getting a second undergrad degree is really easy once you got your first one because you dont’ need to do all the dumb requirments for graduation. I wont be attending school full time, but it should keep me busy.

I’m actually looking forward to taking a class again. There is a certain freedom in knowing your just doing it because you want to. It’s not neecessary for my career, I don’t need to do it to get a diploma. I can just do it for the sake of learning….which probably means I’ll get really good grades.

Extemp
=======

Extemp is starting and I think as a whole we are going to do much much better this year. We have more people, a good head start, and talent. If any AV extempers are reading this, go to another website and print articles for the file. Move.

Diet
======

I’ve stalled on the diet. I’m still on it and I haven’t gained anything, but the weight loss hasn’t been smooth. I’ve hit a point where my weight doesn’t move, then one day it will go down by a few pounds. I’m not too worried because I knew this would happen, but I’d still like to see it move some more.

Philip Glass
=============

I got the new soundtrack he did for The Fog of War. I’m listening to it now (after having immediately ripped it after I opened the package). Its not his best stuff, but its not bad either.

I’ve also been starting to listen to a lot of Arvo Part. More on him some other time.

I’ve been on a low carb diet now for about six weeks. I’ve lost 20 pounds.

Six weeks since I’ve last had any caffeine. Six weeks with no rice, bread, potatoes, sugar, not even a regular diet coke.

To be honest, its been pretty easy. The first few days were difficult but after that, I really have felt much better than I have in a long time. I’d say I feel calmer, but I don’t know if that is the most accurate way of putting it. Its not an emotional calmness, but the lack of blood sugar going up and down all day. Its something that I didn’t realize was there till it left.

One question I’ve gotten a lot is “what do you eat?”. Obviously, there is more meat on the menu, but its not all meat. I’ve been eating about one salad a day, with tomatoes and cucumbers. I’ve been eating stuff like pickles, sardines, and have recently added some nuts like walnuts and macademia nuts (not peanuts which are not really a nut). Asparagus, brussel sprouts and broccholi are also something I’ll have every so often. Most of the meat I have been eating is venison and fish.

In the process of doing this, I realized that I’m eating a lot of foods that people might have eaten a long time ago. Obesity in the US has been increasing for the last 100 years, yet fat consumption has been going down. Most of the processed foods we eat (chips, cookies, fries, soda) are loaded with sugars (carbs). Think what you would eat if you lived pre-20th Century. Meat, veggies, eggs, pickles, etc. Non processed stuff. Even bread would have been whole wheat, not processed white flour. Cane sugar was very uncommon. The trend in the 20th century hasn’t been eating more fat, its eating more processed foods loaded with sugar and carbs. I think you could get the majority of the benefits of this diet by just avoiding processed foods. Even when I reach the point I want to be at, I don’t see myself going be to eating junk food. I like how I feel now. I sleep better and I’ve had very little temptation to stray from it.

I can tell the weight loss more than others can at this point. Your body doesn’t lose weight evenly. You loses it in spots. i’ve been making an effort to do more cardio at the gym. I’ve set mini goals that I am slowly approaching. I can go 15 minutes on the bike at over 120rpm. One thing I’d like to do as a long term goal is to complete the Twin Cities marathon next year. I have no idea if its something that I could even do, but if I can do it, I will have had to achieve all my other goals.

In the post below, Nate comments on the elimination of the electoral college. Its one of those ideas which has been around for quite a while, but never really gets any attention till you have an election like the one we had in 2000. Unfortunately, it is almost a mathematical impossiblility to change the system. Here is some data to show why:

State	Electors	% of EC	Population	% of Pop	Diff	Var
California	55	10.22%	33,930,798	12.03%	-1.81%	1.81%
Texas	34	6.32%	20,903,994	7.41%	-1.09%	1.09%
New York	31	5.76%	19,004,973	6.74%	-0.98%	0.98%
Florida	27	5.02%	16,028,890	5.68%	-0.66%	0.66%
Illinois	21	3.90%	12,439,042	4.41%	-0.51%	0.51%
Pennsylvania	21	3.90%	12,300,670	4.36%	-0.46%	0.46%
Michigan	17	3.16%	9,955,829	3.53%	-0.37%	0.37%
Ohio	20	3.72%	11,374,540	4.03%	-0.31%	0.31%
New Jersey	15	2.79%	8,424,354	2.99%	-0.20%	0.20%
Indiana	11	2.04%	6,090,782	2.16%	-0.12%	0.12%
Georgia	15	2.79%	8,206,975	2.91%	-0.12%	0.12%
Virginia	13	2.42%	7,100,702	2.52%	-0.10%	0.10%
North Carolina	15	2.79%	8,067,673	2.86%	-0.07%	0.07%
Washington	11	2.04%	5,908,684	2.10%	-0.06%	0.06%
Wisconsin	10	1.86%	5,371,210	1.90%	-0.04%	0.04%
Maryland	10	1.86%	5,307,886	1.88%	-0.02%	0.02%
Massachusetts	12	2.23%	6,355,568	2.25%	-0.02%	0.02%
Tennessee	11	2.04%	5,700,037	2.02%	0.02%	0.02%
Arizona	10	1.86%	5,140,683	1.82%	0.04%	0.04%
Kentucky	8	1.49%	4,049,431	1.44%	0.05%	0.05%
Missouri	11	2.04%	5,606,260	1.99%	0.05%	0.05%
South Carolina	8	1.49%	4,025,061	1.43%	0.06%	0.06%
Oklahoma	7	1.30%	3,458,819	1.23%	0.07%	0.07%
Oregon	7	1.30%	3,428,543	1.22%	0.08%	0.08%
Louisiana	9	1.67%	4,480,271	1.59%	0.08%	0.08%
Alabama	9	1.67%	4,461,130	1.58%	0.09%	0.09%
Connecticut	7	1.30%	3,409,535	1.21%	0.09%	0.09%
Minnesota	10	1.86%	4,925,670	1.75%	0.11%	0.11%
Mississippi	6	1.12%	2,852,927	1.01%	0.11%	0.11%
Colorado	9	1.67%	4,311,882	1.53%	0.14%	0.14%
Utah	5	0.93%	2,236,714	0.79%	0.14%	0.14%
Kansas	6	1.12%	2,693,824	0.96%	0.16%	0.16%
Arkansas	6	1.12%	2,679,733	0.95%	0.17%	0.17%
Nevada	5	0.93%	2,002,032	0.71%	0.22%	0.22%
Montana	3	0.56%	905,316	0.32%	0.24%	0.24%
Iowa	7	1.30%	2,931,923	1.04%	0.26%	0.26%
Delaware	3	0.56%	785,068	0.28%	0.28%	0.28%
Idaho	4	0.74%	1,297,274	0.46%	0.28%	0.28%
New Mexico	5	0.93%	1,823,821	0.65%	0.28%	0.28%
Maine	4	0.74%	1,277,731	0.45%	0.29%	0.29%
South Dakota	3	0.56%	756,874	0.27%	0.29%	0.29%
West Virginia	5	0.93%	1,813,077	0.64%	0.29%	0.29%
New Hampshire	4	0.74%	1,238,415	0.44%	0.30%	0.30%
Hawaii	4	0.74%	1,216,642	0.43%	0.31%	0.31%
Nebraska	5	0.93%	1,715,369	0.61%	0.32%	0.32%
North Dakota	3	0.56%	643,756	0.23%	0.33%	0.33%
Vermont	3	0.56%	609,890	0.22%	0.34%	0.34%
Alaska	3	0.56%	628,933	0.22%	0.34%	0.34%
District of Columbia	3	0.56%	574,096	0.20%	0.36%	0.36%
Rhode Island	4	0.74%	1,049,662	0.37%	0.37%	0.37%
Wyoming	3	0.56%	495,304	0.18%	0.38%	0.38%
Totals	538	100.00%	281,998,273	100.00%	0.00%	13.88%
						0.27%

The table shows the difference between a states percentage of the national population (based on the 2000 Census) and their percentage of the Electoral College (based on the 2004 election). As you can see, California gets screwed the most with a 1.81% discrepency between their population and their electoral vote.

Also, there are only 17 states which suffer any sort of disadvantage and only 5 states which suffer any sort of big disadvantage (greater than 0.5%). The important number is that 34 states (we are counting DC as a state for this purpose) have some sort of electoral advantage. It requires 3/4 of the states (not including DC) to pass a constitutional amendment. To get to the magic 38 states required, you’d need the 17 states with a disadvantage to band together, and then get 21 states to vote against their self interest to benefit the 17. That is something I just don’t ever see happening.

Also, it should be noted that in the US, there are technically no nation wide elections for anything. The 2000 election shows why that is probably a good idea. Because we use an electoral system, all the focus was on Florida, because other close states (Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin) didn’t matter. The estimated number of flawed ballots in the US in the 200 election was estimated to be as high as 2m…….4x the margin of victory Gore got in the popular vote. The process of recounting votes in a nation this big could take longer than the transition period. It almost took that long in one state alone.

The problem is, in any close election, you can expect the margin of error in bad ballots, errors, miscounting, etc to be greater than the margin of victory. This usually isn’t an issue in most elections because in any one place, the odds of it happening are low so it doesn’t effect the outcome.

In the last column, I took the variance for each state (just the absolute value of the difference) and averaged it. The average variance for each state is only 0.27%. Given the low variance, you’d think that a mismatch between electoral results and popular results would be less common than it is. If you include the 1960 election (see below) its happened four times in history now. (2000, 1960, 1876, 1824) That’s 7% of all presidential races.

Also, few countries have direct election for the Head of Government (as opposed to a Presidential Head of State). All parlimentary systems use indirect voting to elect a Prime Minister. The largest countries I can think of that have a President with power are Russia and South Korea, and I don’t know exactly how their elections work. In the case of South Korea, the population is small enough that it would be like the California governor election.

All this aside, 7% of the elections is still too much. There are three solutions outside of a constitutional amendment that will reduce the odds of a 2000-type outcomes. 1) Split up the big states. California and Texas and probably Florida, should each become 2-3 seperate states. 2) Do proportional representation like they do in Nebraska and Maine. 3) Increase the size of the House of Representatives. The house is the same size as it was in the 19th Century for a much greater population.

***************************

Postscript: I realized something after I posted it. The fact that the 2000 and 1960 elections had skewed results might not be a coincidence. Before I put the table up I used electoral college data from 2000, not 2004. In that, California had an even bigger disadvantage, as did other growing states. In fact, every 20 years, the census is the same year as a presidential election. However, the results of the census won’t apply to new house seats till after the election.

In both 1960 and 2000, Nixon and Gore won California. While California wasn’t the largest state in 1960, it gained 8 electors between 1960 and 1964, and the basis of the 1964 electors was the population in 1960. Likewise the largest state, New York, which Kennedy carried lost 2 electors. These two states wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but there is a discrepency between when the head count is taken and when the electors are picked. I haven’t checked the numbers, but I’d guess that you’d find the least amount of variance between the popular vote and the electoral college in elections that took place in a year ending in ‘2’, and the most in elections ending in a ‘0’………..assuming the census effect is real.

John Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to Nixon’s 219. The popular vote was much closer. Kenney got 34,227,096 and Nixon got 34,107,646; a difference of 119,450.

Or so we were led to believe…..

There is a very pursuasive argumen I’ve heard as to why Nixon actually won the popular vote in 1960, and it has nothing to do with fraud in Texas or Chicago.

The problem is Nixon and Kennedy weren’t the only ones who got electoral votes. Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia got 15 electoral votes. He won Mississippi straight out and got their 8 electoral votes. One elector from Oklahoma broke rank and voted for him…..and he got 6 of the 11 electoral votes from Alabama. How did he get 6 of 11? (the other 5 went to Kennedy)

Alabama’s system had individual electors in the primary, of which Harry Byrd won 6 of the 11 slots for the Democrats. Nixon had no opposition. The vote in Alabama in 1960 broke down as follows:

Republican 237,981
Democrat 324,050
Other 8,194

Kenney is given credit for all 324,050 votes in his popular vote total, yet he only got 5/11 of the electoral vote from Alabama….not even a majority. If you credit him with only the percentage of the popular vote that corresponds to the electoral vote he would only be credited with 147,295. That’s a difference of 176,755 which should be taken off his national popular vote total. (and if you dont’ take it off, it means the majority of the electoral votes in Alabama went to someone with zero votes)

If you do that, then the margin of victory in the popular vote for Kennedy turns into a 57,305 vote margin of victory for Nixon. That wouldn’t have done a bit of good for Nixon because he still lost the election by a wide margin in the electoral college, but its neat nonetheless.