California Dreaming

Came across a news item today from the old home state of California.  Sacramento is, as is well known, broke.  And looking for ways to raise some cash.  Folks on the Left Coast are nothing if not creative, and have conjured up what I think is a brilliant idea.

The legislature has passed a bill enjoining the DMV to considering issuing "Legacy Plates" to car enthusiasts.

About a year ago, I wrote this blog post about the evolution of California licence plate number schemes.  The state historically is home to some of the most iconic number plates (the gold on blue many Americans think of, the famous black plates, the old black on yellow scheme made famous by the THX-138 George Lucas cruiser in "American Graffiti") in America.

According to AB1658, signed into law by Governor Moonbeam in September of last year, the DMV is now collecting pre-orders for any of three classic styles:

Black on Yellow, 1956-62 

Yellow on Black, 1963-69

Gold on Blue, 1969-82

              








According to the law, if 7500 applications for any of the schemes are received, the DMV will begin issuing that scheme.

There are some issues with this plan; for example, the circa 1956 plate originally had the word "California" flush-left, and not in the middle, and the more classic Gold-Blue scheme was formatted as 123 ABC originally, moving to the now familiar 1ABC234 scheme around 1980, when the six character format was mathematically exhausted.  Still, at $50 a pop, this offers the enthusiast a chance to add a little additional style to his classic ride, and a chance for the state to get some additional revenue.

While not Jay Leno, I do appreciate automobilia, and am the proud owner of an antique MG T-series car.

My (then) Five Year Old Son and 60 Year Old MG

One of the things I miss about California, and is not available here in New Jersey, is the "Year of Manufacture" licensing laws.  In the Golden State, if you own a vehicle that was manufactured prior to 1962, and can obtain an original, "clear" (currently unregistered) plate, you may match that plate to your car.

My MG is a 1952, and thus it is eligible for the YOM programme.  The 1952 plate scheme is a bit tough to clear with the DMV, since its 1A23456 scheme is in use today with modern livery stock

Sample 1951 California Base Plate,
with 1952 Registration Tab

If I were still a resident of the Golden State, I would avail myself of one of these excellent programmes.

Panem et Circenses

iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli 

uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim

imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se

continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat:

panem et circenses

The words of the Roman poet Juvenal from 2000 years ago came to me as I read of the planned expulsion of wrestling from the coming Olympic games.

Ironic, of course, that an actual circus spurred my recollection.

The IOC has announced that, in principle, it is ready to retire wrestling, apparently having decided that the sport is less compelling than the Bizarro runner-up, modern pentathlon, which was considered for the ax, but ultimately survived.

I know virtually nothing about wrestling, and don't really pay much attention to the Olympics aside from the swimming (I was a swimmer back in school at a time in the past, although not as far back as Juvenal).

But this decision strikes me as yet another step in the general degradation of western "culture."  

Wrestling - an ancient sport that took place at the original Olympics in Greece - is just not, apparently, amenable to modern times.  It requires skill, patience, technical expertise, and demands of its viewers some level of understanding an sophistication. 

In short, it doesn't attract eyeballs on television.  Compared to things like beach volleyball.  

Sport is itself becoming cruder; more brutish.  A spectacle.  Just like, in my opinion, television, movies, and music.

As a case in point, consider the decline of baseball vs. the ascent of basketball, and in particular, the modern spectacle of an NBA event.  Now, a professional basketball player requires a very, very high level of skill and practice.  But over the past twenty years, significant elements of the game have changed, where it is now increasingly a contest of pure, brute force and speed.  

In my lifetime, the "slam dunk" was actually proscribed in the NBA and in college games.  Now, the slam dunk contest is perhaps the highlight of the NBA All Star weekend.  Being able to run and jump have always been central, but I think that their premium has *never* been at such a high-water mark as it is now.

These are raw abilities, not 'skills.'

The games themselves are equally less about the play - the arenas are surrounded by flashing, distracting lights.  The fans are "entertained" with an almost endless cacophony of noises - simulated "music," exhortations to chant.  Drum beats.  The players themselves now hawk clothing lines, fragrances, and quixotic music sidelines.

Baseball - a game of more measured skill - has tried to ape this phenomenon with "thunder sticks" and flashing scoreboards.  Its introduced its own sideshow - the home run contest - with limited success.  Its appeal continues to slide.

I'm sad, but not disappointed, to see wrestling dumped by the Olympics.

Resolutions for 2013

Have You Made YOUR Resolutions for 2013?

Are You Still Holding to Them

We've now rung in the new year; the sound of the bells is quickly fading into the past.  Funny how most people who resolve to do something different in the new year focus frequently on health (lose weight, hit the gym, make better life choices.)  I always notice at my company gym a spike in people the first weeks of the year; the numbers gradually fall off as if a computer-simulated validation of a Weibull survival model is being run.

Today, came across an interesting, related article from the Institutes of Medicine examining life expectancy in the US compared to benchmark countries in the OECD "high income" cohort.

The long and short of it is, compared to other wealthy nations, Americans OVER the age of 80 have very good health, if expected life years is used as a proxy measure.  Those under 70, not so much, and indeed, for Americans less than 50, life expectancy is the worst of the high income group.  The data are shown graphically below:

I've seen various indictments of our way of life, our health care system, and other choices, but I've never seen the data put quite this way.  The implications are striking.

Think of life expectancy.  In mathematical terms, survival is usually modelled using what are called exponential family models.  These are parametric mathematical functions most frequently involving two main parameters (usually mu - the mean describing the location and sigma - the standard deviation describing the shape), though often, the two are the same (various 'chi-square' functions, the 'poisson' distribution).  Amongst their properties, one is the so-called "memory-free" property, which is to say, the expected outcome (in the case of survival time) at time t=t1 is essentially the same as it was at time t=t0.  

Put simply, if you live to be age 65, your chances of survival to 66 are more or less the likelihood that you would have survived from age  64 to age 65.  Your expectation of dying oddly does not increase in the coming year.  This goes on, irrespective of whether one is 65 or 95.

It's an oversimplification, and not quite true in the real world, but it's instructive.

So, what we see in the US is, IF we can somehow survive middle age, we rise to the top of the distribution of "health."  But before that, watch out.

How can this be?  What is it that is leading to such poor mid and early-life outcomes?  There is not an apparent skew in the data above between men and women, so oft-cited conjectures (young male violence, acting out fantasies from "Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift") seem suspicious.

Here are some further data from the IOM:

One thing we see is that perinatal conditions and "injuries" (both unintentional - I presume including traffic accidents and getting shot) show high odds ratios for American men and women.  Unsurprisingly, CVD pops up for both.  

The bottom line is both American men and women see years of life reduced by nearly a year BEFORE AGE 50 compared to our peers in similar, wealthy nations.

In 2013, try to live a healthier life.  Keep to the gym (though, don't race there in your car and try not to drop a weight on your head).  And for heaven's sake, do NOT emulate "Jackass" or "Honey Boo Boo."

"Up in the Air," Professional Baseball Edition

Don't Know if George Clooney is
"Attached to the Project" as Yet

ESPN is reporting that journeyman pitcher Edwin Jackson has signed to pitch for the Chicago Cubs in 2012, after agreeing to a four year, $52 million deal. The move means that Jackson will be pitching for his eighth team in 10 years (and ninth, if you count his fifteen minutes on the Toronto roster).

That's a lot of airline miles.  Rick Nelson was less of a travelling man.

A couple of thoughts.

• This generation may have found its own Mike Morgan, who played for a baker's dozen in his 20 year career, one of them being the Cubs
• Will Jackson, with his four year deal, know what to do if he's not packing up and moving in November?
• Edwin will be wearing a new uniform this spring for the fifth straight year.  THAT is impressive.  It's not as impressive as Dave Kingman playing for four teams in one season, or Joel Youngblood, playing  for two teams on the same day, but not bad.
• I'm in the wrong racket.  In a single season, Jackson will make $13 million.  "Mediocre" is one of many words to describe his performance to get that payday. Lifetime, the guy is 70-71, with a 4.40 ERA.  Last year, pitching for a playoff team (Washington), he went 10-11.  C'est la vie.
• I feel better that the Blue Jays shelled out $25 million for R.A. Dickey, a mere $12.5 per season.  Dickey won the Cy Young last year...

Say Wha? Nero Continues to Fiddle in Sacramento

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer Calls the Tunes

Just checking in to see the latest foolishness on the soi-disant "fiscal cliff" (TM) at Yahoo Finance, and I came across this little tid-bit.

Bill Lockyer, the current treasurer for the economically sinking state of California has "warned" various i-banks (Credit Suisse, Black Rock) that he would use his power to push the state's two largest public pension funds to "get out of guns," whatever that means.

Now, aside from the irony of a thoroughly bankrupt state employing a political goon like Lockyer to be the "treasurer" of a vault full of IOUs, I marvel at the apparent lack of awareness of a man whose job ostensibly overseeing CALPERS is to provide for the old age pensions of public employees, not to moralize about investment in legal corporations selling legal products.

If I were a school teacher, housing inspector, or clock puncher at Cal Trans, I would be less than thrilled that this guy is not thinking of my best interest when making investment choices.  I might even think of filing an action of fiduciary conflict.

The New Math (Reloaded)

"It's the new math.  New-ew-ew math.

 It won't do you a bit of good to re-view math.

 It's so simple; so very simple.

 That only a child can do it."

                      -- Tom Lehrer

Ah; the Christmas season.  The tree is trimmed.  The presents are mostly wrapped.  Wassailing is mostly done.  The new year is around the corner.  And the fiscal cliff approaches.

Well; that's not -all- true.  Who goes wassailing anymore?  And what is it, anyways?

But oh, the fiscal cliff; truly, the most wonderful time of the year.

I read today on the financial blogs that the House speaker John Boehner has not presented a "Plan B" to the president, including tax rises on families making $1 million and more.  Taxes on "the rich" will go up, apparently.  Hell, the plan was one floated by Nancy Pelosi last year.

So of course, we've got a deal, right?  The president immediately accepted, and the two then really did dash out to go wassailing.

Well, not quite.

The recalcitrant president has indicated that he would veto such a plan, despite talking ad nauseum for the past 18 months about the need to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires."  

Now that such a tax is in front of him, he flatly turns it down?

Because, apparently, there are not enough (or any?) 'cuts' in Boehner's plan.

You read that right.  A DEMOCRATIC president refuses a REPUBLICAN proposal to raise taxes on millionaires because it doesn't have enough CUTS to spending.

We're really through the looking glass, aren't we?

But as nutty as all of that is, the best part is that White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer opined that the two sides were "only a few hundred billion apart," with hope a deal could be reached.

So, in Washington DC, where a millionaire is not a millionaire, now a few hundred billion dollars is now a trivial difference.

We're doomed.

Madness, by Any Other Name

Gun Control: When Is Enough Enough?

A weekend has now passed between us and the horrific shooting in Newtown, CT.  The images of crying, shaken young children will not soon be forgotten.  And the thought of little five and six year old, lifeless children with unopened Christmas presents and named stockings forever awaiting a return that will not come, spending the weekend pending crime scene investigations to be completed is too terrible a thought to consider.

Predictably, the discussion has turned to what to do about this.

I would self-identify as a pretty far-to-the-right conservative.  Not a libertarian, per se, but in that general ZIP code.  And I have to say, listening to my political fellow-travellers talking about this, and in particular, the possibility that we may finally, FINALLY get some sort of sane gun control policy is a journey into madness.

For a start, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee opened the bidding with the comment that this is all due to the fact that Americans have "systematically removed God from our schools."

Really?

And National Review have multiple articles arguing that gun control is not a part of the solution.  Indeed, that having gun-free zones actually contributes to the problem.  You see, their logic goes, it would all have been OK if the principal, or the teachers, or maybe a parent dropping of her kids at the kindergarten had been carrying a gun.

It's madness.

For a start, the idea that putting in place limits to the type and/or number of firearms is equivalent to wanting to "ban guns" is not just madness; it's stupidity.  Someone suggested to me that there is "no difference" between ownership of a single-shot hunting rifle, a revolver, a Bushmaster, or a trebuchet (??!!??).

Really?

I can see a BIG difference.  A numerical difference.  As in, the number of bodies that will result.

Also, what sort of "hunting" does one propose to do with a military-grade weapon?

At a more reasonable argument from NRO, the suggestion is made that we as Americans have an inalienable right to armaments, and that the Constitution (and amendments) are there not to spell out what our rights are, but what the limitations on our government are.  And the Second Amendment clearly states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.  Thus, their argument goes, God himself has granted people the right to arm themselves with whatever weapon they choose.

Madness.

The Second Amendment states that we have a God given right (or, natural right, if you prefer) to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves and our liberties.  That is a FAR cry from arguing that God in His wisdom has decided that we all may arm ourselves to whatever level we want, with absolutely no restriction.

How many of such "conservatives" would argue we have the right to bazookas, or artillery pieces, or perhaps a nuclear-tipped warhead?

And while we are at it, if God has given us the right to pack whatever weaponry we wish, then how does the government have the power to remove such a "right" from mentally ill people?  Or criminals?

I've actually heard some people claim that we "need" these weapons in case our government gets too tyrannical, so that we may rise up against it.

Madness.

Who in his right mind thinks that a disorganised band of delusional buffoons are going to be able to over-throw the government, with its tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery pieces?  "Red Dawn" was a movie, folks.  And a not-well-made one.

The point is, sensible people understand that we need to balance the "rights" (and more accurately, the desires) of one individual against the rights of others.

The Republicans are just dead wrong on this.  Yes, we need to take steps to reduce the toxicity of the sewage culture - with its phony machismo, out-sized sense of "respect" that is frankly narcissistic, and plain glorification of violence.  Yes, we need parents to be parents.  We need to make sure that mentally ill people have the resources and equally, avail themselves of those resources.

But I'm sorry.  Pretending that bromides about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people," or clinging to fantasies that these yahoos are somehow keeping an otherwise tyrannical government in check is killing people.

The Democrats are right on this one.

We NEED to look at serious gun control.

Now.

And the Band Plays On

Last night, I got cross at my seven year old son.  It's not an infrequent occurrence, usually a pretty minor crime like ignoring (repeated) requests to put away a toy, or focus on his math homework.  Last night, it was an all-too-typical infraction: during dinner, he just would not sit in his chair properly, and thus spilled some of his cake on the table.  I angrily asked him, "what is wrong with you?  Why can't you sit in a chair properly, like the rest of the human race."

Hmmmm....

Today, I am confronted with a terrible story; truly, an awful, horrible and tragic event.  Not all of the details are yet known, but as of right now, it appears that a 20 year old man has gone into an elementary school in Newtown, CT, and killed 27 people.  18 of them are children, ages between 5 and 10.  No "reason" is given, though comments are that the 'gunman' had some connection to the school, and it is presumed was upset about something there.

Daily, our news contains typically awful stories of mayhem and violence.  A few days ago, another 'gunman' went into a shopping mall in suburban Oregon and opened fire.  Gun (and other) violence are all too familiar.

I seldom feel affected by the news - usually, I read the story, chalk it up to the crude, brutish nature of the human race, and move on.

But there is something about this story that I find affects me unlike other stories have.

I don't say (or write) this very often, but the emerging narrative from Newtown, CT has actually, literally, left me feeling stunned and shaken.  There is an overwhelming, and awful, feeling of anger and sadness that I'm struggling to control.

I really don't know exactly what to say, or think.  Is it because I have a small child of about the same age?  The time of year (Christmas holidays)?  Maybe the oncoming cold that has left me a bit off to begin with, or the Tylenol Multi-Symptom cold remedy?

It's all too easy to try to just get mad and talk about how the killer is crazy, or that guns are too easy to get, or that our national culture is a sewer of nihilism and violence.

All of these are true, no doubt.

But still.  27 people have been murdered.  18 of them are less than 10 years of age.  Why?

My son probably will tonight, again, fail to sit properly in his chair at the table.  But he also will be able to sleep in his own warm, safe bed.

Thoughts on Election Day, 2012

The day has finally arrived.  A day of reckoning for a president who has, at best, a mixed record.  A day of reckoning for a candidate who, at best, has provided a mixed argument for why he could do better.

One is going to prevail; I suspect it is going to be President Obama, though stranger things have happened.  As a mathematician, I tend to be swayed by data and numbers, and find Nate Silver's 538 Blog to be pretty convincing.

Four years ago, I voted for Barack Obama.  Mainly because I did not like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because he seemed to be a different sort of candidate.  One who said the right things - offering optimism that things would be better if he were elected, not fear that things would be worse if he weren't.

My very first "blog" post here was a reaction to the the election; I read through it today.  In summary, my thoughts came down to this:

I agree with Barack Obama that there should not be a Blue or a Red America. To that end, I also reject that there are ethnic "winners" (and therefore, by necessity, ethnic "losers"). It's up to him, and not talking heads with little to recommend them beyond good hair (e.g., Anderson Cooper) to decide that America, and not splinter groups, have won. 

And I guess that is part of the change I am hoping for.

In part, because Mr Obama has failed to deliver on this change, I have voted for his opponent this year.  However, it is not my goal or desire to tell people at this point how to vote.  By now, most have heard the arguments, and have made up their minds.

I only would make the following suggestion.

Whether your candidate wins or whether he loses, we simply have to remember that our political opponents are not our enemies.  In the end, we are all in this together.

I disagree with the Democrats, largely.  But I do not believe that they are evil.  They are just wrong.

They don't want to wreck the country.  Their vision to making it better is just different from mine.

This has been a very nasty campaign in which both candidates and, more to the point, their proxies have said and written terrible accusations about the other.  I guess that's the nature of winner-take-all-politics.

I reject the idea that Barack Obama is a secret communist who wants to destroy our capitalist system, subjugate us to sinister, supra-national powers, or hates success, however you want to define it.

I reject the idea that Mitt Romney is a heartless villain who wants to starve poor people, toss the elderly and weak into a lake, or hates women.

Your political opponents are largely your neighbours, your colleagues, and dare I say it, your friends.  And thus, when we wake up tomorrow and your "team" won or your "team" lost, let's try to remember that fact.

Reflections on Sandy

Let's Give Three Cheers....

Today, for the first time in nearly a week, the sun is shining here in central New Jersey.

"Sandy" is gone; the buzz of saws cutting felled trees surrounds.  Everywhere, water is receding, things are drying, and we're slowly returning to normal.

Our family was blessed - aside from a couple of decorative trees in our yard that succumbed, and the nuisance of power loss for a day or so - we came through relatively unscathed.  No one hurt.  No property destroyed.  Not a drop of water in the basement to be seen.

Others were not so fortunate.

It's of course an election year, so our country has spent the better part of a year arguing about one per cent, 47 per cent, big government, responsibility.  

Personally, I've been a big critic of the Democratic party model - high taxes; support of entrenched public unions; big government.  I remain firm that the model offered by the president and his party is the wrong one, fundamentally.

But I'm not, and never have been, in the camp that says that the "private sector" does everything better than the public one.  I like to consider myself a pragmatist, sceptical about the centralisation of power, but open to arguments and empirical evidence.

The hurricane that has destroyed large parts of my state I think illustrates pretty well that there is a legitimate role for our federal government, and that there are just some things that are too big, too complex, to be left to the states or the private sector.

Sometimes, "big government" may be the right answer.

I also think it's worth taking a second to acknowledge and say "thank you" for public and private sector workers who set aside their own interests and families to take care of the rest of us.  

All Monday evening, as the storm hammered our town, I could see out my window flashing red and blue lights - police officers and firemen (in our town, a volunteer fire department made of residents from various walks of life).  

These people all have families.  They all have homes.  They were out in harm's way, not at home with their loved ones to steady the home front; out there to help keep us safe.  Police, especially, take a lot of criticism, and seldom get the thanks they deserve for a difficult, necessary job.  When you're in real trouble, and you ring 9-11, you don't get Kim Kardashian or Kanye West or any other intellectual flat-liner to come.  

You get a man in a blue uniform whose function in life is to serve and protect - not to amuse.

Police are government workers.

Tuesday morning, crews were out working in the continuing wind and rain to restore power and other infrastructure.  They were in the elements, not at home fixing their own homes or pumping water out of their own basements.  They were not with their families to calm frightened children.

These folks work for the "evil" power companies who make our modern lives and comforts possible.

Today is the first of November, and my property taxes are due.  These are assuredly *not* low, and I would love to have more of our money remain in our bank and not in government coffers.  But we pay taxes for a reason. 

We will rebuild.  We will recover.  

This is because we look out for each other, sure.  We all stand together.  But it's also due to the dedication of people we largely don't think about most days, or worse, complain about on others.

Thanks, guys.  We'll leave the light on tonight for you.