This is unreal!
Hat tip: Freakonomics blog.
This is unreal!
For the second time in three one-days India looked completely out of place in this format of the game. Just as things seem rosy in test format, there is a great downturn in the shorter version. Why Dravid chose to bowl today will remain a mystery, but that is only a tactical blunder. The real cause for concern lies in the field.
The mood in America with regard to Iraq war is largely concerned with the best way to get out. There is still a respectable view point that the Americans should stay for some more time, but the only mainstream difference of opinion is how long more to stay.
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Finally India have won a "meaningful" series abroad. Our win in Pakistan was in the subcontinent, and the victory in the West Indies was against a weak team. As far as away series go, nothing is more authentic than the English, even if against a comparatively weaker team. Satisfaction all round.
At this point in Iraq war things are so bad that everywhere you turn you find something to embarrass the Bush administration. This is Cheney talking in 1994 defending Bush Sr's decision not to invade Iraq after liberating Kuwait. One must say that all the points he raised then held true also in 2003, though of course they would say that the risk was worth taking this time. Still, it is fun watching him say this stuff.
It is widely held that men are more promiscuous than women and no doubt there is some truth to it. The problem comes when one tries to quantify it. Several studies claim to have concluded that, on average, men have more sexual partners than women. The thing is, assuming an almost equal number of males and females in a population, that conclusion is impossible. This amusing article in NYT provides a proof.
“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.
Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”
I quite enjoyed reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Though I had mixed feelings about it as a book by itself, I think it raises several clever points. That tradition is continued by the two authors on their blog. I frequent it often and most of the time it is worth my while. After more than two years of independent existence, that blog now lives in the exalted locales of the New York Times. I suppose they will attract more audience now and pocket a bigger sum.
...is blogging. He chose the yearly convention of liberal bloggers to jump on the bandwagon.
If it is American to believe that God ordered Tribe X to abjure pork, or that he caused Leader Y to be born to a virgin, why is it suddenly un-American to doubt that the prime mover of this unimaginably vast universe of quintillions of solar systems would be likely to be obsessed with questions involving the dietary and biosexual behavior of a few thousand bipeds inhabiting a small part of a speck of dust orbiting a third-rate star in an obscure spiral arm of one of millions of more or less identical galaxies?
It does seem, at least to the untrained, that the Democrats should win the White House in 2008. Things appear to be working against all the Republican candidates and they are well behind the leading Democrats in fundraising. Probably as a result, people are talking a lot about Fred Thompson as a potential candidate. Eric Alterman thinks that he is the only one in the current contenders likely to win a general election.
On the Republican side the news this week was all about Fred Thompson. He's the black box of the Republican side, and perhaps the entire election. As the only candidate who is acceptable to conservatives, acceptable to moderates, admired by the media and potentially saleable to independents - he knows how to act - he is also the only candidate on the Republican side who can win.
Think about it. Those of us who knew Rudy Giuliani as our mayor feel pretty strongly that he's just too nutty to be president. On the one hand we welcome the idea of a race, given how much fun it'll be when the rest of the country focuses on say, the six combined marriages, the terrible dad syndrome, the small but unmistakable tendency toward fascism; on the other hand, we're a superpower and it's kind of scary.