Month: September 2010

What people are buying online.

(Hat tip: Derek)

Joshua Wolf Shenk applauds creative pairs. One reason we focus on lone genius:

The custom of hidden partners is often industry standard: Tenure committees insist on judging individual work, even though collaborations are core to academic culture. CEOs have become like synecdoches for their companies, though their effectiveness depends on partners and teams. (Could Steve Jobs have reinvented Apple without his design guru Jonathan Ive?)

Bike Snob counters Salmon:

Excluding for the moment the fact that many people are pedestrians and cyclists and drivers at various points in the day, a considerate person is a considerate person and an idiot is an idiot, and both will behave as such regardless of how they are propelling themselves at any given moment. "People are People," sang some awful 80s band, and saying drivers rarely break the rules but cyclists always do is like saying poor people commit crime all the time but rich people rarely do. Of course rich people are criminals too–they just rob you differently.

(Hat tip: BF)

Stephen Rose provides the basic numbers:

According to the Center on Education and the Workforce’s Help Wanted report, the fastest-growing job clusters are those found in the occupations that demand the highest levels of education: managerial and professional, education, health care professional and technical, and science, technical, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and community service and arts occupations.

Together, these career paths will account for 31 percent of jobs in 2018. In the economy as a whole, 63 percent of all jobs will require some form of post-secondary education.

Today on the Dish, Holder held back unclassified evidence on torture victims, while even Iraq held its government torturers to account. Two American-Muslims searched for good in the aftermath of the summer's Anti-Muslim sentiment; and Hitch was as on as ever. Islam was the new communism for Republicans huffing their own glue and one Republican, Mitch Daniels, actually wanted to have grown-up conversations about fiscal responsibility.

Readers told us about their own conflicted relationship with the Catholic church; we incarcerated old people and universities outsmarted rent controls. A Miami hospital circumcised a baby by accident; Americans loved to hate reality television; and blogging tested the soul but debate team predicted a lot about the bigger issues.

Iran released U.S. hiker Sarah Shourd; a British teenager called President Obama a prick; and pockets of inequality persisted. Aggressive drones in Pakistan made us wonder about troop numbers in Afghanistan; and settlements still loomed over the peace talks. Question for the day here; MHB here; VFYW here; Colbert bait here; FOTD here; cool ad watch here; and VFYW contest winner #15 here.

The gaggle over Gaga carried on; female snail heads grew penises; someone was studying beardedness in advertising; and Jon Stewart had had enough of America's shit-tacos.

–Z.P.

Pete Guither notes that "nine previous heads of the Drug Enforcement Agency [have] sent a letter to the Attorney General suggesting that the federal government should sue California if Prop 19 passes":

There is real fear out there on the part of the prohibitionists. They see Prop 19 as the thread that could start to unravel the entire prohibition regime. If Prop 19 passes and the world doesn’t end/sky doesn’t fall/streets don’t erupt with violence/population doesn’t suddenly become mindless zombies, then why will the public support their prohibition gravy train?

A reader writes:

I think there might be a simpler explanation than that: Bush has stayed out of the Islamophobia debate because he's stayed out of everything. There is a school of thought that this is exactly how a former president should behave. It's not one I completely agree with, but it's one I understand and respect. It's also the same route his father took. (The only time I can remember George HW saying anything publicly after his presidency ended was in a charitable venture in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.)

Another writes:

In applying Occum's Razor to Bush's silence, I don't think Thoreau is working hard enough. His theory would suggest a willingness to speak out about things that do bother Bush that the former president hasn't demonstrated to date. Consider that the only two significant quotes to come from Bush since leaving office are the "I'd do it again" quote you referenced, and his "He deserves my silence" response to attempts to draw criticism for Obama's choices. Both of those came from Q&As at speaking appearances. In those instances, he wasn't speaking to the media, but directly to people or a moderator as part of a discussion.

So the simplest explanation would be that Bush is not inclined to just grab a bullhorn and pronounce, and, as a corollary, that he doesn't want to be involved in public debate any more. Laziness is always the simplest explanation!

Brent McGoldrick measures expectations:

[I]n our poll, we find that voters generally believe:

1. A GOP majority in the House will improve overall economic conditions;

2. A GOP House would do a better job than past GOP-controlled Congresses (i.e., the party has learned their lesson);

3. But, voters want a GOP Congress to work with President Obama and Democrats, as opposed to pursuing their own agenda.

A reader writes:

Oh what a great idea, to release prisoners with life sentences, just as they are getting old and sick, when they have no marketable skills, no health insurance but Medicaid, no place to live, no real-life experience with today's economy and culture, and quite likely no family to provide a support system, and no track record in getting along peacefully with other people, especially if they were incarcerated for several decades for heinously anti-social crimes. 

What a guaranteed way to increase the homeless population, and throw the care of a new class of elderly indigent men, no longer violent maybe, but quite likely with mental-health, substance abuse, and anger-management issues, onto churches and other private social services. Just exactly as humane and forward-looking as throwing a whole generation of mental patients onto the streets under Reagan. How is "freedom" in that sense — freedom to be set adrift in a complex, competitive society at a point in the life cycle when even the most privileged start to become dependent on one kind or other of safety net — any kind of benefit either to these human beings or to society at large?

Another writes:

Jamelle Bouie may be identifying a solution in search of a problem. 

He excerpts two relevant statistics:  The number of prisoners in Virginia over 50 and the number of prisoners nationally 55 or older.  I’m 57 and, although I’ve never committed a crime, I certainly feel fit enough that, if that was my “career”, I could still be doing this. Let’s assume that the age of 60 represents a dividing line, after which those individuals who aren’t sociopaths generally won’t commit more crimes. (This assumes, of course, that such individuals have other means of supporting themselves, which is questionable.)  What is the number of prisoners who are over 60 and who aren’t considered to be dangerous?  These excerpts don’t say.

It’s also worth noting that the figure given for number of prisoners nationally who are 55 or older – 76,600 – works out to an average of about 1,500 per state.  If you eliminate those who are in the 55-59 group, and those over 59 who are too dangerous to release, you probably have an average of under 1,000 per state.  Frankly, I don’t see that as a problem of national proportions.

Finally, they say that older prisoners have a calming effect on a prison population in general.  If that’s true, then it may not be in the state’s best interests to push older prisoners out the door prematurely.

Another:

While I can see that for those convicted of violent crimes, I think there should be different criteria for white collar criminals, such as Bernie Madoff. White collar crime is much, much less "a game for the young." Indeed, I suspect that hardly any white collar crimes (except maybe the occasional computer hacking scheme) are due to men in their teens and early twenties – just much less opportunity that young. And, more importantly, since no physical abilities are required, the capability to commit further damage lasts a lot longer. So perhaps those criminals ought to be held until a rather later age.