Orton's Arm

You got me. It's been a long day.

Of the Democratic potential candidates, I feel Biden would make a better president than Obama. Biden suggested dividing Iraq into three sections to deal with local issues; while the central government would control the military, currency, and oil supply. Biden's plan for Iraq has a real chance of helping to end the Sunni uprising. Obama's plan for Iraq merely calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; in hopes that the Iraqi government will be motivated to train its own troops that much faster. Edit: correction.

Stop being lazy. His analysis may be long, but he says something meaningful with every sentence. It's worth the read.

Japan launched an attack on the U.S. in part because they wanted our oil. Specifically, they wanted to buy our oil, we wouldn't sell it to them, and the attack (from their point of view) was the next-best thing. Also, the U.S. had broken Japan's codes; so we knew unless we reached an agreement to sell Japan oil, it would mean war. Given FDR's subsequent refusal to reasonably negotiate with the Japanese with regards to oil sales, it's clear FDR entered the war with his eyes wide open. The U.S. launched an attack on Iraq in part because we wanted their oil. In this case, the Iraqis wanted to sell us their oil, but we wouldn't let them. Did Saddam Hussein have the same opportunity to avoid war that FDR had back in 1941? I suppose that depends on whom you ask.

That was a reasonably good article about Japanese Pearl Harbor raid and its relation to FDR's anti-Japanese oil embargo. But there are differences between that and the Iraq situation. Once FDR cut off U.S. oil sales to Japan, Japan had to launch a new war somewhere before its oil reserves ran out. The U.S. of Bush's era didn't face that same kind of situation. Over the short term, the oil situation was acceptable. If Bush was concerned about the U.S.'s long term energy security, he didn't need to invade Iraq. He'd have been better served promoting legislation to hold SUVs and light pickup trucks to the same fuel efficiency standards large cars are currently held to. While this may have lowered car manufacturers' and oil companies' profits, it would have improved the long term U.S. energy situation and balance of trade without spilling the blood of America's soldiers.

I'm about as far from being a liberal as you can get, but I can't simply dismiss this post out of hand. It's clear the Iraq war did nothing to advance the interests of the American nation as a whole. To some extent the war is probably due to Bush's incompetence leading him to mistakenly believe the war would advance American interests. But you also have to consider the role special interest groups may have played in urging him on. Any group which received material benefit from the war--be it the Israeli lobby or companies that received large Iraqi-related contracts--probably lobbied to have the war take place.

A good find. Had Gilbride not been calling the plays, maybe the Giants would have won.

Women think I am cute.

You did get one thing right when you admitted you "cant [sic] comprehend" what I've been saying. The fact that a lot of smart people from Stanford, Duke, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago are saying the same thing escapes you.

Drunk already? It's not even noon!

I agree. It's nice to see Dorenbos doing well.

I noticed that even in his rookie year, Jets' center Nick Mangold was considered among the top centers. Dr. Z's played offensive line himself, so he probably knows a thing or two about grading offensive linemen. Which brings me to my next point: Bill from NYC. I'm sure he's forgotten all about the fact that before and during the draft, he was practically begging the Bills to trade down and take Mangold. Doubtless he feels no frustration at all with the fact that had the Bills followed his advice, they'd have one of the best centers in the league (as a rookie!) plus Denver's second round pick.

Final score: NE 37, NYJ 16. While you're at it, do you have any stock market predictions you want to share?

I see someone enjoys the taste of Bungee Jumper's Kool Aid.

If having ugly uniforms would help the Bills have a better team, I'd be all for them. As it is, ugly uniforms do nothing whatsoever to help the team win, and might be hurting it. - Some fans might be more likely to buy tickets if the uniforms look good than if they're ugly. Even if it's only a few hundred fans who are like this, it's still lost ticket sales, and money that won't be there to sign free agents. - If a free agent is deciding between similar offers from multiple teams, one factor that might influence his decision is the impression the uniforms made on him. You don't think that impression matters? Then why do companies like Coke, Pepsi, and even Microsoft spend so much money on corporate logos and other visual images? Some people feel that if a company can't even put together an attractive logo, it can't be counted on to produce a reasonable product or service. If you want to send potential free agent acquisitions the message that the Levy Bills are back, you have to start by doing better on the field. The Bills have been doing better, especially since the bye. Going back to the Levy-era uniforms would be a good way to reinforce this message; and to send a signal that the Bills are on their way back to their glory years.

I suggest you save your unique combination of ignorance and lame attempts at humor for the regression toward the mean thread.

I can live with that.

San Diego for me. How could I root against a team built by John Butler and A.J. Smith, with Wade Philips as its defensive coordinator?

Good post. We got the uniforms right back in the early '90s, so there was no need to mess with them.

That's a very glowing portrayal of a man who did so much to mess things up in this country. The welfare programs LBJ created strongly discouraged people from working low-wage jobs. They also forced fathers to leave their wives and children if they wanted their families to receive full welfare benefits. A father who maintained contact with his family after the divorce could expect to be prosecuted for welfare fraud. This form of institutional brutality was ended by California's governor Ronald Reagan back in the 1970s, and by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress in the 1990s. Under the welfare state LBJ created, poor people didn't work, and hence were less likely to teach their own children a strong work ethic. As though to ensure as many people as possible were born into this cycle of poverty, LBJ rewarded welfare recipients for having as many children as possible. While these social programs were harmful to people of all races, blacks were hurt the most. Due to institutionalized racial discrimination, blacks were disproprortionately poor; and thus disproportionately likely to be imprisoned in the cycle of poverty LBJ did so much to create.

I'm sorry, but there's no room for intelligent and informed disagreement here. The effect is real and common. Read this quote from Duke: The phenomenon is relevant to medical studies (reread the Tufts quote), it's relevant to I.Q. and testing, it's relevant to any other situation which involves testing and retesting. This accusation is absurd. I've been very clear about the fact that regression toward the population's mean results whenever there is a test/retest situation, and where the correlation coefficient between the two tests is less than 1. There are a number of potential reasons for a less-than-1 correlation coefficient between test and retest; one of which is measurement error. Yes, it has those meanings, but in addition it has the meaning I've been using, ever since Sir Francis Galton started describing "regression toward mediocrity." (Today the phenomenon is known as "regression toward the mean" or "the regression effect.") You seem to think that if "regression" is understood to imply A under some circumstances it cannot also imply B under others. Well, maybe it shouldn't also imply B, but guess what? it does. The people who wrote the Stanford and Duke articles also used the word "luck." Maybe they're also complete dunces unable to receive help from any amount of explanation. But have you considered an alternative view? I know I'm going out on a limb here, but just maybe the people at Stanford and Duke a) actually know what they're talking about, and b) want to express this knowledge in as clear a way as possible, and c) have the self-confidence and humility to use words like "lucky" and "unlucky."

There's truth to your post. I think it's a combination of teams running it against us all the time because they can, and our pass defense being good at taking away the big play.

I've done the relevant math. You've promised plenty of math in the form of Monte Carlo simulations and the like, but you've yet to deliver on any of those promises. The people at Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, etc., know plenty of math, and guess what? they're saying the same things you ridiculed me for saying. You're dead wrong about this. Stop hiding behind the word "math."

It's very rare that I find ignorance funny. Ignorance combined with repetition--as is the case with the regression toward the mean jokes--makes it even worse.

You say that like it's such a brilliant revelation. Of course it's the federal government's responsibility to enforce federal laws. But when the federal government ignores its responsibilities, local governments get to make local laws to deal with the resulting problems.