Monday, February 13, 2012

Obama's New Budget Doesn't Add Up


I don't understand the math for the Department of Education in Obama's new budget.

First, we have a new $8 billion program to get community colleges to actually train people for jobs that are going unfilled.

Second, we have a reduction of college loan interest rates from 6.8% to 3.4%. According to House Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Mille (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), this will give 
more than $2,800 per year to about 7 million undergraduates.

Seven million times $2.800 is about $17.6 billion.

Finally, there's the $2,500 "partly refundable" tax credit for college education. There are about 21 million students currently enrolled in college programs that would qualify for this credit. This tax credit is aimed at "low income families", which the government defines as families earning less than $160,000. Wow. That's almost 4 times the median household income, and includes some families in the top 5% of household income. That's what happens when you let millionaires write the laws: they decide that someone earning $80 an hour is "low income".

Anyway, let's be conservative and assume that only 80% of those 21 million qualify for the credit. That's another $42 billion.

Forty-two billion plus $17.6 billion plus $8 billion is $67.6 billion.

But the article says that the Dept. Of Education budget is only going up by 2.4% (to $69.8 billion).

So there are $67.6 billion in new programs squeezed into a $1.6 billion budget increase?

Which means these proposed expenditures are hiding somewhere else in the budget...


Saturday, February 11, 2012

50 Albums For A Desert Island


Rank
Artist
Album
1
The Beat
I Just Can't Stop It
2
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Californication
3
Oingo Boingo
Dead Man's Party
4
U2
War
5
The Police
Outlandos d'Amour
6
The Clash
London Calling
7
Madonna
Like A Prayer
8
R.E.M.
Murmur
9
Duran Duran
Rio
10
Bruce Springsteen
Born To Run
11
Fleetwood Mac
Rumours
12
Dire Straits
Love Over Gold
13
Queen
A Night At The Opera
14
The B-52's
The B-52's
15
Good Charlotte
The Chronicles Of Life And Death
16
Elvis Costello
This Year's Model
17
Rush
Permanent Waves
18
The Who
Who's Next
19
Yes
90125
20
David Bowie
Changes
21
Everclear
So Much For The Afterglow
22
Elton John
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
23
Van Morrison
Astral Weeks
24
Blues Traveler
Four
25
The Rolling Stones
Let It Bleed
26
Depeche Mode
Violator
27
311
Transistor
28
Genesis
Abacab
29
Public Enemy
Fear Of A Black Planet
30
Roxy Music
Avalon
31
Sting
Ten Summoner's Tales
32
The Cure
The Head On The Door
33
Hole
Live Through This
34
No Doubt
Tragic Kingdom
35
The Specials
The Specials
36
The Offspring
Smash
37
Peter Gabriel
Peter Gabriel (1982)
38
Jethro Tull
Aqualung
39
New Order
Substance
40
Cake
Comfort Eagle
41
Owl City
Ocean Eyes
42
The Smiths
The Queen Is Dead
43
Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin II
44
The Pretenders
The Pretenders
45
The Eagles
Hotel California
46
Barenaked Ladies
Gordon
47
Billy Joel
Glass Houses
48
Talking Heads
Remain in Light
49
James Taylor
Sweet Baby James
50
Coldplay
A Rush Of Blood To The Head

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Worst Ad In Super Bowl History?


OK. I realizing I'm feeling hyperbolic tonight. But my jaw dropped when I saw this Silverado ad in the first quarter.

The first 38 seconds were an amusing depiction of the impending 2012 apocalypse. But then our driver meets up with his friends and wonders why one of them hasn't arrived yet:
Chevy Driver 1: “Where’s Dave?”
Chevy Driver 2: "Dave didn’t drive the longest-lasting, most dependable truck on the road. Dave drove a Ford.”
Bzzt. Wrong answer!

Here's what they should have said:
Chevy Driver 1: “Where’s Dave?” 
Chevy Driver 2: "Dave didn’t make it. Dave didn't drive a Silverado.”
Why this ad failed:

1) Every ad man knows you don't spend good ad dollars just to plug the competition. But the most memorable line of this $7 million-dollar debacle ends with the word "Ford" and doesn't include the word "Chevy" (or "Silverado"). Oops.

2) No women. Forty-six percent of Super Bowl viewers are female. Not including the animated ads, this was probably the only ad (other than the creepy one for David Beckham's underwear) that didn't include women. Seriously, what's the point of surviving the apocalypse if there's no one to breed with?

3) Ten years after 9/11 and four years after the Wall Street meltdown, you aren't going to win any points by bashing another American brand. GM could have picked on Toyota or Nissan, the only two full-size truck brands that have actually gained market share over the last 10 years.

4) When you take $50 billion in bailout money, you don't get to use it to bash a company that employs over 100,000 Americans. Sixty-one percent of GM is still owned by the federal government. Your tax dollars are being used to bash the one major American car company that didn't need bailout money. Not good.

5) As if in response to the above, Chrysler aired this brilliant ad at the beginning of halftime. During the Super Bowl (America's national holiday) you don't sell American cars by denouncing American brands. You sell American cars with optimism and patriotism.

This ad just felt like the execs at GM trying to start a pissing match with Ford. Ironically, Ford won the pissing match without even wasting any pee. And the folks at GM are just left standing there with their pants down.

Related post: Worst Call In Super Bowl History

Worst Call In Super Bowl History

Photo by Ed Yourdon
I realize that it's hyberbolic to call today's safety call the worst in 46 Super Bowls. But somebody needs to do it. Right now, there are thousands of people out there Googling "worst super bowl call ever", and they need to be able to find something.

On the Patriots' very first play of the game, Brady dropped back in the pocket, couldn't find a receiver, and threw the ball away. The refs called intentional grounding, and awarded a safety because Brady was in the end zone at the time. WTF?!?

This led to 2 points for the Giants, and gave the ball back to New York, leading to another 7 points. The Giants' first 9 points were a direct result of this absurd call.

Brady didn't even throw it out of bounds like he normally does. And he didn't just spike it into the ground like Peyton Manning always does. He threw it 45 yards downfield.

I have never seen intentional grounding called on a 45-yard pass. Never. And I can't find anyone who has.

The average NFL quarterback "throws the ball away" a couple times per game. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady probably do it three or more times each game. Twelve minutes later, Eli chucked it out of bounds under similar conditions. But no grounding call.

I'm not blaming the game per se on that call. The Giants D played well, Manningham made an unbelievable catch, Eli was surprisingly accurate, and Welker couldn't hold on to the most important pass of the game. But that is certainly the worst call I can remember in a Super Bowl.

The offensive pass interference in Super Bowl XL was pretty dubious, but it was a judgment call that the ref had to make in real time. So if the ref see a lot of contact and throws a flag, that's the way the ball bounces. But on today's safety, the refs had all the time in the world to get together and make the right call, and they still blew it. That's the amazing thing. You can't criticize the refs too badly when they have to make a call in real-time on a close play. But when you have the time to get it right, you should get it right!

Considering how bad this call was, I'm surprised that Brady and Belicheck didn't throw a complete hissy fit. But keeping a level head was the right thing to do. NFL rules don't allow for a penalty to be overturned, so it's not worth getting ejected. Also, I think they were just stunned at seeing a call that has never been called in the history of the league.

Cris Collinsworth, in an attempt I assume to quell any controversy, did point out that the referee's call matched the rules in the rulebook: Brady was under pressure, in the pocket, and in the end zone. But he sounded surprised as he made this argument. As in "I've never seen this call before, but I'm being told that this counts as intentional grounding according to the letter of the rules."

Photo by Abqtrucker on flickr
Of course, Collinsworth and everyone outside New York knew it wasn't intentional grounding. It was just another QB throwing the ball away when he can't find someone open -- something that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have been doing for 10 years (and a skill that has helped pave their way to Canton). If Eli Manning had made the same throw I wouldn't have been screaming for intentional grounding. It wouldn't have even have occurred to me. Instead, I would have been commending Eli for his poise in the pocket, and getting ready for 2nd down.

I have seen worse calls in the playoffs. But I haven't seen a worse call in the Super Bowl. Perhaps this is payback for "The Tuck Rule". By all common sense, Brady fumbled the ball in that game. But according to the rulebook, it was incomplete. So, this call was the same thing. Everyone knew it wasn't intentional grounding, but the refs chose this one play to apply the rulebook as written (and then ignore that section of the rulebook for the rest of the Super Bowl).

"Throwing the ball away" is so common in the NFL that we have a phrase for it. If every time you "threw the ball away" you were called for intentional grounding, we wouldn't call it "throwing the ball away"; we would call it "intentional grounding". And we wouldn't have every talking head on ESPN heaping praise on every QB who chucks the ball out of bounds instead of trying to force a play downfield.

Heck, even Madden even has a player rating called "Throw The Ball Away" that specifies whether a QB is more likely to thow an intentional incompletion or try to make something happen. And, as we already knew, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have high ratings in this area.

As an NFL fan, I would like to see intentional grounding called more often. The defense should be rewarded for getting pressure on the QB. But you don't all-of-a-sudden decide to start calling this penalty in the last and most important game of the season.

Related post: Worst Ad In Super Bowl History?

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Truth About Gingrich And Romney


Graph by Clay Dreslough

Super Bowl MVP Predictions

Photo by Keith Allison
As mentioned on Sunday, we used Football Mogul to predicts the results of Super Bowl XLVI by simulating the game 100,000 times. We also recorded the MVP of each game.

Odds are that it will go to a quarterback. But there's a 48.7% chance of someone else taking home the MVP trophy.

Player MVP Chance
Tom Brady (NE) 31.6%
Eli Manning (NYG) 19.7%
Wes Welker (NE) 5.9%
Rob Gronkowski (NE) 5.7%
Aaron Hernandez (NE) 4.7%
Victor Cruz (NYG) 4.6%
Hakeem Nicks (NYG) 4.1%
Ahmad Bradshaw (NYG) 3.4%
BenJarvus Green-Ellis (NE) 3.4%
Deion Branch (NE) 2.6%
Jason Pierre-Paul (NYG) 2.1%
Vince Wilfork (NE) 1.2%
Brandon Jacobs (NYG) 1.8%
Mario Manningham (NYG) 1.4%
Jerod Mayo (NE) 0.9%
Justin Tuck (NYG) 0.9%
Osi Umenyiora (NYG) 0.8%
Kyle Arrington (NE) 0.7%
Antrel Rolle (NYG) 0.6%
Lawrence Tynes (NYG) 0.5%
Devin McCourty (NE) 0.5%
Danny Woodhead (NE) 0.4%
Chad Ochocinco (NE) 0.3%
Jake Ballard (NYG) 0.3%
Stephen Gostkowski (NE) 0.3%
Stephen Hoyer (NE) 0.2%

Note: This simulation assumed that Gronkowski is at 90% because of a high ankle sprain. If he's 100% healthy, his chance to win the MVP will be higher than Wes Welker's.

I'm amused by the 1-in-500 chance that Brady gets injured and Hoyer leads the Pats to their 4th Super Bowl victory.

I'm a bit surprised that Julian Edelman didn't make the list, as the only guy that's playing on offense, defense and special teams. He could conceivably get a receiving TD, a return TD, and a "Pick 6".

Related article: Football Mogul Predicts Super Bowl XLVI

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Do Be Evil

Photo by Tangi Bertin on Flickr

This is the day that Google went evil. At least in my mind.

I realize that Google has done many things over the years that could be assessed as evil. But today is the first day where I caught them presenting themselves publicly as evil for all the world to see.

The first ad I saw this morning was one for Google's new "Good To Know" initiative.1

This ad campaign tells me that it's a good thing that Google remembers everything about me
and tells it to all the web sites that I visit, so that I don't have to "re-introduce" myself to each web site. The comparison is made to a friendship, where it would be a waste of time if you had to remind your friends of your name, age, interests, personality, etc. -- every single time you met up with them.

As Mitt Romney might say, "web sites are people too, my friend".

An ad campaign like this, where you try to convince the world that your questionable practices are actually good for them, is one of the biggest signs that a company has gone full evil.

See, for example, the recent ad campaigns about fracking. I was on the fence about fracking until I saw that millions of dollars were being spent to get me to think that it is lets us drill for shale gas "safely and responsibly".

"Orwellian language," as George Lakoff says, "points to weakness." Google realizes that keeping every iota of personal information in order to maximize their revenue is bad. It goes against their policy of "Don't Be Evil". This is new. That is, Google's public acknowledgement is new. Google (or at least a senior exec inside Google) thinks that Google has joined the ranks of evil uber-corporations and needs to start acting like one.

When I woke up this morning, I wasn't too worried about the info Google keeps on me. I admit it's annoying that almost every single web page I visit is trying to sell me things that I *just bought online*. But annoying isn't evil.

:(
1 As an aside, I must give props to the subtle naming of this initiative: a name that subconsciously implies that it is good that Google knows so much about you. I bet they spent at least six figures on cognitive science consultants to come up with this one.