Howdy everyone,
As you may have seen, I'm off for another guest-blogging gig, this time for Ezra Klein. My plan is to drop in here for a post a day or so...I'll certainly do Friday Baseball Posts here, and I'm really trying to get back on track with Monday Movies Posts, and a tab dump. Beyond that, well, as always just stop by or follow the twitter feed or whatever. For those who are new, please take a look around, and I hope you like what you find here. Mostly my thanks to Ezra for the invite! Beyond that, I do want to thank everyone again for visiting here, especially the bloggers who have been very kind to me as I learn the ropes, and the regular commenters who keep things lively around here.
I'll add one thing for the political scientists reading: here's your chance! If there's anything that you know (or that we collectively know) that you wish more people knew -- especially something that reporters typically get wrong -- please leave a comment here or drop me an email, and I'll try to post about it over there. Thanks!
Idea for an article: Comparing basketball fouls to industrial fines/sanctions.
ReplyDelete-Write fictional narrative about Shaq being dragged before a Congressional hearing over the amount of fouls he has accrued over the years, his most recent transgression having been in the series against Boston.
-“Why should we a player who so consistently flouts the rules?”
-The Point: Shaq will happily take his first five fouls and even foul-out as long as he does not believe this will preempt his bottom line: winning the game. In fact, if he did not have at least four fouls a game, he would have a disadvantage over defenders who were willing to foul out occasionally. Market competition works the same way; as long as it remains profitable for companies to flout the rules, they are forced to by market forces.
The second bullet should be, "Why should we trust* a player who so consistently flouts the rules?"
ReplyDeleteRead your piece about why America seems to hate the establishment. I remember a poll that was once taken, but I don't have the direct source.
ReplyDeleteIt simply went along the lines of, most people only like their own congressperson but have unfavorable opinions of all the others.
The classic case of "Us against Them".
This makes sense, otherwise the statistics would show that most incumbents would not be in office for more than one term.