And in cat news...

Actual news headline:
86 cats were rescued from a 2-bedroom condo in Colorado.


Should have been:
Police break up Jellicle Ball, 86 cats arrested.

Read More

Stocks, Gas, And Everything

Dear John Mellencamp,
Although the "wild night" may in fact be calling, I guarantee there are no boys doing the boogie woogie on the corner of the street.

In more important news, SELL SELL SELL!

Just kidding, but the NYSE is taking a scary nose-dive again today, trying to keep up with the falling foreign markets. The interesting thing about this dive is that it is predictable. Well, sort of.
The Hindenburg Omen, a weird sort of statistical anomaly that 92% of the time is right every time allows for the prediction of a coming (read: within days) correction in the stock market. The Hindenburg Omen has been right almost every time since 1985, and accurately predicted today's plunge, based on Friday's market.

The two problems I have with this is that the ability to predict market drops (between 2%-4.9%) is really neat trick, but if you can do so, 1. you run the risk of being a self-fulfilling prophecy, and 2. why can't you predict upswings in the market. Sell-offs by and large make no one profit (especially with the government blocking short-sales) and the best you can do is protect yourself from losses. A 92% accurate model for sudden upticks in the market would be a much more useful tool.

Further, the drop today of the Dow below 10,000, and the price of a barrel of gas below $90 reminds me of two things that happened 8 months ago.
First, I read an article that claimed that presidential election cycles tend to sway the stock market, the time of highest volatility in the last 52 years' election was the two quarters immediately before and the one quarter after a Presidential election. Also, the market typically swung downward for the first 18 months of an President's term, swung up for the next 26 months, then swung back down before the next election. Sure enough, the recent market volatility follows that trend. So does that mean we have another 18 months before the market swings upwards? Most economists think so.
Second, a different economist (Harry Dent) predicted we'd hit 20,000 by the end of 2008. I wish I could find that article (found it) so I could point out what a ridiculous prediction (on the level of Nostradamus) it was.
Third, it was predicted in August that "we'll never see $3 dollar gas again." This morning at the local Quiktrip gas costs $2.99 for regular unleaded. In Joplin this morning gas is at $2.81.

The point I'm trying to make here is that for every situation, there is some "guru" who is happy to make a bold prediction, whether optimistic or cynical. And then they hope they are right and if they are wrong they try to bury it by making newer predictions.

So here is the official TAE bold prediction for the economy:
The stock market will drop to around 9400 by February 2009, before starting a slow climb back above 11,000 over the next year. Rises and falls of 500 points will become more commonplace to the point that 300 pt changes will no longer be newsworthy. A barrel of gas will stabilize at 88 dollars a barrel, and the price of gas at the pump will lower until the national average is $2.75 a gallon for regular unleaded. I'll try to revisit this prediction in 6 months, at which time if I'm correct I will cite it heavily, and if I'm wrong I'll just make new predictions and bury this entry.

Read More

Bad Sportsmanship

I managed to watch the last half of the Texas Tech - Kansas State game yesterday afternoon. Tech, leading by a ridiculous margin, was torching its way down the field and as I watched, Graham Harrell threw his sixth TD of the day, a new Tech record.

Then Tech did something very foolish. Harrell stayed in on the next drive. Up 30 points in the 4th Quarter, with the ESPN announcers placidly talking about Graham Harrell the Heisman candidate, the Tech coach didn't put in his second or third string quarterback.
That's right, Tech was trying to run up the score against hapless Kansas State so Harrell's numbers would look good for the Heisman committee. The coach, Mike Leach, must be aware that Tech will take at least one or two losses when they face 16th ranked Kansas, 5th ranked Texas, and 1st ranked Oklahoma later in the season; better to get Harrell some TD's while they still can!

After the game, Harrell said breaking the school record for passing yards and TD's in a game "a huge honor with all the great quarterbacks that have come through here." However, staying in the game and humiliating the other team doesn't speak to Harrell's honor, rather it speaks to selfishness.

When you leave in your quarterback during a lopsided 4th quarter you place them under unneeded risk for injury. Quarterbacks are injured easily enough, a defense down by thirty points is more likely to be sullen or reckless and injure the quarterback.

But the coach even admits he's trying to boost Harrells numbers. Mike Leach, the Tech coach, said after the game "I would say he is the best in the nation this year," Leach quickly added. "If you lead the nation in passing, I would think you deserve some attention. It's not like he just does it once in a while."

Harrell, and the Texas Tech Red Raiders, lead the nation in passing after playing the following games:
Eastern Washington (at home)
Nevada (away)
Southern Methodist (home)
Massachusetts (home)
So after 4 home games and 1 away game, all five games against medium level cupcakes, the Raiders are leading the nation in passing? What an accolade!

Leaving Harrell in to run up the score, pad his stats, and humiliate K-State is the definition of poor sportsmanship. Expect the football gods to exact justice later in the season: I predict Tech will fade down the Top 25 significantly. Expect Tech to falter at 16th ranked Kansas, at home against No.5 Texas, and expect them to get punished for their disobedience at No.1 Oklahoma.

Footnote: up 42 points to Big 12 North rival Nebraska, Mizzou's starting quarterback Chase Daniel saw no snaps in the 4th quarter; backup Chase Patton and 3rd string freshman Blaine Gabbert took the snaps. The ESPN announcers spent the entire 4th quarter talking about how chubby Chase Daniel is and whether a person "with a weight fluctuation problem" could do well in the NFL.

Read More

Debatably debatable debate.

Did you know "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence? Food for thought.

I watched the debate last night, though only for a little while because I had to study and also because I can just as easily read Megan's liveblog about it and spare myself getting winked at by Sarah (Cougar) Palin. Was it just me or was she a little "friendlier" with the camera than Joe.
From this day forward (which might not be a long duration depending on election results) I will refer to Governor Palin as "The Cougar" because of that wink.

Anyway...

As a non-partisan observer, I found both candidates for VP did a decent job. My major complains about each candidate would be:
Joe, please stop talking about 4 billion dollar tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile, that relies on fuzzy, unfair math, and doesn't take into account what the tax break is for.
The Cougar, please answer the question the moderator asked and stop talking about whatever crosses your mind at the moment.

I'm starting to (barely) agree with the conservative MSM's that the liberal MSM is being a little unfair to The Cougar. Sure she's an idiot, and when asked a difficult questions she looks like a ten-year old asked to explain why their left shoe is missing, but when the moderator is writing a book about Obama you have to wonder about bias. And where is the youtube footage of Katie Couric slashing Biden down at his knees? Are the media staying away from him because he's a hardened politician or because they have a liberal agenda?

Nevertheless, I was watching the debate last night entirely based on the hope that The Cougar would make a collossal blunder we could all laugh about at work today. She did pretty well, and so did Biden.

Like usual, the VP's probably really won't affect the election much.

Read More

We're from Kansas, good old Kansas

The Senate passed their "cupcake" version of the bailout bill.

Both Kansas Senators voted no. That brings the Kansas tally to 5 out of 6 Congressional representatives voted against. The lone dissenter, Dennis Moore, is the 3rd District representative. Below is an email he received less than ten minutes ago.

Thank you for reading this email. I would like to encourage you to change your vote from "yes" to "no" in the upcoming House revisit to the bailout bill. All other Federal Congresspersons (Brownback, Roberts, Tiahrt, Boyda, and Moran) from Kansas have acknowledged that the people of Kansas by and large are against this bill, and have voted based on the people's opinion.
Now I am no professor of economics, and I acknowledge that I may not understand all the pro's and con's to the bailout bill nearly as well as a Congressperson with a cadre of economic advisors, but I do know that an elected representative of the people should weigh their own judgement equally with the mass opinion of the people that Congressman represents. In case of conflict, the smartest thing to do in regards to reelection is to side with the people and let your own opinion be damned.
I know the 3rd district is very different economically from the other districts, but I know I speak for many of my local peers, coworkers, and friends when I say we are HIGHLY skeptical of the bailout, and we believe in our hearts that the American economy might be hurt, but won't be killed if the bailout fails. Failure of the bailout bill, and the ensuing economic hardship (should it even occur) will teach all Americans, from the top to bottom, the importance of fiscal responsibility and the importance of not trying to make fast money in bubble markets.
Finally, as you are a Blue Dog Democrat (I am a fiscal conservative democrat myself) I believe voting against the bailout bill most aligns with the Blue Dog value system: fiscal conservativism and accountability.
Passage of the bailout bill will promotes neither of these values.

Thank you for your time.

Read More

Freedom Fries

Perhaps the world is going to be okay.

Evidence today that things are getting back to normal: Lance Armstrong is back on the bike, and the French are back to smearing his name and trying to destroy him.

You know, it's times like this, when the economy is in turmoil, the Senate is breaking bending Constitutional law by going ahead of the House on bailout legislation, the President is out of his mind, Hank Paulson is trying to run the world, Kansas City violent crime has sky-rocketed, the same bank is getting robbed twice in one day, that I take heart in the fact that I've always got the warm fuzzy hatred of the French that binds me to my fellow Americans.

Read More

Knighted for what?!

I've often argued (to anyone those who will listen) that there are some music "artists" who are so ingrained in the system, so famous, so obscenely over-marketed...that they could literally take some of their fecal matter, shape into a 5" diameter disc and sell it as their newest album.

And it would go platinum.

What really amazes me is when radio stations will play the awful, awful songs of these artists, rather than the songs that made them legends.
My case and point is "Sir" John Elton.

I could go on a real rant here about knighting people who clearly are incapable of defending a woman's honor during a battle on horseback, but that's way off track.

Elton John has written some of the greatest songs in the history of elevator music, from his timeless classic "Candle in the Wind" to "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road," "Crocodile Rock," and of course "Rocket Man."

However, if you look up his Greatest Hits Album (how are there only 11 tracks? George Strait had 51) you'll notice one song that defies logic. That one song so insanely horrible that when you hear it you can't help but go "Wow, that is a stupid, awful song."
I of course am referring to "Benny and the Jets." Between the overly simplified piano composition, the fake audience applause track that was dubbed in after recording was done, and John's whistlingly nasal falsetto screaming "BENNY!" over and over at the end of the song, the listeners are left feeling like they were just mentally violated.

How, in God's sacred name, did this song become popular? At one point in 1974 it was a No. 1 single!
Could it be, it was released after Elton's super-popular "Candle in the Wind," and drafted that song up the charts then passed it to reach number 1? Could it be that it was sandwiched between that song and "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me," another legendary song by John, so that it becomes enmeshed in the mid-1970's fervor for all things Sir Elton?

The point is, even Elton didn't like the song. At the end of recording, he and the guitarist agreed the song was "really odd" and Elton was against having it released as a single, thinking it would fail miserably.
Yet here I am, hearing it on the radio. Again.

There are many other examples of this phenomena, where an artists unashamedly horrendous song gets way more air time than it should. The Beastie Boys song "Brass Monkey" would be another shining example, where "Sabotage" rocketed them to fame, and "Brass Monkey" should have sealed their coffin. But spend 2 hours listening to FM 96.5 The Buzz in Kansas City (a "cutting-edge" "alternative" radio station) and you're destined to hear "Brass Monkey" or "No Sleep Til Brooklyn".

Anyway, the next song that came on the radio was Journey's "Don't Stop Believin" so I feel much better.

Read More