Assorted Links

1. Google’s Policy by the Numbers blog features my post on The Innovation Nation versus the Warfare-Welfare State (no new info for loyal readers but an interesting signal.) Buy Launching.

2. Atheist leaders of the civil rights movement.

3. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Region Focus with introductory material on patents. early childhood education, and NGDP targeting.

4. Google’s bug bounty program.

5. An Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law: Attempt. Excellent.

6. Ron Paul, rock star.


#5 is an exceptional post. one of the better in recent my MR memory.

#6. media won't show that.

Ron Holland had a good article explaining why.

I cannot recommend the Criminal Lawyer tumblr highly enough. It's better written than most - probably all - 1L textbooks. It is also well worth your time to check out his associated blog.

#4 Now if only Microsoft started a bug bounty program......

It's not like they don't have the cash. Maybe if Google's works well they will.

They spent $700,000 on the rewards over 2 years and it yielded 700 bugs. Sounds like a good investment.

For that money they could have employed maybe 4 security engineers full time and I doubt they'd have found half as many bugs in that time frame.

Netscape did a bugs bounty waaaaay back in 1996 or thereabouts. Perhaps it inspired overconfidence. Marc Andreesen sealed their fate when he referred to Windows as a set of poorly debugged device drivers.

Yes, Paul is a rockstar. So was Obama.

Both are smugly self-assured that they, and they alone are the guardians of civil order, and hypocrites. Obama lambastes the rich, while eagerly taking their money and lavishing upon himself and his family every luxury money can buy. Paul's so dedicated to principle he left the Republican Party to be a LIbertarian, but returned. He lectures everbody else on ideological purity, except the guy whose arguably the most coreless of the bunch. He extols the virtue of free enterprise and private markets, but made a career out of politics and apparently its now to be the family business.

Both men are the type of demogogues warned about in the "Pied Piper" and proof that most people of college age vote based on group-think and celebrity because they lack the maturity and skepticism to decide things for themselves.

The last sentence is really where your head is at here. If young people vote for someone, they are a shallow celebrity rockstar. Got it.

We won't even bother counting the votes of those over 40 who voted/will vote for both of them.

You can save pixels next time just typing "Get off my lawn you kids!"

Actually, you are the one with rectal cranial inversion, Paulbot. That's OK, I knew this post would bring swift and disordered indignation.

Obama ran on a vacant platform of "hope and change", promising to end war, lower the oceans, restore the economy, pacify international hostility, etc-. principally because of legions uncritical admirers. He's an unmitigated disaster, a fusion of imperiousness, corruption and arrogance-ineptitude. Less gullible folks looked at him and saw inexperience, ideological rigidity and narcissism. The groupies bought right into the simple-minded nostrums that he peddled so freely, with one common element- like political will would bring about nirvana. The address on election night, attended by loyal, hypnotic throngs, reminded me of a Nuremberg rally.

Now we have loyal followers of Paul and they too, will hear no criticism. They say he's consistent, despite what's noted above, and earmarks, etc. They say he's leading a movement despite his inability to get even a plurality in a fragmented above, They say he'll change government, despite the fact that in 30 years in Congress, he's sponsored over 600 bills and 4 FOUR have gotten to a vote. You would think after three decades, he'd have learned that politics is the art of the possible and done something other than clog up committee calendars with stillborn bills.

I don't mind reasoned support, but when you assume your guy is impeccable and infallible, that's a sign that you are way to gullible. It was true in the early sixties when the then young bought into "Camelot". Life is always simple when you are young and carefree and you don't have responsibilities and are unaware of your own limits.

Despite their ideological differences, they are are cult leaders.

I don't mind you on my lawn, its crapping on it and telling me its high grade fertilizer that I just don't appreciate, that gets you evicted.

I'm not a Paul supporter, dumdum. I called him a racist here like 2 days ago.

"I knew this post would bring swift and disordered indignation": well, that's what you want anyway, all that attention. Because you're a troll.

But instead looks like you got dismissive snark instead.

So, last word is yours Mr. Laughs. You get more amusing with every pixel.

Have you considered getting help?

To me the one major difference you forget is success.

InTrade gives RonPaul a 2% chance of being the Republican nominee and about a 1.5% chance at being president. I am not sure what exactly were Obama's numbers 9 months pre-election but I suspect not as bleak. As a reference point Intrade gives Obama a 94% chance of being nominated and 60% of being re-elected.

I guess there are less successful rock stars and more successful ones?

There are greaer and lesser stars-but the commonality is the cult following.

Can a majority vote from 300 million people still count as a cult?

Rahul 1, Greenoldguy 0

Noted computer scientist Donald Knuth sends reward checks to people who find mistakes in his works. Few people ever cash them—they're far more valuable as a status symbol.

#5 -- Really worthwhile.

I'd like to see something like that cartoon for Econ. Can someone recommend something? PS -- I already know the Cartoon Introduction to Economics, by Bauman and Klein. Solid!

#2 is quite right -- there were a lot of secular-minded people if not full-blown atheists in the Civil Rights Movement. However, the link doesn't discuss the most likely reason why these individuals are mostly ignored in popular history: they tended to have past associations with Communist, Socialist or other radical organizations. Bayard Rustin was a former Communist while A. Philip Randolph had been associated with the Socialist Party. Ella Baker's religion is unknown (or at least unknown to me and unmentioned by many sources) but she also tended to associate with the left.

These associations didn't always mean much but there was a lot of pressure on King, the NAACP and other less radical members of the movement to distance themselves from the left to get more mainstream support.

#2: "few people think of A. Philip Randolph, a labor organizer who originated the idea of the march and was at King's side as he made his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Why is King, a Christian, remembered by so many and Randolph, an atheist, by so few?"

Because King gave the speech and Randolph stood by his side. Duh. Who remembers who was standing by Lincoln's side when he gave the Gettysburg Address, next to Kennedy when he proclaimed himself a Jelly Donut? If you want to complain about someone's accomplishments being overlooked, start by finding someone who accomplished something spectacular.

This is ahistorical, though. Randolph didn't just stand beside MLK -- he delivered the opening remarks at the very event you have in mind and helped organize the thing in the first place ("March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom").

MLK and Randolph both accomplished a lot for civil rights aside from delivering a single speech at the March on Washington. This is an iconic moment no doubt but simply raises the question of why popular modern history is written the way it is. In the TV age, impressive orators like MLK will naturally make history with their speeches but have a look at an advertisement for the original event as well as the program.

This is just how we remember history. We tend to pick a leader or two of movements and overattribute things to them. Like how George Washington single handedly defeated the British, or how Winston Churchill, FDR, and Stalin defeated Nazism. Sure, you may be able to find the names of their leading generals, some with huge accomplishments might even get a few sentences in a history of WWII (like Marshall or MacArthur) but beyond that we routinely overlook at least hundreds of very influential people, not to mention millions involved in each stuggle.

Comments for this post are closed