The Second Amendment

One of the best - and most surprising - defenses of the second amendment I've ever read. Surprising, because it comes from the Daily Kos.

Fences

Since I don't have anything better to do at 4:30am except listen to my cat snore - and he does - I'll write about fences. More specifically, I'm trying to figure out why Europeans are so much fonder of fences than Americans. Even the style of fences differ. Europeans have big stone walls that act as fences. In eastern parts, they may be accompanied by barbed wire. The function seems to be the keep prying eyes - and people - out. In America, if people build fences, they generally look nicer and you can almost always see through them. American fences function either for looks or containment. Some of our neighbors have wooden fences that only border the road and wouldn't stop a thing. Our backyard is fenced in so our dogs don't run off.

These are generalities, but from my experience they tend to be true. There are a few reasons why this developed as such. Property laws developed in Europe over the ages. A long time ago, it might have been wise to mark off your somehow, and that somehow would be a fence. Since America imported the English system of law, perhaps they didn't need to be as cautious marking their land. Or perhaps land in America was so abundant relative to population that it was unnecessary to mark your land in this way. But this doesn't explain why the fences are built out of stone and bricks but not wood.

In Koprivshtitsa, someone (either Iori or his mother) told me the reason why fences were so high there. The Bulgarians were under Turkish rule and they didn't much like that. To get the privacy they desired, they had to keep prying Turk eyes out of their yards and out of their business. The tall fences accomplished just this. So perhaps the fences in Europe are so uninviting because they are meant to keep the government's eyes out of their business. Since the US hasn't ever been ruled by any nation other than itself, perhaps the tradition never popped up.

There is the issue of the size of yards. It seems that, even in cities, the average size of a yard is larger in the US than in Europe. I have no data to back this up, but just for fun, let's say it's true. I have seen in some American yards tall fences that seem to be meant for privacy i.e. nude sunbathing. They don't take up the whole yard, but a significant portion of it. If their yard was smaller, would they fence in a smaller portion or would they fence in the same amount and just have less yard exposed? Perhaps Europeans desire a certain amount of outdoor privacy and that amount just happens to be the size of their yard. So it's like Iori suggested to me when I first asked the question. Maybe Europeans just like their privacy and Maybe Americans just like to show off. And just so it's perfectly clear, that's completely paraphrased.

My bet is more on the "keep the government out" theory, which would mean that fence style would differ from region to region depending on certain aspects of the regions history. Maybe the theory would be more aptly named the Political Evolution of Fences.

fence style of a region = g(type of law, sovereign rule, average plot size)

Average plot size is rather self explanatory. Type of law is different. Under Turkish rule, everything belonged to the emperor. Even if you lived and farmed your land, it still belong to the emperor and he could take it on a whim. Just a bit north, there was the Austro-Hungarian empire where property rights were better enforced and protected. You could pretty safely call your land your own. Sovereign rule would indicate whether your region governed itself or was governed by an outside force. This might overlap with type of law a bit, but there's probably enough of a difference.

So this is a rather poorly defined musing on fences, but I think it conveys the general idea. And since it's 5:00 am, I think it's about time to call it quits.

Pictures

So I've posted more pictures on Flickr. I think there's a link to the right somewhere on this page which you can click to see them. This time I posted Peterhof and Kronshtadt, which was the last day before we left Russia. I also posted the Crime and Punishment walking tour - the pictures are interesting whether or not you've read the book. And I posted pictures from lasts years trip to Dallas, TX - for some American flavor. Maybe I've mentioned this before, but the captions on the pictures are serving as blog entries so I don't have to write the same stuff twice. Perhaps I'll record non-photographed memories later. Perhaps not. We'll see.

Spite in the Media

Since I seem to have all the time in the world, and would apparently rather be inside than out in this beautiful weather, I'll write about this article I read from the Telegraph. The author, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, has covered world politics for 25 years. He's writing about this letter by Dr. Kartik Athreya.

I actually read the letter first, which I found from Mankiw's site. Basically, Athreya says talking heads on the subject will likely have little to offer than a lot of confusion. He means this in a probabilistic sense, in that some of these commentators might have great ideas and be completely spot on, but it's not that likely. The simple reason that it's not likely is that economics is hard. The saying that there's no such thing as a one handed economist is true. Everything depends, and that's just the way it goes. To learn how everything depends takes a hell of a lot of effort and time. Athreya points out that there are many people willing to comment blindly on economics but few do the same about cancer research. Yet both are rather difficult. The general point of the letter seemed to be more of a public service announcement, cautioning people from taking the talking heads too seriously (and he included some economists in the group). He concluded by hoping that non-economists would start writing about the premises which lead to particular conclusions, in hopes of producing a sharper public discussion. To me, this seemed like a rational plea for a more informed media.

Then I saw this Evans-Pritchard fellow's article (linked to by Instapundit). He took a lot of umbrage to what Athreya wrote. When he read the letter, he seemed to see this as the entire federal reserve system telling economics commentators to shut up. His rebukes were basically that the institution is full of idiots and economics is rather simple and the economists (all of them) at the Fed are responsible for the current crisis. Oh, he also apparently quotes the article:

"Economics is hard. Really hard. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-boggingly hard it is. I mean you may think doing the Sunday Times crossword is difficult, but that's just peanuts compared to economics. And because it is so hard, people shouldn't blithely go shooting their mouths off about it, and pretending like it's so easy. In fact, we would all be better off if we just ignored these clowns."

Except this quote never appears in the article. Not once. I've searched the paper over and over again. Actually, when I first read Evans-Pritchard's article, I thought he was talking about a different economist who wrote a similar letter because I didn't remember this quote. This phrase, as far as I can tell, was penned by Michael Wade of the SF Examiner on the same subject. This is Wade's summary of the article in a what he believes is a Douglas Adams-y style, so he uses quotation marks. A blog called the Agonist lumped Wade's summary into a list of quotes from the article in this post.

I was trying to figure out how Evans-Pritchard could misinterpret the article so drastically, but then I realized that the answer should have been obvious. He's one of the talking heads Athreya is talking about. He's been one for 25 years. And now an economist from an organization Evans-Pritchard obviously distrusts is saying that commentators (like Evans-Pritchard) aren't adding anything constructive or new to the discussion. Of course! The obvious response is to attack not only that economist, but economics as a profession!

Just to demonstrate that he is in the know and that all economists are idiots, he whips out Keynes and Irving Fisher claiming economists have forgotten their wisdom. Oddly enough, in attempting to demonstrate his knowledge he actually proves Dr. Athreya right by only stating names and conclusions. Adding positively to the discussion would involve thinking about the underlying premises of Keynes' and Fisher's ideas and writing how they're similar or different from the conditions in 2007 (i.e. whether they're even applicable now), for one example. That is what Athreya hopes for at the end of his letter (if I understood it correctly). But I suppose Evans-Pritchard is above all that critical thinking. And how dare some lowly academic ask the media to be educated.

After Graduation Exploits

So. I went to Russia. Currently, I'm trying to add my photos to flickr with comments so blogging about too much of that trip should be irrelevant. I've only gotten up two sets of pictures. There is Kizhi and Red Square so far, and I hope to have more up soon. It just takes so much time to upload and comment on them, and I can be rather lazy at times.

Last weekend I went up to Columbus to hang out with Jeff, Danimal, Matt and Chris. I also met one of their friends called Trey. There were other people but I don't remember their names. The most important lesson I learned in Columbus is that I get very bored watching soccer. Maybe this game would be interesting, but I don't have the patience to watch all the soccer necessary to come across a game like that. Plus, I just don't get soccer. I have this theory that unless you have played the sport, or can somehow tangibly appreciate the skill it takes to play a sport, then that sport is going to be boring as hell to watch. For example, people seem to think golf is boring to watch. As a golfer, I can appreciate how scary a three foot put can be. Consequently, I enjoy watching golf. Soccer was a sport I never played so watching it doesn't do anything for me. It was good to hang out with some of the old housemates, which is the reason I went up there anyways. Now I've gotta figure out a day we can all go to a Reds game. Hopefully, Harry will get back from across the pond soon.

As far as I can remember, that's about as much as I've done. The one thing I need to do more of is golf. And study. Studying's good.

Night Cap to Undergrad

Yesterday was the night cap to my four years at Miami.

Dr. Fletcher invited a few graduating seniors - Brian, Mimi (a girl I hadn't met before), and myself - to her place for dinner. I didn't know this, but she is an incredible cook. She made spinach ravioli from scratch, including the pasta. Apparently, it's just flour and eggs. There was also this cheese dish, I don't remember its name, but it was also incredible. For dessert, she made a lemon something or other, which was delectable. I'm not very good at remembering what the names are (or describing food) but it was one of the best meals I've eaten in a long time.

I left there with the intention of going home and studying. That didn't happen.

I watched the Cavs win, which was nice. A lot of people were over and Liz wanted me to come uptown with them on some pub crawl. I'm guessing most pub crawls don't start at midnight - two hours before the bars close - but what do I know? We'd barely started walking uptown when I got a call from Austin. Apparently, he walked by our place last night and saw some people playing beer pong in the backyard. He thought it would be a good idea so jump through the trees that border the back of our property to scare us. Unfortunately, he got stuck. For twenty minutes. Eight feet up in a tree. Only Austin would get stuck in a tree.

We went to:

Uptown Underground, which is just slightly classier than CJ's

Three Trees, which had a cover band that was terrible

Steinkeller, a staple

Circle Bar, possibly the best bar in Oxford

Mac & Joe's, middle of the road

CJ's, the worst bar in Oxford

Top Deck, I have nothing to say about this one

One trend to notice is that none of these bars have cover. Not a one. That's why they were chosen.

In Steinkellers, we saw Cowboy, Heimach and Pirone, all Tappanites from one south. I see Pirone a lot because we take similar classes, but I hadn't seen Cowboy in months. When I walked into Circle, I immediately saw Neil, a grad student I know, then a lot of people I knew from high school, then Kyle and brandon, then Zack and Preston, then the group I came with and finally Matt and Pat. I knew nearly everyone in the place. It felt like an episode of Cheers. I don't think I've ever experienced that before.

Out behind Circle, Austin thought that a dumpster was an ATM but he couldn't figure out why it was so tall. Also, while Jeff, Austin, and I waited for the others, a midget walked by with this group and asked if his pants made his ass look big. Hanging out around Circle is always, always a good time.

Everytime we walked into a new bar, Jeff and I would do a shot together, always to "Senior Year" or "Graduating." We were roommates freshman and sophomore years, and last night just seems like a fitting way to leave Miami.

I had my last class as an undergraduate, and now all I have left are finals. Maybe to many, the graduation ceremony is the period at the end of the four years, but last night was mine.

Value Added Traveling

There are many good reasons that I should go to Russia, first and foremost is that I want to. There are also many reasons I shouldn't go, namely that I have no money. Regardless, I am going since I've already bought the ticket. But this isn't what I want to write about.

What I want to write about is why this trip is a good one to go on. When I traveled to London, I had never been there before nor did I know anything about the layout. All I knew is that it's the capital of London and there are many iconic buildings and important places there. Many important events occurred in London. Plus, I heard it was a fun town. I spent the first two nights there on my own, which was fun but I had no idea what I was doing. Most of the time, I'd just buy a ticket and ride the double deckers around. That was a ton of fun, don't get me wrong, but I could have spent my time there in a much more productive way.

The trip I'll be on in about a month solves this problem. I'll have structured days planned for me, seeing the sights of Russia on tours instead of stumbling onto the important things. Of course, half the fun in traveling to other places is just walking around, stumbling upon this and that. But the value added to the travels by the tours (plus the cruise to St. Petersburg from Moscow) is huge. It's an opportunity I shouldn't pass up. I should also add that this is my dad's fault for alerting me to this trip way back last semester.

And now I must go play my final broomball game of my college career.