Many conservatives regard Ronald Wilson Reagan as a hero for bringing about the end of the Cold War. Many liberals believe that the U.S.S.R. would have fallen without any aggressive action by the United States, and that Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev's admission of this was the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended.
The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Communism as it was practiced by the Soviets was untenable. They could not endlessly support both their military prowess and their impoverished people, and at some point the collapse would be inevitable. Many think that by recognizing this, Gorbachev, and his policies of glasnost and perestroika, brought about the end of the Soviet Union.
So what was Reagan's role, then, if it was Gorbachev who initiated the reforms inside his own country and brought about the window needed to bring down the Soviet Union?
Reagan became president of the United States on January 20, 1981. Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party on March 11, 1985. For over four years, Reagan battled not Gorbachev, but Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Andropov, and Leonid Brezhnev.
Upon entering office, Reagan decided that the best way to end the Soviet Union was to build up an "arms race" to the point where the Soviets could not carry on without starving their own people. This was a new approach, as beforehand emphasis had been on controlling the buildup of nuclear weaponry with a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. This policy, however, could not guarantee that the American and Soviet governments would limit their weaponry, and provided room for one side to take advantage of the other. Reagan changed U.S. policy to a buildup which would hopefully bankrupt the U.S.S.R.
The likes of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko perceived Reagan's build up as a threat, and in response, they built up their arms. This was exactly the plan: before long, the Soviets would be compromising the well being of their people merely to keep up with the United States.
Reagan's other idea, the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by critics), would ideally protect the United States from a nuclear strike if the Soviets sent one. The Soviets regarded this, too, as a threat - the U.S. could stop a Soviet strike and then send a devastating one over to the U.S.S.R. in response to the initial strike.
The Soviets were at their breaking point when Gorbachev took over, and began looking to negotiate with Reagan, as well as initiate reforms within his country. Reagan decided that now was the time to negotiate.
So if the Soviet Union would have ended anyway because the system did not work, and because eventually a Soviet leader would realize this, why does Reagan deserve any praise?
The answer: Reagan accelerated the end of the Cold War. He recognized that the Soviet leaders in the first term of his presidency would not easily allow the United States an upper hand in military arms, even if it meant abandoning the people of the U.S.S.R. Had Reagan continued the policies of the presidents before him, it would have taken much longer for the Soviets to reach that point where they could not maintain their military and their people. In that case, who knows how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted? Who knows how many more people the Soviet regime would eliminate? Who knows how much longer the people of both the United States and the Soviet Union would have lived in uncertainty?
Reagan most definitely deserves praise for accelerating the demise of the Soviet Union. It is absurd to disregard his role in the end of the Cold War when looking back at, and analyzing, his presidency.
Additional Reading:
Wallace, Chris. Character: Profiles in Presidential Courage. New York: Rugged Land, 2004.
Chapter 11, "The Zero Option: Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union," pp. 206-232 is about this topic.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Failure: Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Great Depression
Many history textbooks condemn Herbert Hoover for twiddling his thumbs while the United States suffered from a Great Depression. Then, a hero emerges: suddenly, behind the strong leadership, active approach, and brilliance of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States began to slowly but surely bring itself out of the depression. Some books will admit that the depression did not end until World War II, but almost always he is given credit for alleviating it with his new approach.
History textbooks will not tell you the truth. Both Hoover and FDR took an active approach to ending the depression, and both of them failed.
It's a well known story. On October 24, 1929, people began to sell their stocks in large numbers. On October 29, 1929, the bottom fell out: people were only interested in selling stock, not buying, and prices tumbled. The Great Depression was under way.
Most people realize that Hoover did not start the depression. It's a misconception, however, that he did nothing to try and help it. Rather, he signed a lot of legislation in an attempt to alleviate the situation. He signed the first Federal unemployment assistance in history into law with the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. According to Wikipedia, he "[established] the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home." Wikipedia also states that he "increased public works spending." He signed the Agricultural Marketing Act and the Reconstruction Finance Act. This all occurred over the course of four years. Unfortunately for Hoover, the depression continued to worsen. By 1933, about one out of four Americans were without a job. This can probably be attributed to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a bill signed ("reluctantly" says Wikipedia) by Hoover in 1930. This was Hoover's huge mistake, one not made by Roosevelt. Clearly, however, it is absurd to suggest that Hoover sat by idly during his presidency while the nation suffered.
In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to replace Hoover. During the campaign he had promised a very vague "new deal." It became clear soon after the election what he meant. It is pointless to go through every act FDR created: everyone knows he was active in trying out his plan to help the economy. What is important is the details. (For Hoover, it was important to state the multitude of legislation he passed; for FDR, it's well known he signed a multitude of legislation.)
Between 1933 and 1940, Franklin Roosevelt tripled taxes - all types of taxes - when people needed money. He also demanded that crops and farm animals destroyed and killed - when people needed products to sell. The Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, asks ten "Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal" in this article. And in this article, the New Deal is revealed to have harmed the poorest Americans. A few things here are quite amusing. FDR raised taxes on almost everything, among them tires ("including tires on wheelchairs"), electricity, and radios. FDR had polio, which confined him to a wheelchair, yet he taxed tires on wheelchairs. And those famed Fireside Chats? As the article points out, "Yes, to hear FDR's 'Fireside Chats,' one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!"
Read the two articles above carefully. FDR's economic policies did far more harm than good.
Why then, you might ask, is FDR renowned for his responses to the Depression, while Hoover is condemned? The answer is simple: political skill. Herbert Hoover was best known as a Stanford engineer. He was not a politician. The only political office that he ever held prior to being president was Secretary of Commerce, a position to which one gets appointed. Franklin Roosevelt, however, served as Governor of New York prior to becoming president. His political skill was recognized as early as 1920, when he was the Democratic vice president nominee. He never won a presidential election by less than 333 electoral votes. Roosevelt was also a far better speaker. Fireside Chats, inaugural speeches, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," "a day that will live in infamy." Hoover has, well, nothing. FDR skillfully used his abilities to make people think that his programs were working. Hoover was not able to do so. But if you read the work and numbers provided by Cato, it's clear that FDR harmed more people than he helped. But they thought they were doing better thanks to FDR.
Many people admire FDR today for the same reasons. They learn from their parents and grandparents. Students learn from history textbooks, written by professors who, for the most part, are liberal and admire another legacy FDR left: that of a government that tries to use its power to help its citizens. Of course, this legacy would not have been possible without his political skill. They use FDR and his high status to support their liberal views of today.
Hoover and FDR both took an active approach to government in order to get the U.S. out of the depression, and both failed.
History textbooks will not tell you the truth. Both Hoover and FDR took an active approach to ending the depression, and both of them failed.
It's a well known story. On October 24, 1929, people began to sell their stocks in large numbers. On October 29, 1929, the bottom fell out: people were only interested in selling stock, not buying, and prices tumbled. The Great Depression was under way.
Most people realize that Hoover did not start the depression. It's a misconception, however, that he did nothing to try and help it. Rather, he signed a lot of legislation in an attempt to alleviate the situation. He signed the first Federal unemployment assistance in history into law with the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. According to Wikipedia, he "[established] the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home." Wikipedia also states that he "increased public works spending." He signed the Agricultural Marketing Act and the Reconstruction Finance Act. This all occurred over the course of four years. Unfortunately for Hoover, the depression continued to worsen. By 1933, about one out of four Americans were without a job. This can probably be attributed to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a bill signed ("reluctantly" says Wikipedia) by Hoover in 1930. This was Hoover's huge mistake, one not made by Roosevelt. Clearly, however, it is absurd to suggest that Hoover sat by idly during his presidency while the nation suffered.
In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to replace Hoover. During the campaign he had promised a very vague "new deal." It became clear soon after the election what he meant. It is pointless to go through every act FDR created: everyone knows he was active in trying out his plan to help the economy. What is important is the details. (For Hoover, it was important to state the multitude of legislation he passed; for FDR, it's well known he signed a multitude of legislation.)
Between 1933 and 1940, Franklin Roosevelt tripled taxes - all types of taxes - when people needed money. He also demanded that crops and farm animals destroyed and killed - when people needed products to sell. The Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, asks ten "Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal" in this article. And in this article, the New Deal is revealed to have harmed the poorest Americans. A few things here are quite amusing. FDR raised taxes on almost everything, among them tires ("including tires on wheelchairs"), electricity, and radios. FDR had polio, which confined him to a wheelchair, yet he taxed tires on wheelchairs. And those famed Fireside Chats? As the article points out, "Yes, to hear FDR's 'Fireside Chats,' one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!"
Read the two articles above carefully. FDR's economic policies did far more harm than good.
Why then, you might ask, is FDR renowned for his responses to the Depression, while Hoover is condemned? The answer is simple: political skill. Herbert Hoover was best known as a Stanford engineer. He was not a politician. The only political office that he ever held prior to being president was Secretary of Commerce, a position to which one gets appointed. Franklin Roosevelt, however, served as Governor of New York prior to becoming president. His political skill was recognized as early as 1920, when he was the Democratic vice president nominee. He never won a presidential election by less than 333 electoral votes. Roosevelt was also a far better speaker. Fireside Chats, inaugural speeches, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," "a day that will live in infamy." Hoover has, well, nothing. FDR skillfully used his abilities to make people think that his programs were working. Hoover was not able to do so. But if you read the work and numbers provided by Cato, it's clear that FDR harmed more people than he helped. But they thought they were doing better thanks to FDR.
Many people admire FDR today for the same reasons. They learn from their parents and grandparents. Students learn from history textbooks, written by professors who, for the most part, are liberal and admire another legacy FDR left: that of a government that tries to use its power to help its citizens. Of course, this legacy would not have been possible without his political skill. They use FDR and his high status to support their liberal views of today.
Hoover and FDR both took an active approach to government in order to get the U.S. out of the depression, and both failed.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Who are the Most Famous Athletes in American Pro Sports?
Introduction
Well, I did a study to find out the answer. I posted a survey on surveymonkey.com and provided a link to it on numerous message boards on ESPN. I got the 100 responses I was looking for within 24 hours, on the dates 4/3/2006 and 4/4/2006.
Most Popular Sports
I first asked people to pick as many out of 4 professional sports they paid most attention to, between: NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. I found that 69.7% of the people who responded to this question were NFL fans. 16.2% were NBA fans. 20.2% were MLB fans. 8.1% were NHL fans. These figures do not add up to 100.0% because of the participant's ability to pick more than one sport.
The Questions
The next four questions were each about a different sports league. The basic wording for all of them was: "Give the first and last name of the first player that comes to mind when you think of the [insert league here], active or retired." I will post these findings at the end of the article.
Age Distribution
A final important question was posed. It was about age. Participants fit into one of 5 options: Under 18, 18-25, 26-40, 41-55, and 56+. 99 people responded. 22.2% were under 18, 50.5% were between 18 and 25, 20.2% were between 26 and 40, 5.1% were between 41 and 55, and 2.0% were above 56.
Below are the findings for each of the 4 major professional sports in the U.S.
Football
NFL players were by far the most spread out in terms of fame. Two players tied for first: active quarterback Brett Favre and retired quarterback Joe Montana were each named by 12 participants (12.0% each). Two more players were tied in the third spot: active quarterback Tom Brady and retired running back Barry Sanders each received 10 mentions (10.0% each). Long retired running back Jim Brown received 7 mentions (7.0%) and thus was the fifth most famous NFL player. In the end, 11 players received at least 3 mentions.
Of note here are the presence of only quarterbacks and running backs, which are often considered "glamor positions:" positions that receive great amounts of fame. That is certainly reflected here.
Basketball
Retired guard Michael Jordan was by far the most famous NBA player. He was the person named by 72 of 100 respondents (72.0%). A distant second was active guard Kobe Bryant, who received 9 mentions (9.0%). Another distant finisher, retired guard Magic Johnson, was third with 3 mentions (3.0%). These were the three to receive at least 3 mentions.
The only consideration that could be conceived is that in the NBA, retired players draw more fame than active players. However, taking Jordan out of the equation would show active players as more famous. Jordan skews the results and makes any filtering difficult.
Baseball
Retired and deceased MLB outfielder Babe Ruth was mentioned most often: 23 (23.0%) times. A close second was active outfielder Barry Bonds, who was named by 20 (20.0%) of participants. Active shortstop Derek Jeter finished third: he was named by 11 participants (11.0%). Active designated hitter David Ortiz, with 4 mentions (4.0%), and active outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr., with 3 mentions (3.0%) rounded out both the top five and the list of players with over 3 votes.
What are the two most noticeable trends? 1) Active players appear far more famous, and 2) position players, rather than pitchers, appear more famous.
Hockey
NHL is similar to basketball in its disparity between its most prominent player and the rest. This one icon, if you will, is retired winger Wayne Gretzky. He received a majority of the mentions: 57 out of 95 (60.0%). Retired defenseman Bobby Orr was a distant second receiving 10 (10.5%). Other players with at least three mentions were active winger Jaromir Jagr (6 mentions, 6.3%) and retired winger Gordy Howe (3 mentions, 3.2%).
Retired players again seem far more famous, but this is skewed by the retired Gretzky's widespread fame. However, unlike basketball, when you take the icon out of the question, in hockey the retired still retain the majority of fame. Perhaps this is a commentary on how hockey has fallen out of favor with the general public, which could explain why older players are better known.
Final Analysis
One way to decipher these findings is to say that Michael Jordan is the most famous American professional athlete of all time, as of today, with Wayne Gretzky as a relatively close second.
However, this may not be the most accurate analysis, because the athletes were divided by sport. Perhaps if 100 people were surveyed merely to name one athlete from these 4 sports, the results would be different.
What we can determine is that Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are the biggest icons in their individual sports. Such figures are lacking in football and baseball.
There are a few ways of looking at this. They are not all mutually exclusive. This breakdown will serve as my absolute final analysis.
1. Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are the most famous athletes in sports (see above).
2. Football and baseball are more popular because the fame of individual players is more spread out.
3. The fame of individual players is more spread out in football and baseball because these are the two most popular sports.
4. On a note similar to point 2, basketball and hockey are less popular, and therefore people only know of a handful of basketball and hockey players, and the first one they think of will almost always be the most famous person in that sport.
5. The fame of Jordan and Gretzky is simply too immense for other athletes in their sports to compete with.
6. When you consider that nearly seven-tenths of the participants followed the NFL closely, you might say the following.
6A. More people who follow the NFL means a wider variety of NFL athletes are known.
6B. Fewer people who follow other sports means a smaller variety of NBA, MLB, and NHL athletes are known.
7. Mostly younger people responded: 72.7% of participants were 25 or younger. This could explain the fact that, in general, fame of more recent athletes was higher than that of less recent athletes.
7A. When looking exclusively at hockey: the fact that 1) mostly younger people participated, and 2) very few NHL fans participated also explains, perhaps, the falling out of hockey from the national scene, leaving only it's older fans remaining.
Your Turn
What do you think of the way the study was done? The results? Do you have any more analysis that I may have missed? Please comment!
Well, I did a study to find out the answer. I posted a survey on surveymonkey.com and provided a link to it on numerous message boards on ESPN. I got the 100 responses I was looking for within 24 hours, on the dates 4/3/2006 and 4/4/2006.
Most Popular Sports
I first asked people to pick as many out of 4 professional sports they paid most attention to, between: NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. I found that 69.7% of the people who responded to this question were NFL fans. 16.2% were NBA fans. 20.2% were MLB fans. 8.1% were NHL fans. These figures do not add up to 100.0% because of the participant's ability to pick more than one sport.
The Questions
The next four questions were each about a different sports league. The basic wording for all of them was: "Give the first and last name of the first player that comes to mind when you think of the [insert league here], active or retired." I will post these findings at the end of the article.
Age Distribution
A final important question was posed. It was about age. Participants fit into one of 5 options: Under 18, 18-25, 26-40, 41-55, and 56+. 99 people responded. 22.2% were under 18, 50.5% were between 18 and 25, 20.2% were between 26 and 40, 5.1% were between 41 and 55, and 2.0% were above 56.
Below are the findings for each of the 4 major professional sports in the U.S.
Football
NFL players were by far the most spread out in terms of fame. Two players tied for first: active quarterback Brett Favre and retired quarterback Joe Montana were each named by 12 participants (12.0% each). Two more players were tied in the third spot: active quarterback Tom Brady and retired running back Barry Sanders each received 10 mentions (10.0% each). Long retired running back Jim Brown received 7 mentions (7.0%) and thus was the fifth most famous NFL player. In the end, 11 players received at least 3 mentions.
Of note here are the presence of only quarterbacks and running backs, which are often considered "glamor positions:" positions that receive great amounts of fame. That is certainly reflected here.
Basketball
Retired guard Michael Jordan was by far the most famous NBA player. He was the person named by 72 of 100 respondents (72.0%). A distant second was active guard Kobe Bryant, who received 9 mentions (9.0%). Another distant finisher, retired guard Magic Johnson, was third with 3 mentions (3.0%). These were the three to receive at least 3 mentions.
The only consideration that could be conceived is that in the NBA, retired players draw more fame than active players. However, taking Jordan out of the equation would show active players as more famous. Jordan skews the results and makes any filtering difficult.
Baseball
Retired and deceased MLB outfielder Babe Ruth was mentioned most often: 23 (23.0%) times. A close second was active outfielder Barry Bonds, who was named by 20 (20.0%) of participants. Active shortstop Derek Jeter finished third: he was named by 11 participants (11.0%). Active designated hitter David Ortiz, with 4 mentions (4.0%), and active outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr., with 3 mentions (3.0%) rounded out both the top five and the list of players with over 3 votes.
What are the two most noticeable trends? 1) Active players appear far more famous, and 2) position players, rather than pitchers, appear more famous.
Hockey
NHL is similar to basketball in its disparity between its most prominent player and the rest. This one icon, if you will, is retired winger Wayne Gretzky. He received a majority of the mentions: 57 out of 95 (60.0%). Retired defenseman Bobby Orr was a distant second receiving 10 (10.5%). Other players with at least three mentions were active winger Jaromir Jagr (6 mentions, 6.3%) and retired winger Gordy Howe (3 mentions, 3.2%).
Retired players again seem far more famous, but this is skewed by the retired Gretzky's widespread fame. However, unlike basketball, when you take the icon out of the question, in hockey the retired still retain the majority of fame. Perhaps this is a commentary on how hockey has fallen out of favor with the general public, which could explain why older players are better known.
Final Analysis
One way to decipher these findings is to say that Michael Jordan is the most famous American professional athlete of all time, as of today, with Wayne Gretzky as a relatively close second.
However, this may not be the most accurate analysis, because the athletes were divided by sport. Perhaps if 100 people were surveyed merely to name one athlete from these 4 sports, the results would be different.
What we can determine is that Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are the biggest icons in their individual sports. Such figures are lacking in football and baseball.
There are a few ways of looking at this. They are not all mutually exclusive. This breakdown will serve as my absolute final analysis.
1. Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are the most famous athletes in sports (see above).
2. Football and baseball are more popular because the fame of individual players is more spread out.
3. The fame of individual players is more spread out in football and baseball because these are the two most popular sports.
4. On a note similar to point 2, basketball and hockey are less popular, and therefore people only know of a handful of basketball and hockey players, and the first one they think of will almost always be the most famous person in that sport.
5. The fame of Jordan and Gretzky is simply too immense for other athletes in their sports to compete with.
6. When you consider that nearly seven-tenths of the participants followed the NFL closely, you might say the following.
6A. More people who follow the NFL means a wider variety of NFL athletes are known.
6B. Fewer people who follow other sports means a smaller variety of NBA, MLB, and NHL athletes are known.
7. Mostly younger people responded: 72.7% of participants were 25 or younger. This could explain the fact that, in general, fame of more recent athletes was higher than that of less recent athletes.
7A. When looking exclusively at hockey: the fact that 1) mostly younger people participated, and 2) very few NHL fans participated also explains, perhaps, the falling out of hockey from the national scene, leaving only it's older fans remaining.
Your Turn
What do you think of the way the study was done? The results? Do you have any more analysis that I may have missed? Please comment!
Sunday, April 02, 2006
My Politics
I have taken a multitude of political quizzes recently. The results follow.
The first is from politicalbrew.com. I rated as a strong conservative (91 of 100) on fiscal issues and a moderate conservative (71 of 100) on non-fiscal issues. This was a very comprehensive test and I feel the results were accurate.
The second is from theadvocates.org. I rated as a libertarian: 90% on personal issues and 100% on economic issues. I think this test is inaccurate because it is too small, and its questions are too specific with too few possible answers.
The third is from 3pc.net. I matched up most with the Libertarian Party (78% agreement), followed by the Constitution Party (70% agreement) followed by the Republican Party (61% agreement). These were the 3 parties I agreed with on over half the issues. This is a comprehensive quiz, but again, only being able to select 1 of 3 answers impacts this quiz negatively.
The fourth was first seen in USA Weekend but is provided by madrabbit.net. I scored a 36 of 40 - just to the right of Bob Dole, but left of Ronald Reagan. This quiz allows you to contradict yourself, but if you know what you are doing, it can be accurate. We begin to see a pattern with this quiz, however: limited options when answering the questions posed.
The fifth was interesting, courtesy of politopia.com. I "live" in Centerville, but lean towards more personal freedoms and free markets. Your options in answering questions are good (you get 5 answers for most questions) and it is fairly comphrensive.
The sixth is derived from http://www.politicalcompass.org/. A positive number means right-leaning and a negative number means left-leaning: I finished 3.25 economically and 2.97 socially. This test was very comprehensive but also quite unfair. I felt there were too many leading questions.
The seventh comes from idealog.org. I fell into the conservative quadrant, having departed from freedom 7 times in the name of order and once in the name of equality. Only two options per question here, but this was very solid, regarding pressing issues of today.
The lesson is that there are many types of tests out there. They can't all be right, because they all have a different nature that will lead to variations in the final results. They merely serve as ways to guide you to your views.
Go ahead and take a few, and comment about your results! Where you stand, how it varies by test, if you were surprised . . .
The first is from politicalbrew.com. I rated as a strong conservative (91 of 100) on fiscal issues and a moderate conservative (71 of 100) on non-fiscal issues. This was a very comprehensive test and I feel the results were accurate.
The second is from theadvocates.org. I rated as a libertarian: 90% on personal issues and 100% on economic issues. I think this test is inaccurate because it is too small, and its questions are too specific with too few possible answers.
The third is from 3pc.net. I matched up most with the Libertarian Party (78% agreement), followed by the Constitution Party (70% agreement) followed by the Republican Party (61% agreement). These were the 3 parties I agreed with on over half the issues. This is a comprehensive quiz, but again, only being able to select 1 of 3 answers impacts this quiz negatively.
The fourth was first seen in USA Weekend but is provided by madrabbit.net. I scored a 36 of 40 - just to the right of Bob Dole, but left of Ronald Reagan. This quiz allows you to contradict yourself, but if you know what you are doing, it can be accurate. We begin to see a pattern with this quiz, however: limited options when answering the questions posed.
The fifth was interesting, courtesy of politopia.com. I "live" in Centerville, but lean towards more personal freedoms and free markets. Your options in answering questions are good (you get 5 answers for most questions) and it is fairly comphrensive.
The sixth is derived from http://www.politicalcompass.org/. A positive number means right-leaning and a negative number means left-leaning: I finished 3.25 economically and 2.97 socially. This test was very comprehensive but also quite unfair. I felt there were too many leading questions.
The seventh comes from idealog.org. I fell into the conservative quadrant, having departed from freedom 7 times in the name of order and once in the name of equality. Only two options per question here, but this was very solid, regarding pressing issues of today.
The lesson is that there are many types of tests out there. They can't all be right, because they all have a different nature that will lead to variations in the final results. They merely serve as ways to guide you to your views.
Go ahead and take a few, and comment about your results! Where you stand, how it varies by test, if you were surprised . . .
What a Nuisance!
Well, Daylight Saving Time (DST) started early this morning. What a useless invention.
Basically all it does is confuse us. How many times have you had plans to go somewhere the first Sunday of DST and realize you were an hour late because you had forgotten about moving the clocks forward?
In this article from 1998, the author explains that losing an hour of sleep is similar to losing three hours to jet lag. You might as well have flown from New York to Los Angeles.
According to Wikipedia, "the disruption in sleep patterns . . . correlates with a spike in the number of severe auto accidents."
And if you're a farmer, you probably despise it. As Wikipedia states, animals do not change their behavior to correspond to DST (although you probably could have figured that out), so changing the time twice a year only serves as a major inconvenience in agriculture.
This was all Benjamin Franklin's idea. For a brilliant man, this was sure a lame one.
Basically all it does is confuse us. How many times have you had plans to go somewhere the first Sunday of DST and realize you were an hour late because you had forgotten about moving the clocks forward?
In this article from 1998, the author explains that losing an hour of sleep is similar to losing three hours to jet lag. You might as well have flown from New York to Los Angeles.
According to Wikipedia, "the disruption in sleep patterns . . . correlates with a spike in the number of severe auto accidents."
And if you're a farmer, you probably despise it. As Wikipedia states, animals do not change their behavior to correspond to DST (although you probably could have figured that out), so changing the time twice a year only serves as a major inconvenience in agriculture.
This was all Benjamin Franklin's idea. For a brilliant man, this was sure a lame one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)