Test

This is a test.






I hope this works.

Embarrassing Franchise Statistics Sources

Here are the sources for the Sporcle Quiz "Embarrassing Franchise Statistics." I am using a (very) old blog of mine. Look around, if you want, which you won't.

Cubs http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=cubs

White Sox http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html

Pirates http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=pirates

Buccaneers http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/tam/1976.htm and
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/tam/1977.htm

Phillies http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

Memphis http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4410862

76ers http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1973.html

Falcons http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/atl/

Patriots http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/1990.htm

Spiders http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1899.shtml

Capitals http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/WSH/1975.html

Prairie View http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/colfootball/teams/worst.html

I've Moved

If you're from A Summer Blog, go ahead and explore.

If you're looking for recent activity at this spot, go to the new blog.

Old Hickory

Here I go talking about another U.S. President. I have already discussed Madison, Arthur, Hoover and Roosevelt, and Reagan. Today the focus of my post is our seventh president, Andrew Jackson.  Jackson can be a rather polarizing figure, although he generally ranks comfortably in the top half of the pantheon of chief executives.  He certainly had a rather twofaced pair of terms as president. Here I will weigh its pros and cons and give it a grade.

There are a handful of negatives, one of which is certainly despicable: his handling of the Supreme Court after the case Worcester vs. Georgia. Instead of respecting the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall and the judicial branch, Jackson forced the Cherokee Nation out of their area, sending them on their Trail of Tears. This was most certainly the low point in Andrew Jackson’s term. A second point of weakness is, oddly enough, the result of a rather strong piece of work on Jackson’s record. It will be more convenient to cover this weakness after his strengths.

The first positive of Jackson’s term was his handling of the Nullification Crisis, when he essentially called a bluff on the part of the state of South Carolina.  This is likely the earliest point in the country’s history where a civil war seemed possible, but Jackson handled it well and prevented a catastrophe, in probably his strongest act as President. His second success was the dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States. Originally a good idea, the bank had become a corrupt entity, and in his adamant decision-making Jackson became the single largest cause of its demise, if not the only one.

However, his actions in this matter were not without fault. Namely, he had no adequate alternative to the bank.  The drastic shift of money to the state banks, and more importantly, the Specie Circular, were unsuccessful replacements and led in part to the economic downturn of 1837. Correct in his convictions, Jackson was faulty in his execution, at least after his main goal had been accomplished.

So what is the overall analysis of his term? It might have the widest gap between highs and lows of any administration in U.S. history (with perhaps the exception of Lyndon Johnson).  However, I believe it stands in the C to C+ range, as a decent term but with its faults. While such a grade is poor for many people, in my analysis of the presidents this places him somewhere around 10-12 in the pantheon.

technorati tags:history, opinion

Test Results

Based on my responses to each of the 42 OK Cupid Questions (see here for access to all 7 pages), here are the results.

I came in as a social conservative, being 38% permissive socially.
I came in as an economic conservative as well, being 75% permissive economically.

These placements put me very close to the Republican/Capitalist border, and moderately close to the Centrist border. The verdict: Republican, but again, close to the border of Capitalist and Centrist.

Ok Cupid Test Part VII

Okay, folks, the last page of the OK Cupid test. I apologize for neglecting this last evening. Later today my test results will be shown. Below are the other 6 pages.

Part VI
Part V
Part IV
Part III
Part II
Part I

Question: Employees should have the right to go on strike without the risk of being permanently replaced.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: Once again, a below average question; this depends on the situation. In general, strikes are unnecessary and harmful operations. They were quite useful in the late 19th early 20th centuries, but their age has passed.

Question: I think the American government should subsidize our small farms.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: No need, not a good use of government dollars.

Question: The life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: An interesting question, but a life is a life.

Question: A society is only as successful as its least fortunate members.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: There are always going to be some unfortunate people, even in a great society (lower case).

Question: Practical considerations aside, a person who doesn't use many government services should pay less in taxes.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: In theory (all that matters here, because of the first clause; some other questions could have used it), yes, someone who doesn't drive need not pay for roads; someone who sends a kid to private school need not pay for public schools.

Question: I think everyone has a right to the basic material necessities of life.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Well, everyone is born with it, but you can lose the right, by taking someone else's. Poorly worded, I don't give a "strong" opinion here.

Well, now you have my answers. This evening I will show the results. If you can't wait till then, take the test here and put in my answers.

OK Cupid Test Part VI

Page 6 of the OK Cupid political test.
Part V
Part IV
Part III
Part II
Part I

Question: A person has the right to claim the Holocaust never happened, if that's what he believes.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: That person is an idiot who accomplishes nothing, so why not let him spew his idiocy?

Question: Books with potentially deadly knowledge (like instructions for making awesome bombs) should be regulated.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: A bad question. Learning how to fire a gun is "potentially deadly," but a book about that need not be regulated. The parenthetical statement makes this a very leading question.

Question: Being poor and black is an advantage in getting into college.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Another poorly worded question. I will suppose this is an affirmative action question, but it could be read differently. I basically read this question as asking whether affirmative action is a significant tool used to overcome poor circumstances, but it is still too concise of a question.

Question: Eventually, a computer will write the best novel ever written.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I don't think we could ever program a machine to produce quality writing on the scale of Twain, Faulkner, or Steinbeck.

Question: I should be able to sell my vote for cash if I feel like it.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: Talk about compromising the system.

Question: America isn't as free as it thinks it is.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I've heard too much crap to do anything but "strongly disagree" here.

Ok Cupid Test Part V

You've seen I-IV, here is V.
Part IV
Part III
Part II
Part I

A slight adjustment too: the test is actually 7 pages, so my tomorrow has become Part VI in the morning and part VII in the evening, as Part VII will come with the final results.

Question: Since parents can't be trusted to monitor what their children watch, TV content needs to be more regulated.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: Parents can't be trusted to do this, but it's still their job and not the government's.

Question: If a company invents a pill that cures cancer, they should be allowed to charge whatever they want for it.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Here's one idea my libertarian friend has gotten me to agree to; if the company charges too much, they won't profit because people just won't buy the pill. Basically, market forces compel any company which wishes to profit to charge a reasonable fee.

Question: The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but unavoidable.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Well, do they mean internationally or domestically? The poor wording prevents a "strongly agree" response, but it is a true statement in its broadest sense.

Question: It bothers me that many American companies have moved jobs overseas.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Who does support outsourcing nowadays? Although, sometimes the jobs could be moved because American workers won't take them.

Question: It's wrong when environmental regulation puts people out of work, like when limits on logging make it harder for loggers to log logs.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: People need their jobs!

Question: Most people are too stupid to know what's best for them.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: You would too if you've known the people I've known.

Two more to go, both tomorrow.

Ok Cupid Test Part IV

Here is the fourth page of the political quiz at OK Cupid.
Part III
Part II
Part I

Question: The separation of church and state has demoralized our society.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: A touchy but somewhat poor question; seperation of church and state more so coincides with the demoralization of society. There is no such clause in our Constitution; the first amendment has merely been interpreted, somewhat incorrectly, that way.

Question: The 'Word of God' exists only as human beings interpret it.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Another weird question, but the only way that it makes sense, which means it's also a bad question. If you haven't noticed, the poor questions I tend to not have a "strong" opinion on.

Question: Blind patriotism is a very bad thing.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: A terrible, politically charged question. They can't remove the word "blind" though; that would be charged the other way. Again, a poor question which means I won't "strongly agree."

Question: We need stronger laws protecting the environment.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: This is becoming an increasingly important question. I'm not thoroughly convinced that global warming is our fault, but it would be too drastic to strongly disagree here.

Question: I would feel better if there were video cameras on most street corners, to prevent crime.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: This wouldn't act as enough of a deterrant to compensate for the fact that I'm being watched too.

Question: It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel and fight a Death Match.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: Let them at it! So long as they keep it to themselves.

OK Cupid Test Part III

Why not do Part III this evening?
Part II
Part I

Question: Tradition is a reliable guide in deciding what's right.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Sometimes the answer is no, but for the most part, traditional ideas were there for a reason.

Question: When I'm talking to someone and I find out they've served in a war, I respect them more.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: They've seen horrors we never will.

Question: If I'm dating someone I like to know where they are and what they're up to at all times.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: Not at all times. That's not even practical.

Question: It bugs me when somebody names their child something like 'Sunshine' or 'Charm'.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: They can do it, I guess, but it does bug me.

Question: Only literate people should be allowed to vote.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: To truly know what's going on, you need to be literate (first defined as the ability to read and write). And to vote, you should truly know what's going on. I won't strongly agree only because the definitions of literate after the first are too harsh for standards.

Question: People raising children have a responsibility to live up to society's standards.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: If you are going to have children, don't teach them to be disruptive.

Parts IV and V at different points tomorrow, and Part VI with the results to come on Thursday.

OK Cupid Test Part II

Here is the second page of this politics test: the question, my answer and rationale. Page one can be found here.

Question: I feel guilty when I shop at a large national chain.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I'll get my stuff whatever way necessary. If that means a trip to Wal-Mart, so be it.

Question: Social justice should be the foundation of any economic system.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I fail to see any reason why these two completely different things should be correlated. An economic system is not the place to enforce social justice.

Question: People shouldn't be allowed to have children they can't provide for.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: This is a tough one. There's no practical way to enforce this, but in theory, it seems sensible. It can't be too accurate a statement though because of personal freedom. Lean agree for the children's sake, but if their was a "pass" here I would take it.

Question: I would defend my property with lethal force.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: Although he'd get away, my life is really the only thing I'd defend with lethal force. I won't strongly disagree, because it is my stuff and he has no right to it.

Question: The world would be better if there were no huge corporations, just small businesses.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: I see what they're getting at, so I won't strongly disagree, but corporations are an integral part of the economy--and they provide far more services than small businesses.

Question: Professional athletes are paid too much money.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I could write a bunch about this, but the simple answer is market forces.

Tomorrow will cover page 3.

Free Verse

It used to take talent to write poetry. Then came free verse: no rhyme, no reason, no structure. Basically prose disguised as poetry; they just added line breaks in convenient places. I think it says a lot more for a poet if he is able to articulate his message within a series of rhymes or a clear structure, especially in today's age of anything being called poetry, than it says for the poet who is really just writing in prose.

Another Presidential Review

I have a great interest in the American presidents: I've written about Chester Arthur, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover on this very blog. I have even published my rankings of them here. Today, I will look at a president who is far more famous for his accomplishments prior to the office. This man, the "Father of the Constitution," served as the fourth president, from 1809-1817. Three of these years, 1812-1814, were quite traumatic to the young nation.

These years, of course, covered an aptly-named war in which the United States fought to reinforce its independence: the War of 1812. The United States was able to fight off an offense from the British. The war itself was necessary, as Madison realized: the British had essentially been abducting American sailors. The way in which it was fought was ignominious. The U.S. was ill prepared to enter the war, and was only able to hold off the British long enough that they grew weary of the war too. In the process, the ill prepared Americans allowed the British to march straight through Washington, DC, as the Madisons fled the White House just before it burned.

The British were held off, but Madison had failed in his role as Commander in Chief. When Madison's administration is analyzed, his actions prior to 1809 must be ignored, which marks President Madison as average at best.

My Ranking of the Presidents

A long, long time ago, I had a blog. The purpose of this blog was to survey people and achieve a ranking of the presidents. That fell by the wayside, at least in the rather inefficient method of a blog. I achieved my goal in other ways, but I will postpone the publishing of that. Here are the rankings I developed by first grading each, then ranking them all within the grades. Only the rankings appear here.

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Ronald Reagan
5. James Polk
6. Dwight Eisenhower
7. Harry Truman
8. James Monroe
9. Thomas Jefferson
10. Andrew Jackson
11. Franklin Roosevelt
12. John Adams
13. Chester Arthur
14. William McKinley
15. Calvin Coolidge
16. Grover Cleveland
17. William Taft
18. George H. W. Bush
19. John Q. Adams
20. Rutherford Hayes
21. John Kennedy
22. James Madison
23. Richard Nixon
24. Zachary Taylor
25. John Tyler
26. Woodrow Wilson
27. Lyndon Johnson
28. Gerald Ford
29. Benjamin Harrison
30. Herbert Hoover
31. Andrew Johnson
32. George W. Bush
33. Bill Clinton
34. Ulysses Grant
35. Martin Van Buren
36. Millard Fillmore
37. Warren Harding
38. Jimmy Carter
39. James Buchanan
40. Franklin Pierce

Exceeding Expectations: Chester Alan Arthur

On July 2, 1881, tragedy struck the United States as Charles Giteau, 39, shot President James Garfield, 49. Seventy-nine days later, on September 19, the president was dead from his wounds.

During this time, a man who had been prominent in politics for the past ten years slipped quietly away from the public view, not wanting to draw attention to himself as the president suffered. This man was the vice president, Chester Alan Arthur, 51.

Arthur was almost vice president by mistake. A political follower of prominent New York Senator Roscoe Conkling, Arthur became Collector of the Port of New York in 1871, a well paying position. However, his association with Conkling would lose him his job seven years later. Two years after that, in 1880, the Republicans needed to nominate a president. They chose Garfield, an unpopular decision with Conkling and his followers, known as the Stalwarts. To appease the Stalwarts, the Republicans wanted their vice presidential nominee to be one of them. Although Arthur was not their first choice, he accepted when the position was offered. The Garfield-Arthur ticket would go on to win the 1880 presidential election. Ten months after the election, Arthur was president.

The Stalwarts were the last remaining supporters of the idea of a spoils system, where rather than selecting qualified candidates, party bosses would pick those politically helpful to them. Arthur himself had supported the concept prior to obtaining the presidency. However, once in office, his attitude changed, and on January 16, 1883, he signed the Pendleton Civil Service Act. Federal employees were to be chosen on merit, not political grounds, or any other attribute of a candidate besides his merit for the job.

Arthur's term was also marked by the somewhat unfortunate Chinese Exclusion Act, but Arthur vetoed the original version which demanded a 20-year ban on Chinese immigration, and it had been reduced to 10 on the copy which he signed.

A final event of Arthur's term was the beginning of a buildup of the American Navy, as Arthur proposed appropriations which would begin its expansion.

Overall, Chester Arthur's term was a success, especially considering the lack of any positive expectations for his term. He could have easily opposed a bill which basically fixed the broken way in which federal employees were selected; his efforts reduced the effects of a racist bill; and he recommended an expansion of naval appropriations. The years after the assassination of President Garfield could easily have turned disastrous, but under Arthur's guiding hand, those years were rather serene and improved the functioning of the American government. He is one of our most underrated presidents.

Lieberman falls in primary

So, the Democrats managed to do it. They have essentially shunned one of their own, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and for one reason only: he has expressed support for the war in Iraq. This is a man who in nearly every other situation supports his party, but on one issue decided to go against the party grain. He is still ideologically a Democrat, just a Democrat who happens to support an ongoing war.

This was apparently too great a sin for the Democratic party and the Democratic voters in Connecticut, and it appears to me that they are not satisfied with the already prevalent divisiveness of the war. They are still working hard to undermine the war effort.

NFL Passer Rating

The game of football as it is played in the NFL has evolved, and no aspect has evolved more so than the passing game. Simply put, they are far more efficient now. The result is that the quarterbacks who fill the list of top career passer ratings have disproportionately recent careers.

Fortunately, I found a site called databaseFootball.com, which you can find here. For each and every quarterback, they have two ratings, labelled RAT and RAT+. RAT is the quarterback's passer rating for a season. RAT+ is the quarterback's passer rating for a season compared to the league average. Because the league average changes from year to year, there is no career number given for RAT+. However, it can be calculated.

First off, there are two ways to calculate a quarterback's career RAT. The easy way is to use the formula using his career stats. The other, harder, and much longer way goes as follows: look at a quarterback's RAT and attempts for every season, multiply the two for each year and sum them together, then divide by career attempts.

Example

We'll use a hypothetical two year career, which goes as follows.
First season: 57 completions on 100 attempts for 626 yards with 4 touchdowns and 4 interceptions. The resulting RAT is 72.3.
Second season: 59 completions on 111 attempts for 650 yards with 4 touchdowns and 5 interceptions. The resulting RAT is 64.0.
Career: 116 completions on 211 attempts for 1,276 yards with 8 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. The resulting RAT is 68.0, when you plug in his career statistics.

You will also get 68.0 when you use the long way: 72.3 times 100 (which is 7230) plus 64.0 times 111 (which is 7104). Sum 7230 and 7104 to get 14334, then divide by 211 career attempts. The resulting number: 67.9. The difference is just 0.02646. So both methods work to produce almost identical numbers.

-----------

Unfortunately, there is only one way to calculate RAT+: the long way. For each season, multiply the quarterback's RAT+ and attempts. Then sum these products together, and divide by career attempts. Using the numbers found on databaseFootball.com, here is the list for top 10 career RAT+

1. Sid Luckman, 158
2. Sammy Baugh, 153
3. Otto Graham, 140
4. Len Dawson, 132
5. Roger Staubach, 128
6. Norm Van Brocklin, 126
7. Steve Young, 126
8. Joe Montana, 123
9. Sonny Jurgensen, 120
10. Ken Anderson/Bob Griese/Peyton Manning/Fran Tarkenton 119

Compare that to the top 10 for RAT, via the Pro Football Hall of Fame website.

1. Steve Young, 96.8
2. Kurt Warner, 94.1
3. Peyton Manning, 93.5
4. Joe Montana, 92.3
5. Daunte Culpepper, 91.5
6. Marc Bulger, 90.6
7. Tom Brady, 88.5
8. Trent Green, 88.3
9. Matt Hasselbeck, 86.6
10. Dan Marino, 86.4

This list is completely infested with current players. Meanwhile, the list of top career RAT+ spans all eras, and by comparing each quarterback's passer rating to those of his contemporaries, is a fairer list in my opinion.

Colbert II

I found something tonight that confirmed my thoughts in an earlier entry.

Of the 221 comments placed on this YouTube video, easily 200+ either regarded Colbert's performance with awe and admiration or insulted Tucker Carlson for daring to consider Colbert's act unfunny. This is just additional proof to me regarding Mr. Gnade's key statement that Colbert "did not speak truth to power; he spoke satirically solely to secure his fan base." It's a shame that many of Colbert's fans have had the joke played on them.

Affirmative Action

Do you support affirmative action? Have you ever thought that it sends a message that minorities need the help of white people to succeed?