I love historical counterfactuals – what if Europe had not appeased Hitler in 1938? (Or given Germany a less onerous treaty ending WW1?) Or what if Britain had won the American revolutionary war?
Or, what if the Confederacy had won the Civil War (or as some in my home state call it, the ‘War of Northern Agression’!) The usual counterfactual studied is something along the lines of – how long would it have been until the CSA abolished slavery (common guess – 1890s/ early 1900s). But in keeping with this blog, I have a very different counterfactual in mind – what would Team USA in hoops look like, if it didn’t have any players from the 11 states of the Confederacy?
That is, let’s compare a hypothetical Team CSA to a remnant Team USA. To qualify for Team CSA, I’ll say you had to be born or play high school ball in one of the 11 Confederate states – college doesn’t count. And we can start with the actual Team USA to begin – it turns out 12 members of the penultimate squad practicing in Vegas this summer don’t hail from the Confederacy, so we can make that our hypothetical Team USA:
Carmelo Anthony (Denver Nuggets); Shane Battier (Houston Rockets); Chauncey Billups (Detroit Pistons); Kobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers); Tyson Chandler (New Orleans Hornets); Kevin Durant (Seattle SuperSonics); Kirk Hinrich (Chicago Bulls); LeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers); Jason Kidd (New Jersey Nets); Mike Miller (Memphis Grizzlies); Tayshaun Prince (Detroit Pistons); Michael Redd (Milwaukee Bucks);
Starters: Chandler, LeBron, Melo, Kobe, Kidd
Bench: Battier, Durant, Miller, Prince, Redd, Hinrich, Billups,
Not much size, so for the 2008 Olympics, they would no doubt sub Elton Brand (team member, but currently hurt) for Durant. Otherwise, this appears plausible.
For Team CSA, there are 4 current Team USA members that would thus be part of our hypothetical Team CSA:
Dwight Howard (Orlando Magic); Amaré Stoudemire (Phoenix Suns); Chris Bosh (Toronto Raptors); Deron Williams (Utah Jazz).
To fill out the roster, I add these players who hail from the Confederacy, and have been on Team USA in the past, or were invited to Team USA tryouts this year:
Joe Johnson, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Shaquille O’Neal, Vince Carter, Josh Howard, Shawn Marion
That gives us the following team:
Starters: Shaq, Amare, KG, TMac, Deron Williams
Bench: DHoward, Bosh, Marion, Joe Johnson, Josh Howard, Vince Carter, C. Paul
The take-home: I think the CSA team would crush the USA, particularly off the bench. If the old Shaq is around, the CSA would be unstoppable on offense, and even if he barely plays, the other bigs on the CSA easily trump the USA bigs (and that’s without guys like Jermaine O’Neal or Ben Wallace even making the squad!). Kidd is a great distributor, but no one else is for Team USA – and Chris Paul and Deron Williams give the CSA a great young 1-2 punch at PG. Kobe, Melo, and LeBron may be the three most overrated players in the league – I fear the real Team USA may lose this summer or next because of their inability to share well. TMac, Joe Johnson and Josh Howard have shown in their NBA careers that they can be ideal complimentary players, however. In short, team CSA looks like a better team.
So while in reality the South will not rise again, if they ever split for basketball purposes, the South would kick some ass, methinks.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Biological doomsday
The odds of the extinction of the human race occurring because of biological warfare (or accident) grow each and every day. Why? Because research and development of potentially lethal viral and bacterial pathogens continues, and the political and social conditions contributing to their release get worse and worse, not better.
Consider the fall of 2001; not long after the terror attacks of 9/11, there were the anthrax mailings that nearly paralyzed the postal system and killed a few people. The FBI investigated, they terrorized a scientist, Stephen Hatfill, who worked for USAMRIID (in Fort Detrick, Maryland) on circumstantial evidence, and even drained a pond in which he was alleged to have stashed the evidence in the end, and found ... nothing. In the end, they arrested... no one.
Why? Some conspiracy theorists believe it is because the anthrax terrorist could not be prosecuted, because the terrorist was a government official with evidence of US violations of the 1972 Convention on Biological Weapons, which states that it is illegal to "develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire" such weapons.
Some of the alleged violations include the very weaponized anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, which were identical to a military grade and may have violated the biological weapons convention. Other alleged violations include the army's
Now, with al-Qaeda and other terror groups discovering the power of asymmetric warfare, it seems only a matter of time until a member of such a group finds that biological warfare is one of the easiest means of attaining their aims. The technology for doing so becomes cheaper and more accessible all the time, and all that would be needed is someone with the appropriate training. And we know al-Qaeda can recruit doctors, so recruiting a research virologist shouldn't be much harder.
Making things worse for both state and non-state actors is the rise of genetic medicine made possible by the Human Genome Project. Before long it may be possible to genetically engineer pathogens that attack only certain genomes - making ethnic/ genetic 'cleansing' all the more plausible. But a counterattack, or a mutation, could make such an organism lethal not only to one's enemies, but one's own tribe/ oneself. And, through malice aforethought or accident, it seems inevitable that, if research on highly contagious and lethal organisms continues, it will eventually be let out. A bioweapons doomsday is extraordinarily plausible; to stop it will require overwhelming surveillance and/or ethical controls on primary research. I rank it second only to nanotechnology as an existential risk to humankind.
Have a great day!
Consider the fall of 2001; not long after the terror attacks of 9/11, there were the anthrax mailings that nearly paralyzed the postal system and killed a few people. The FBI investigated, they terrorized a scientist, Stephen Hatfill, who worked for USAMRIID (in Fort Detrick, Maryland) on circumstantial evidence, and even drained a pond in which he was alleged to have stashed the evidence in the end, and found ... nothing. In the end, they arrested... no one.
Why? Some conspiracy theorists believe it is because the anthrax terrorist could not be prosecuted, because the terrorist was a government official with evidence of US violations of the 1972 Convention on Biological Weapons, which states that it is illegal to "develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire" such weapons.
Some of the alleged violations include the very weaponized anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, which were identical to a military grade and may have violated the biological weapons convention. Other alleged violations include the army's
"plan to test live microbes in "aerosol chambers" at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, also in Maryland. So does its development of a genetically modified fungus for attacking coca crops in Colombia, and GM bacteria for destroying materials belonging to enemy forces."The upshot - either the US military, or some other government organization, continues to carry out biological warfare research, on organisms with potentially massive lethality. Compare that to known Soviet violations - in 1992 Russia made an official declaration of its past biological weapon activities, including work was done at Sverdlovsk (now Ekaterinburg) and other cities on mass production and dispersion as a weapon of biological agents. At the Sverdlovsk facility, the lab screwed up containment of their weaponized anthrax in April, 1979, with a result of (admitted) deaths of nearly 70 people downwind, and dead sheep for a distance of 50 kilometers. And non-state terror groups are willing to attempt biological warfare as well; Aum Shinrikyo wished to do so, but found sarin gas easier to use.
Now, with al-Qaeda and other terror groups discovering the power of asymmetric warfare, it seems only a matter of time until a member of such a group finds that biological warfare is one of the easiest means of attaining their aims. The technology for doing so becomes cheaper and more accessible all the time, and all that would be needed is someone with the appropriate training. And we know al-Qaeda can recruit doctors, so recruiting a research virologist shouldn't be much harder.
Making things worse for both state and non-state actors is the rise of genetic medicine made possible by the Human Genome Project. Before long it may be possible to genetically engineer pathogens that attack only certain genomes - making ethnic/ genetic 'cleansing' all the more plausible. But a counterattack, or a mutation, could make such an organism lethal not only to one's enemies, but one's own tribe/ oneself. And, through malice aforethought or accident, it seems inevitable that, if research on highly contagious and lethal organisms continues, it will eventually be let out. A bioweapons doomsday is extraordinarily plausible; to stop it will require overwhelming surveillance and/or ethical controls on primary research. I rank it second only to nanotechnology as an existential risk to humankind.
Have a great day!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Fixing the NBA, part 1
The NBA had extremely poor ratings for its marquee event, the Finals, and has had a tumultuous offseason, with the specter of organized crime and thrown games or at least point shaving / adding - and the possibility that more refs or even players were involved - hanging over the Tim Donaghy scandal, at least until all the facts are out.
So the NBA is in dire need of a makeover. KG and Kobe trade rumors will divert attention from the underlying problems for only so long, after all. And the man in charge, David Stern, seems to have lost some of his luster; one of his biggest fans, Bill Simmons, who used to write that Stern should be President, now compares him to a near-senile Red Auerbach, and says if the summer brings no changes, then it's time to '[take] away the car keys.'
So how to fix the NBA? Let me start with just one problem, and address others in later posts. First, the draft:
The very idea of the draft strikes me as immoral - the kind of thing that should be illegal. Aside from the odious connotations of slavery raised by elderly rich white men 'owning' young black men, determining their working conditions, their pay, and indeed their opportunity for employment in their chosen field, there's more to dislike: it violates the right to choose one's employer, taken for granted in labor relations in all other businesses besides professional sport.
Imagine you, a hotshot young med school grad, knowing there are numerous places around the country that would love to employ you - and being told instead that your 'rights' were owned by, say, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN - and if you didn't want to move to their nice little burg and endure their godforsaken winters, well, you can just forget about being a doctor. Oh, and previous doctors likewise forced to labor there have bargained away any ability for you to determine your pay - you can accept what the Mayo Clinic is offering, or you can forget about being a doctor. At least, a paid doctor.
Naturally, there would be an uproar, marching in the streets, protests over the injustice involved; surely the defenders of free market capitalism would be apoplectic at so many of their most cherished principles being annihilated. Funny, then, the silence over sports league drafts. Certainly the athletes are well compensated despite being denied their most elementary bargaining rights - is that it? I doubt it; well-paid doctors would still scream bloody murder if this system were instituted. No, residual racism and an undue respect for tradition seem the more likely culprits.
But change involves the art of the possible; so while I think the draft should be abolished (and replaced with free agency for all, every year, doing away with both trades and long-term contracts), I will stick with something that could actually happen in my suggestions here. Just remember, for me what follows is a distant second best.
Given that the draft will continue, the most serious problem with it is the phenomenon of early entry, in which 22 year old (or older) seniors are drafted alongside callow 18-19 year old freshmen, making comparative evaluation an even trickier business. Allowing youngsters into the NBA also hurts the league in two other ways (at least): it weakens benches, in that youngsters who are 'projects' and whom the team control for 4 seasons are drafted and kept, over older players who have less 'projection' but are better players NOW. So the quality of play is hurt by early entry, at least as it exists now. The introduction of the minor league NBDL and the ability of teams to option players mitigates this, but only partially.
The second way it hurts the league is through compensation issues - players know they hit their large, long-term paydays only after they have been in the league long enough to qualify for free agency, so they have every incentive to begin that process as early as possible, both to get to free agency at a younger age and to maximize their number of opportunities at free agency throughout their career. Teams hence have to pay major cash to players at young ages, or lose them, and hence are making mammoth money judgments under far more uncertainty than would be the case if they could wait a bit longer. Suboptimal asset allocation results - in layman's terms, busts get a big payday too often.
Given my preferred solution is a non-starter (no draft, free agency for all every year, with Bird rights to go over cap to re-sign players who had been with their team 3+ seasons - to help with continuity) - well, what's second-best?
Here's my suggestion: Make the draft eligible to anyone (removing possible legal problems that deserve a suit by some 18-year old soon). But dictate that anyone who enters the league before they are 21 (or their college class graduates) is ineligible for a multiyear contract or slot money - they must be paid as a free agent, and are automatically free agents again after one season. But they cannot sign a long-term contract until they are 21 - no matter when they entered the league.
This rule, if put into force, would greatly reduce the undergraduate 'project' early entry problem. An early-entry player would be like a one-year 'street' free agent, and the team would have no additional incentive (in terms of keeping that player for the future) over a similar veteran. Indeed, less, for the vet could sign a multiyear contract if he exceeded expectations. A LeBron could still declare straight out of high school, but he would be property of the team that drafted him for only one season. Hence, he would only be drafted if it was worth it for that year, not because of future expectations for his greatness.
The result: better benches and players in the league, and the free publicity (and scouting, with attendant diminution of risk) that the NCAA hype machine provides would likewise make rookies far better bets, and far better known and loved, once they actually entered the league. And the few exceptions, like a LeBron, would engender even more publicity as teams vied to acquire his services a season at a time, especially as he entered his age 21 season and the prospect of signing him long-term.
In short, this would be a remedy for much of what ails the draft process. Mr. Stern, I wish you were listening....
So the NBA is in dire need of a makeover. KG and Kobe trade rumors will divert attention from the underlying problems for only so long, after all. And the man in charge, David Stern, seems to have lost some of his luster; one of his biggest fans, Bill Simmons, who used to write that Stern should be President, now compares him to a near-senile Red Auerbach, and says if the summer brings no changes, then it's time to '[take] away the car keys.'
So how to fix the NBA? Let me start with just one problem, and address others in later posts. First, the draft:
The very idea of the draft strikes me as immoral - the kind of thing that should be illegal. Aside from the odious connotations of slavery raised by elderly rich white men 'owning' young black men, determining their working conditions, their pay, and indeed their opportunity for employment in their chosen field, there's more to dislike: it violates the right to choose one's employer, taken for granted in labor relations in all other businesses besides professional sport.
Imagine you, a hotshot young med school grad, knowing there are numerous places around the country that would love to employ you - and being told instead that your 'rights' were owned by, say, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN - and if you didn't want to move to their nice little burg and endure their godforsaken winters, well, you can just forget about being a doctor. Oh, and previous doctors likewise forced to labor there have bargained away any ability for you to determine your pay - you can accept what the Mayo Clinic is offering, or you can forget about being a doctor. At least, a paid doctor.
Naturally, there would be an uproar, marching in the streets, protests over the injustice involved; surely the defenders of free market capitalism would be apoplectic at so many of their most cherished principles being annihilated. Funny, then, the silence over sports league drafts. Certainly the athletes are well compensated despite being denied their most elementary bargaining rights - is that it? I doubt it; well-paid doctors would still scream bloody murder if this system were instituted. No, residual racism and an undue respect for tradition seem the more likely culprits.
But change involves the art of the possible; so while I think the draft should be abolished (and replaced with free agency for all, every year, doing away with both trades and long-term contracts), I will stick with something that could actually happen in my suggestions here. Just remember, for me what follows is a distant second best.
Given that the draft will continue, the most serious problem with it is the phenomenon of early entry, in which 22 year old (or older) seniors are drafted alongside callow 18-19 year old freshmen, making comparative evaluation an even trickier business. Allowing youngsters into the NBA also hurts the league in two other ways (at least): it weakens benches, in that youngsters who are 'projects' and whom the team control for 4 seasons are drafted and kept, over older players who have less 'projection' but are better players NOW. So the quality of play is hurt by early entry, at least as it exists now. The introduction of the minor league NBDL and the ability of teams to option players mitigates this, but only partially.
The second way it hurts the league is through compensation issues - players know they hit their large, long-term paydays only after they have been in the league long enough to qualify for free agency, so they have every incentive to begin that process as early as possible, both to get to free agency at a younger age and to maximize their number of opportunities at free agency throughout their career. Teams hence have to pay major cash to players at young ages, or lose them, and hence are making mammoth money judgments under far more uncertainty than would be the case if they could wait a bit longer. Suboptimal asset allocation results - in layman's terms, busts get a big payday too often.
Given my preferred solution is a non-starter (no draft, free agency for all every year, with Bird rights to go over cap to re-sign players who had been with their team 3+ seasons - to help with continuity) - well, what's second-best?
Here's my suggestion: Make the draft eligible to anyone (removing possible legal problems that deserve a suit by some 18-year old soon). But dictate that anyone who enters the league before they are 21 (or their college class graduates) is ineligible for a multiyear contract or slot money - they must be paid as a free agent, and are automatically free agents again after one season. But they cannot sign a long-term contract until they are 21 - no matter when they entered the league.
This rule, if put into force, would greatly reduce the undergraduate 'project' early entry problem. An early-entry player would be like a one-year 'street' free agent, and the team would have no additional incentive (in terms of keeping that player for the future) over a similar veteran. Indeed, less, for the vet could sign a multiyear contract if he exceeded expectations. A LeBron could still declare straight out of high school, but he would be property of the team that drafted him for only one season. Hence, he would only be drafted if it was worth it for that year, not because of future expectations for his greatness.
The result: better benches and players in the league, and the free publicity (and scouting, with attendant diminution of risk) that the NCAA hype machine provides would likewise make rookies far better bets, and far better known and loved, once they actually entered the league. And the few exceptions, like a LeBron, would engender even more publicity as teams vied to acquire his services a season at a time, especially as he entered his age 21 season and the prospect of signing him long-term.
In short, this would be a remedy for much of what ails the draft process. Mr. Stern, I wish you were listening....
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Ranking NL offenses by road scoring
Perceptions in baseball are funny things; pundits on Baseball Tonight look at the Padres and see their pitching is ranked first in the league, but their offense is near the bottom, and say that the Pads need offensive help, and their great pitching is the key to what winning they do. Trades are endlessly discussed to remedy these perceived shortcomings, as the talking heads assert the Pads need to pick up a hitter, whereas the young Diamondback offense is coming along, and they need more pitching to stay in first.
The pundits seem to be oblivious to park effects, alas. As a result, most of what they say is stupid, and even flat out wrong. The best way to show this is to find a way to eliminate park effects - there are a number, but the simplest quick one is simply to look at road scoring. Park effects are almost entirely washed out over the course of a season on the road, so much fairer comparisons of team strengths and weaknesses can be gleaned from such data.
So without further ado, the NL team road scoring, in runs per game, through August 9:
(Gaps are an attempt to indicate the relative differences between teams – the top 2 are much better than #3, which is much better than #4. But #s 9-11 could easily change in a single game, they’re so close).
1 Philadelphia 5.39
2 Atlanta 5.25
3 NY Mets 5.03
4 Florida 4.79
5 San Diego 4.71
6 Milwaukee 4.52
7 Colorado 4.46
8 Cincinnati 4.43
9 LA Dodgers 4.39
10 Houston 4.38
11 St. Louis 4.38
12 Chicago Cubs 4.35
13 San Francisco 4.28
14 Pittsburgh 4.05
15 Washington 3.95
16 Arizona 3.83
Lessons: Arizona looks like a decent offense only because of their home park, which is a hitter’s paradise; they actually have the worst offense in the league, but (contrary to reputation) the best pitching in the division, and Brandon Webb is making a persuasive Cy Young case. They need help with hitting, not pitching, to stay in first!
Conversely, the Padres actually have a solid offense, 5th in the league; Petco serves to disguise just how good their offense is (and likewise makes their pitching appear much better than it actually is). They may regret trading away part of their bullpen in Scott Linebrink, perhaps mistakenly believing their pitching is better than it actually is.
To a lesser extent, the same overvaluing of their pitching is true of the Giants and Dodgers – but the Dodger offense truly has become woeful as well, and trading Betemit and keeping Nomar at 3b may keep them out of a playoff berth.
On the other hand, the top 4 offenses are all in the NL East! Again, this is disguised by Shea Stadium and Dolphins Stadium being severe pitcher’s parks, and Turner Field being mildly so, but these offenses can rock! The addition of Teixiera to the Braves and the loss of Utley by the Phils may presage a change in the top 2 spots. Now, if Atlanta could only find some bullpen help, they could easily be the favorite to win the East title yet again…
And Milwaukee is (slightly) the best of a sad bunch in the Central. But despite ROY Ryan Braun, they are trending the wrong way. But the Cubs lost Soriano, and the Cards offense has sunk to Astros level - yikes! Jim Edmonds is about done, and Scott Rolen looks unlikely to ever return to all-star status. (But at least Pujols is heating up, Cards fans - behold the next Stan Musial). Nonetheless, the Central remains a sea of mediocrity or worse - and I still maintain that 6 teams from the NL East and West will have a record at least as good as the Central winner. (Not that that will stop them from perhaps winning the World Series, as the 2006 champion Cardinals can attest!)
The pundits seem to be oblivious to park effects, alas. As a result, most of what they say is stupid, and even flat out wrong. The best way to show this is to find a way to eliminate park effects - there are a number, but the simplest quick one is simply to look at road scoring. Park effects are almost entirely washed out over the course of a season on the road, so much fairer comparisons of team strengths and weaknesses can be gleaned from such data.
So without further ado, the NL team road scoring, in runs per game, through August 9:
(Gaps are an attempt to indicate the relative differences between teams – the top 2 are much better than #3, which is much better than #4. But #s 9-11 could easily change in a single game, they’re so close).
1 Philadelphia 5.39
2 Atlanta 5.25
3 NY Mets 5.03
4 Florida 4.79
5 San Diego 4.71
6 Milwaukee 4.52
7 Colorado 4.46
8 Cincinnati 4.43
9 LA Dodgers 4.39
10 Houston 4.38
11 St. Louis 4.38
12 Chicago Cubs 4.35
13 San Francisco 4.28
14 Pittsburgh 4.05
15 Washington 3.95
16 Arizona 3.83
Lessons: Arizona looks like a decent offense only because of their home park, which is a hitter’s paradise; they actually have the worst offense in the league, but (contrary to reputation) the best pitching in the division, and Brandon Webb is making a persuasive Cy Young case. They need help with hitting, not pitching, to stay in first!
Conversely, the Padres actually have a solid offense, 5th in the league; Petco serves to disguise just how good their offense is (and likewise makes their pitching appear much better than it actually is). They may regret trading away part of their bullpen in Scott Linebrink, perhaps mistakenly believing their pitching is better than it actually is.
To a lesser extent, the same overvaluing of their pitching is true of the Giants and Dodgers – but the Dodger offense truly has become woeful as well, and trading Betemit and keeping Nomar at 3b may keep them out of a playoff berth.
On the other hand, the top 4 offenses are all in the NL East! Again, this is disguised by Shea Stadium and Dolphins Stadium being severe pitcher’s parks, and Turner Field being mildly so, but these offenses can rock! The addition of Teixiera to the Braves and the loss of Utley by the Phils may presage a change in the top 2 spots. Now, if Atlanta could only find some bullpen help, they could easily be the favorite to win the East title yet again…
And Milwaukee is (slightly) the best of a sad bunch in the Central. But despite ROY Ryan Braun, they are trending the wrong way. But the Cubs lost Soriano, and the Cards offense has sunk to Astros level - yikes! Jim Edmonds is about done, and Scott Rolen looks unlikely to ever return to all-star status. (But at least Pujols is heating up, Cards fans - behold the next Stan Musial). Nonetheless, the Central remains a sea of mediocrity or worse - and I still maintain that 6 teams from the NL East and West will have a record at least as good as the Central winner. (Not that that will stop them from perhaps winning the World Series, as the 2006 champion Cardinals can attest!)
More NBA flashbacks...
Is it 1995 all over again - Shaq and Penny together in Florida? Yes, it seems - the Heat have signed Penny Hardaway to play for them next season. Perhaps Pat Riley has been channeling Danny Ainge too much, or simply got desperate when Mo Williams, Michael Pietrus, and the other guards targeted this offseason failed to sign. But it can't be exactly a ringing endorsement of the free agents available when retired, washed-up vets are signing contracts in front of them.
Say, is that Michael Jordan working out in Chicago? Who says three retirements is enough....
Say, is that Michael Jordan working out in Chicago? Who says three retirements is enough....
The poison of faith, continued – AIDS and faith healing
It is well known that the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, has been a vocal proponent of the view that HIV does not cause AIDS. A very few researchers in the field agree, although usually not for the reasons Mbeki claims. (Peter Duesberg is probably the most prominent.)
From the perspective of most AIDS organizations and specialists, this tiny minority of HIV skeptics, also called HIV/AIDS dissidents, spread false hope and false cures – bad enough – but crucially are an ongoing and worsening menace to public health in undermining attempts at prevention through regular condom use. For, if AIDS is not sexually transmitted, but is caused by contaminated needles from drug use or a lack of certain herbs, then why use a condom?
And the continent most afflicted by AIDS is home to the most bizarre of the dissidents. That of course is Africa, in which a horrifying 24.5 million adults and children (estimated) were living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 2005. In that single year, an estimated 2 million people died from AIDS. The epidemic has left behind over 12 million orphaned African children. Thabo Mbeki’s South Africa leads the way, with current estimates cresting 6 million – 1/8 of the population – with AIDS, and no sign of the increase slowing down.
What has this to do with the poison of religion? Well, Thabo Mbeki has nothing on the president of Gambia. From the Economist:
Yes, Islamic faith healing (and herbs!) will cure you of AIDS, if administered by the nation’s most powerful faith healer! And Jammeh isn’t content with AIDS; every Saturday he claims to cure asthmatics, and next up will be a day for diabetics. All they need are herbs and prayers.
When a UN health official dared question the efficacy of Mr Jammeh’s health policy, she was summarily forced from the country, and denounced as “an illiterate who does not know anything about medicine”. Muslim fundamentalism and tribal witch doctoring work hand in hand to repress the forces of truth and modernity. How can the poor and sick be expected to know any better when their spiritual and temporal powers are fused in such a denial of reality?
Just to make things clear, after protesting a new law muzzling the press in late 2004, the editor of an opposition paper, Deyda Hydara, was shot dead, presumably by the government. Mr Jammeh has discussed ruling for four decades; in the past, he has given warning that anyone “disturbing the peace or stability of the nation” would be “buried six feet deep”.
That is, if they don’t die of AIDS first.
From the perspective of most AIDS organizations and specialists, this tiny minority of HIV skeptics, also called HIV/AIDS dissidents, spread false hope and false cures – bad enough – but crucially are an ongoing and worsening menace to public health in undermining attempts at prevention through regular condom use. For, if AIDS is not sexually transmitted, but is caused by contaminated needles from drug use or a lack of certain herbs, then why use a condom?
And the continent most afflicted by AIDS is home to the most bizarre of the dissidents. That of course is Africa, in which a horrifying 24.5 million adults and children (estimated) were living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 2005. In that single year, an estimated 2 million people died from AIDS. The epidemic has left behind over 12 million orphaned African children. Thabo Mbeki’s South Africa leads the way, with current estimates cresting 6 million – 1/8 of the population – with AIDS, and no sign of the increase slowing down.
What has this to do with the poison of religion? Well, Thabo Mbeki has nothing on the president of Gambia. From the Economist:
“PRESIDENT YAHYA JAMMEH, who took power in a coup 13 years ago, claims to have outstripped the scientists and discovered a cure for HIV/AIDS. His secret concoction of seven herbs can annihilate the virus, he says, within three days. Gambian state television repeatedly shows the diminutive president applying his remedy to patients' heads, as he recites verses from the Koran.”
Yes, Islamic faith healing (and herbs!) will cure you of AIDS, if administered by the nation’s most powerful faith healer! And Jammeh isn’t content with AIDS; every Saturday he claims to cure asthmatics, and next up will be a day for diabetics. All they need are herbs and prayers.
When a UN health official dared question the efficacy of Mr Jammeh’s health policy, she was summarily forced from the country, and denounced as “an illiterate who does not know anything about medicine”. Muslim fundamentalism and tribal witch doctoring work hand in hand to repress the forces of truth and modernity. How can the poor and sick be expected to know any better when their spiritual and temporal powers are fused in such a denial of reality?
Just to make things clear, after protesting a new law muzzling the press in late 2004, the editor of an opposition paper, Deyda Hydara, was shot dead, presumably by the government. Mr Jammeh has discussed ruling for four decades; in the past, he has given warning that anyone “disturbing the peace or stability of the nation” would be “buried six feet deep”.
That is, if they don’t die of AIDS first.
Ainge's brilliance... not.
So with the help of his old friend and teammate Kevin McHale, Danny Ainge traded for KG, after already acquiring Ray Allen and keeping Paul Pierce, and suddenly the Celtics look possibly formidable in the weak East next season. The problem - trading away almost half the team for KG left them with youngsters Rondo and Perkins as the other starters, and a bench of the unathletic Brian Scalabrine and the youngster Leon Powe at 4, the hobbled Tony Allen at 2, and ... rookies. And not first round rookies.
So depth is a problem. What does Ainge do? He wastes part of his midlevel exception on the execrable Eddie House, a no-D gunner who doesn't pass, and fits with Pierce and Allen like a raw tenderloin steak at a vegan convention - nobody wants it, even if it's in prime condition - and House's career is past its sell-by date.
Rumor has it that Troy Hudson, so bad that the T-wolves bought him out, may be next - and he's an inferior version of Eddie House! To add to the laughter, Ainge brings in the player far better known for his haircuts than anything ever done on the court, Scot Pollard. If he's an opinionated goofball who can string two sentences together, he can aspire to be the Jack Haley of this bunch.
And now, rumor has it he's trying to entice Reggie Miller out of two years of retirement. You may remember Reggie from his last playoff appearance, in which he had nearly a halfcourt lead on Tayshaun Prince for a layup and still got it blocked. And again, he's been retired for two years since! Miller was an excellent scorer 10-15 years ago, but by the end could only get open looks by running around multiple screens and counting on lazy defenders who wouldn't switch or chase. Whatever their other virtues, Ray Allen and especially Paul Pierce aren't going to be setting screens. This is roughly as farcical as Sir Charles announcing a comeback. (Or Charles Oakley). But when there are GMs as delusional and enabling as Danny Ainge, who can blame the players of yesteryear for dreaming of their lost youth?
In short, while the rest of the offseason needs to play out before I make my predictions official, it looks mighty bad for the Celtics, as Ainge's incompetence at finding role players may submarine the chances of a talented core. (Although I don't like Pierce and Allen together that much either - I'd trade Paul Pierce in a heartbeat for a good return, but the Celtics owner loves him). Briefly, I'd hold off on those Eastern Finals banners, boys, and don't even get too sure of a playoff spot. Not when Eddie House, Troy Hudson, and Scot Pollard may be playing crunchtime minutes...
So depth is a problem. What does Ainge do? He wastes part of his midlevel exception on the execrable Eddie House, a no-D gunner who doesn't pass, and fits with Pierce and Allen like a raw tenderloin steak at a vegan convention - nobody wants it, even if it's in prime condition - and House's career is past its sell-by date.
Rumor has it that Troy Hudson, so bad that the T-wolves bought him out, may be next - and he's an inferior version of Eddie House! To add to the laughter, Ainge brings in the player far better known for his haircuts than anything ever done on the court, Scot Pollard. If he's an opinionated goofball who can string two sentences together, he can aspire to be the Jack Haley of this bunch.
And now, rumor has it he's trying to entice Reggie Miller out of two years of retirement. You may remember Reggie from his last playoff appearance, in which he had nearly a halfcourt lead on Tayshaun Prince for a layup and still got it blocked. And again, he's been retired for two years since! Miller was an excellent scorer 10-15 years ago, but by the end could only get open looks by running around multiple screens and counting on lazy defenders who wouldn't switch or chase. Whatever their other virtues, Ray Allen and especially Paul Pierce aren't going to be setting screens. This is roughly as farcical as Sir Charles announcing a comeback. (Or Charles Oakley). But when there are GMs as delusional and enabling as Danny Ainge, who can blame the players of yesteryear for dreaming of their lost youth?
In short, while the rest of the offseason needs to play out before I make my predictions official, it looks mighty bad for the Celtics, as Ainge's incompetence at finding role players may submarine the chances of a talented core. (Although I don't like Pierce and Allen together that much either - I'd trade Paul Pierce in a heartbeat for a good return, but the Celtics owner loves him). Briefly, I'd hold off on those Eastern Finals banners, boys, and don't even get too sure of a playoff spot. Not when Eddie House, Troy Hudson, and Scot Pollard may be playing crunchtime minutes...
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Doomsday continued: supervolcanoes
Ordinary volcanic eruptions, like the one at Mt. St. Helens in 1980 or the famous eruption of Vesuvius that buried Herculaneum and Pompeii in 79, or one about to go off in Indonesia any time now, are hardly any threat to human civilization, however horrible they are for the people living nearby.
But supervolcanoes are a whole different phenomenon. They erupt when a massive underground magma pool builds up over hundreds of thousands of years, raising the ground below until a caldera tens or hundreds of miles across suddenly explodes (over a matter of a few days!) and rains debris across continents, even the entire globe. The famous geysers, like Old Faithful, at Yellowstone National Park are not simply a tourist attraction - they are more akin to a hole in the lid of a huge boiling pot, one about to boil over and explode.
Here's how Livescience describes a Yellowstone supervolcano:
But supervolcanoes are a whole different phenomenon. They erupt when a massive underground magma pool builds up over hundreds of thousands of years, raising the ground below until a caldera tens or hundreds of miles across suddenly explodes (over a matter of a few days!) and rains debris across continents, even the entire globe. The famous geysers, like Old Faithful, at Yellowstone National Park are not simply a tourist attraction - they are more akin to a hole in the lid of a huge boiling pot, one about to boil over and explode.
Here's how Livescience describes a Yellowstone supervolcano:
"Geologists in the United States detailed a similar scenario in 2001, when they found evidence suggesting volcanic activity in Yellowstone National Park will eventually lead to a colossal eruption. Half the United States will be covered in ash up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep, according to a study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.Everyone in the surrounding regions and downwind across most of North America would die almost immediately. The resultant horrific weather, akin to the worst nuclear winter scenarios, might do the rest of us in. At the very least, it would destroy our economy and likely the economies of most of the other developed nations. As the author puts it:Explosions of this magnitude "happen about every 600,000 years at Yellowstone," says Chuck Wicks of the U.S. Geological Survey, who has studied the possibilities in separate work. "And it's been about 620,000 years since the last super explosive eruption there.""
"Earth is plunged into a perpetual winter, some models predict, causing plant and animal species disappear forever. "The whole of a continent might be covered by ash, which might take many years -- possibly decades -- to erode away and for vegetation to recover," Sparks said."The last supervolcano on record was not at Yellowstone, but at Lake Toba (in current day Sumatra) about 74,000 years ago. Genetic studies indicate that at the same time, Homo sapiens went through a 'genetic bottleneck' - for despite having far more members of our species alive right now (almost 7 billion and counting) than any other large mammal, genetic surveys indicate our species evinces far less genetic diversity than any of our relatives - for instance, genetic surveys of chimps
"reveals an almost four-fold higher diversity and a three-fold greater age of the most recent common ancestor of the chimpanzee sequences. Phylogenetic analyses show the sequences from the different chimpanzee subspecies to be intermixed ... These data, as well as preliminary work in the other great apes, indicate that the human genome is unique in carrying extremely little nucleotide diversity." [bold in original]Unless there is a tremendously unlikely coincidence, the cause of our lack of genetic diversity appears to be the eruption of the Toba supervolcano. It reduced the total membership of our species to a few thousand survivors, and every one of the 7 billion or so of us alive today are descendants of those hardy few. A Khoisan tribesman and you are almost certainly more genetically alike than two chimps from the zoo.
And it could happen again - the wonderfully named Armageddon Online has a survey of the main extant supervolcanoes. So yes, volcanic eruptions may wipe us out, just as some researchers think the tremendous vulcanism of the Deccan Traps in India 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs - and not the comet that hit the Yucatan about the same time.
Either way, we have one more reason for terraforming Mars (or the Moon or even Venus - more on that in a future post), before it's too late.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Bad news, Clippers fans
Their playoff chances just went to zero, even before the season starts, as Elton Brand has ruptured an Achilles. Having Shaun Livingston out indefinitely was bad enough, but now the Clippers have absolutely no shot of making the top 8 in a loaded West. Minnesota, Seattle, Portland, the Clippers, and probably Sacto - those are the teams with no chance, and I'm not even sure about Sacto - if Artest stays and plays great, and Bibby begins hitting shots again, who knows? Memphis apparently will get JC Navarro, and with health and maturation, they have an outside shot at the playoffs - and the exact same thing can be said for the Hornets. The other 8 - the playoff teams from last season - all look to be at least playoff contenders again, and some (like Houston) have made moves that should yield significant improvement. The Clips had looked to be the top contender to break into the top 8, but that is but a dashed hope now. And the main reason to watch any Clipper broadcasts just evaporated. The early reports seem to indicate that Brand could be back in as little as 6 months, but the tales of recovery from ruptured Achilles are bad omens - from Dominique Wilkins to Voshon Lenard, those who suffer them never seem to be the same when they come back.
A sad, sad day for Clippers fans.
A sad, sad day for Clippers fans.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Boston's roster
The Celtics entire roster now looks like this:
Starters: Kendrick Perkins, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo;
bench is Brian Scalabrine, Leon Powe, Brandon Wallace, Tony Allen and two second rounders, Gabe Pruitt and Glen Davis
If healthy, Tony Allen should be a good wing defender. Leon Powe has a small amount of promise as an undersized PF. The rest of the bench is raw at best, or simply worthless. They desperately need a PG to back up Rondo, and could use a C as well. The only player making much more the minimum is Brian Scalabrine; if I were Boston, I'd offer Brian Scalabrine and Glen Davis to the Hawks for Salim Stoudamire and one of either Lorenzen Wright or Anthony Johnson or Tyronn Lue- and if I were the Hawks, I'd take that deal. I think Davis will become a stud, but Boston needs rotation players NOW. And indications from Marc Stein are that the owner will only sign minimum salary players because of the salary cap. So, trading Scalabrine plus a prospect is the only way to address their needs.
Starters: Kendrick Perkins, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo;
bench is Brian Scalabrine, Leon Powe, Brandon Wallace, Tony Allen and two second rounders, Gabe Pruitt and Glen Davis
If healthy, Tony Allen should be a good wing defender. Leon Powe has a small amount of promise as an undersized PF. The rest of the bench is raw at best, or simply worthless. They desperately need a PG to back up Rondo, and could use a C as well. The only player making much more the minimum is Brian Scalabrine; if I were Boston, I'd offer Brian Scalabrine and Glen Davis to the Hawks for Salim Stoudamire and one of either Lorenzen Wright or Anthony Johnson or Tyronn Lue- and if I were the Hawks, I'd take that deal. I think Davis will become a stud, but Boston needs rotation players NOW. And indications from Marc Stein are that the owner will only sign minimum salary players because of the salary cap. So, trading Scalabrine plus a prospect is the only way to address their needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
