MSNBC:
CBS:
CNN:
Fox:
BBC, US & Canada:
Al-Jazeera, America:
ABC:
I thought Fox would be the odd man out, but ABC really out did itself. At least Fox is breaking a major story.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
A Survey of TV News Websites
A survey of TV News websites around 17:30 Estonian Time (11:30 EST), November 3rd, 2011.
MSNBC:
Note: Image is from Occupy Oakland
CBS:
CNN:
Note: A few minutes prior to capturing this image, the main story was Occupy Oakland.
Fox:
BBC, US & Canada:
Al-Jazeera, America:
ABC:
This image doesn't truly convey how pointless the ABC news site is, so here's the rest:
I thought Fox would be the odd man out, but ABC really out did itself. At least Fox is breaking a major story.
MSNBC:
CBS:
CNN:
Fox:
BBC, US & Canada:
Al-Jazeera, America:
ABC:
I thought Fox would be the odd man out, but ABC really out did itself. At least Fox is breaking a major story.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Occupy "City"
I've been watching the Occupy Movement from a distance as it hasn't caught on in Estonia. News has slowly been trickling to me about protests spreading around the country, and not just major cities. With a list of the largest US cities, I did a Google search for "occupy 'city'" and found references to a protest in every city I looked up excluding those cities which are basically suburbs of larger cities.
In the midst of all this, I was reminded of a very strange theory I heard years ago known as the Strauss-Howe generational theory. What Strauss and Howe proposed was that throughout US history there is this pattern of generational cycles. Each cycle consists of four archetypal generations, prophets (idealistic, Baby Boomer hippies), nomads (alienated, Generation X), heroes (confident, WWII soldiers), artists (inclusive, Silent Generation). The prophet generation sets the tone of each cycle, and it's through their actions that a crisis eventually occurs, which the hero generation eventually resolves.
The whole idea seems like a lot of pseudoscience, but still intriguing enough to be considered. I don't remember how I first came across the theory, but it was at least a couple of years after 9/11. At the time, everyone saw this as a watershed moment, but after a couple years it became clear that 9/11 didn't really change anything, it just amplified tendencies that were already there. It was in this context that I first heard about the theory as the authors argued that the major crisis that would define the current hero generation had not yet occurred.
I thought about this theory off-and-on for years, largely thinking it would never amount to anything. Then there was the 2008 financial crisis, and it echoes of the Great Depression reminded me of the theory as Strauss and Howe argued that the crisis the previous hero generation initially faced was not WWII, but the Great Depression. Obama was elected president with massive support from the Millennial generation. It was a sign of something Strauss and Howe attributed to hero generations, they are politically engaged. However, things went quiet again. For the most part, Millennials were dissatisfied, but there was no signs of further actions. But now that the economy has stagnated, what could have been small, short-lived NYC protest, as turned into a national phenomenon. And now I'll left wondering, were Strauss and Howe right?
Unfortunately, Strauss died several years ago, but Howe is still around. He hasn't said anything about the protests yet, at least nothing I can find, but it would be interesting to hear his opinion.
In the midst of all this, I was reminded of a very strange theory I heard years ago known as the Strauss-Howe generational theory. What Strauss and Howe proposed was that throughout US history there is this pattern of generational cycles. Each cycle consists of four archetypal generations, prophets (idealistic, Baby Boomer hippies), nomads (alienated, Generation X), heroes (confident, WWII soldiers), artists (inclusive, Silent Generation). The prophet generation sets the tone of each cycle, and it's through their actions that a crisis eventually occurs, which the hero generation eventually resolves.
The whole idea seems like a lot of pseudoscience, but still intriguing enough to be considered. I don't remember how I first came across the theory, but it was at least a couple of years after 9/11. At the time, everyone saw this as a watershed moment, but after a couple years it became clear that 9/11 didn't really change anything, it just amplified tendencies that were already there. It was in this context that I first heard about the theory as the authors argued that the major crisis that would define the current hero generation had not yet occurred.
I thought about this theory off-and-on for years, largely thinking it would never amount to anything. Then there was the 2008 financial crisis, and it echoes of the Great Depression reminded me of the theory as Strauss and Howe argued that the crisis the previous hero generation initially faced was not WWII, but the Great Depression. Obama was elected president with massive support from the Millennial generation. It was a sign of something Strauss and Howe attributed to hero generations, they are politically engaged. However, things went quiet again. For the most part, Millennials were dissatisfied, but there was no signs of further actions. But now that the economy has stagnated, what could have been small, short-lived NYC protest, as turned into a national phenomenon. And now I'll left wondering, were Strauss and Howe right?
Unfortunately, Strauss died several years ago, but Howe is still around. He hasn't said anything about the protests yet, at least nothing I can find, but it would be interesting to hear his opinion.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Long Time, No Music
I've been putting off making a music post as I felt like I haven't heard much no music lately. However, I realized I haven't done a post in over a year, and during that time I have heard quite a lot of new music. I also have a few things that I knew about earlier that I thought I had shared, but apparently not.
Trampled by Turtles
Bluegrass band that I first heard on WNCW. Give them a listen even if you think you don't like bluegrass. It's a fun song.
Buke and Gass
Utterly bizarre and unique. I first heard about them on RadioLab as one of the hosts liked them so much he decided to interview them on what is generally a science program. The video is from NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts which is why it's 16 minutes long. No need to listen to the whole thing. They start with one of my favorite songs.
Juana Molina
Same with Buke and Gass, I first heard her on RadioLab. Not quite as strange though, except for the video which I don't much care for, but it's my favorite song. Also, she's singing Spanish in case you didn't get that.
Ramona Falls
This video was posted in a "Favorite Music Videos" thread on Something Awful. Both the video and the song are pretty amazing. The video for Russia is also pretty great.
The Civil Wars
Some blues/folk music. I don't remember how I first heard of them, but I like them.
Janelle Monae
For a change of pace, some R&B. I saw her open for Of Montreal. It was a great show. As a sidenote, I really like her shoes in this video.
Maximum Balloon
Side project from one of the members of TV on the Radio. You can definitely hear the similarities, but this has a more electronic sound.
Trampled by Turtles
Bluegrass band that I first heard on WNCW. Give them a listen even if you think you don't like bluegrass. It's a fun song.
Buke and Gass
Utterly bizarre and unique. I first heard about them on RadioLab as one of the hosts liked them so much he decided to interview them on what is generally a science program. The video is from NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts which is why it's 16 minutes long. No need to listen to the whole thing. They start with one of my favorite songs.
Juana Molina
Same with Buke and Gass, I first heard her on RadioLab. Not quite as strange though, except for the video which I don't much care for, but it's my favorite song. Also, she's singing Spanish in case you didn't get that.
Ramona Falls
This video was posted in a "Favorite Music Videos" thread on Something Awful. Both the video and the song are pretty amazing. The video for Russia is also pretty great.
The Civil Wars
Some blues/folk music. I don't remember how I first heard of them, but I like them.
Janelle Monae
For a change of pace, some R&B. I saw her open for Of Montreal. It was a great show. As a sidenote, I really like her shoes in this video.
Maximum Balloon
Side project from one of the members of TV on the Radio. You can definitely hear the similarities, but this has a more electronic sound.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Real vs. Financial Economy
I've been taking a class with Dr. Erik Reinert and one of the theories he brought up to explain the recent financial crisis. Marx wrote that ideally capitalist take money, use it to create a product, then sell the product for more money. However, over time capitalist will try to find ways to take money and make more money without actually making a product. This is where the recent financial crisis comes in. Financial institutions were making money, but no one was actually producing anything.
Financial institutions aren't necessarily bad, manufacturing needs financial support. The problem comes when the financial institutions stop serving a supporting role and become the primary target of investment. NPR actually had an interesting interview a couple of weeks ago with a financial expert who gave a great example of this, I recommend listening to the podcast. He worked for an airline, wherein, after awhile, the only profitable department was the accounting department. But instead of investing those profits into becoming a better and more competitive airline, they essentially became a bank.
Reinert brought this up as the Real Economy versus the Financial Economy, which made me curious to see if there was a way to measure when the tipping point is reached. It's actually relatively easy to find the breakdown of contributions to the US GDP, but there's the problem of definitions. Does the Real Economy include only manufacturing or should it also include agriculture, mining, and services? Does it also include the government? Instead of looking for a definition, I'm just going to compare various different qualities I found when looking at the figures.
The data I have goes back to 1947, so it is interesting to see how things have changed over time. From 1947 until 1968, manufacturing made up over 25% of the GDP. During that same period, finance went from 10.5% to 14%. Finance surpassed manufacturing in 1986. By 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing at 21.5% and 11.2% respectively. The numbers are a little better in 2010 and there's been some hopeful signs of an increase in manufacturing, but it's hard to call a one year improvement a trend. So overall, by 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing, made up 25% of the private economy, and 21.5% of the total economy. It would be interesting to see if there was a similar run up in the 1920's, unfortunately there is not much information available that far back. I could look at other countries that have undergone recent financial crises, but their crises were rooted in other problems, so they might not be comparable (also Japan breaks down contributions to GDP differently than the US).
While looking at the data, I found some other interesting trends. Construction is strongly cyclical. It is currently at its lowest level ever at 3.4%, after falling from 4.9% back in 2006. Mining (includes oil) is also cyclical, but over a longer time period. The early 1980's are especially interesting as there's a sudden rise and decline in oil production. Up until 2008, all manufacturing sectors were in relative decline except for electronics, electrical equipment, and petroleum products. Transportation has been in continuous decline, but this is largely a good thing as it means that transportation costs are lower as the demand for transportation certainly isn't lower than it was in 1947. In the financial sector, the only contribution to show a relative decline over the past decade is securities, commodities, and investments, which is probably a good indication of what the financial sector wasn't doing during the 2000's. Health care has greatly increased since 1947, going from 1.5% to 7.6%.
One part I found of particular interest was government spending. Overall government spending makes up 13.4% of the GDP. A lot has been made lately of government spending, and it is going up as a portion of GDP, it is still lower than it was at any point between 1961 and 1995. Government spending peaked in 1971, during the Vietnam War, at 15.3% and was in decline up until 2001. Of course that's overall spending. State and local government spending has actually been steady around 9% since 1990 meaning most of the relative decline in government spending has come from the the federal government which has been declining from 7.8% in 1952 to 4.3% in 2010.
Financial institutions aren't necessarily bad, manufacturing needs financial support. The problem comes when the financial institutions stop serving a supporting role and become the primary target of investment. NPR actually had an interesting interview a couple of weeks ago with a financial expert who gave a great example of this, I recommend listening to the podcast. He worked for an airline, wherein, after awhile, the only profitable department was the accounting department. But instead of investing those profits into becoming a better and more competitive airline, they essentially became a bank.
Reinert brought this up as the Real Economy versus the Financial Economy, which made me curious to see if there was a way to measure when the tipping point is reached. It's actually relatively easy to find the breakdown of contributions to the US GDP, but there's the problem of definitions. Does the Real Economy include only manufacturing or should it also include agriculture, mining, and services? Does it also include the government? Instead of looking for a definition, I'm just going to compare various different qualities I found when looking at the figures.
The data I have goes back to 1947, so it is interesting to see how things have changed over time. From 1947 until 1968, manufacturing made up over 25% of the GDP. During that same period, finance went from 10.5% to 14%. Finance surpassed manufacturing in 1986. By 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing at 21.5% and 11.2% respectively. The numbers are a little better in 2010 and there's been some hopeful signs of an increase in manufacturing, but it's hard to call a one year improvement a trend. So overall, by 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing, made up 25% of the private economy, and 21.5% of the total economy. It would be interesting to see if there was a similar run up in the 1920's, unfortunately there is not much information available that far back. I could look at other countries that have undergone recent financial crises, but their crises were rooted in other problems, so they might not be comparable (also Japan breaks down contributions to GDP differently than the US).
While looking at the data, I found some other interesting trends. Construction is strongly cyclical. It is currently at its lowest level ever at 3.4%, after falling from 4.9% back in 2006. Mining (includes oil) is also cyclical, but over a longer time period. The early 1980's are especially interesting as there's a sudden rise and decline in oil production. Up until 2008, all manufacturing sectors were in relative decline except for electronics, electrical equipment, and petroleum products. Transportation has been in continuous decline, but this is largely a good thing as it means that transportation costs are lower as the demand for transportation certainly isn't lower than it was in 1947. In the financial sector, the only contribution to show a relative decline over the past decade is securities, commodities, and investments, which is probably a good indication of what the financial sector wasn't doing during the 2000's. Health care has greatly increased since 1947, going from 1.5% to 7.6%.
One part I found of particular interest was government spending. Overall government spending makes up 13.4% of the GDP. A lot has been made lately of government spending, and it is going up as a portion of GDP, it is still lower than it was at any point between 1961 and 1995. Government spending peaked in 1971, during the Vietnam War, at 15.3% and was in decline up until 2001. Of course that's overall spending. State and local government spending has actually been steady around 9% since 1990 meaning most of the relative decline in government spending has come from the the federal government which has been declining from 7.8% in 1952 to 4.3% in 2010.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
End of the German Year of Elections
2011 has become known as Germany's Year of Elections due to the number of state elections that took place. The last election took place in Berlin on Sunday, and the somewhat odd results there prompted me to make a post about them. Having studied a bit about Green politics, I've come to view Germany as a kind of barometer for future politics. There are five major parties in Germany, each representing a major political ideology, which in some ways makes interpreting German election results a bit cleaner. It's not like Sweden's eight party parliament wherein the four "Alliance" parties are hardly distinguishable.
The recent run of elections paints a very different picture of the political landscape than the 2009 federal election offered. As expected, SPD recovered from its abyssal 2009 results (23%) thanks to being part of the opposition to an unpopular government. However, its recovery has been nothing like what one would expect. In polls, SPD only gets 29%, which is historically very low.
Of course, the other consideration from the 2009 election was that the three smaller parties, FDP, Greens, and Linke, all showed their best results ever, and it seemed at the time that this trend would continue if the SPD didn't gain momentum. However, their fortunes have drastically changed in just two years. Die Linke's results are probably the most understandable as many of the SPD voters who switched to Die Linke as a protest vote are again supporting SPD. Die Linke was also hurt by the resignation of Lafontaine, who helped popularize Die Linke in the western states. Recent controversies such as several Die Linke members refusing to stand up in honor of those that died trying to escape over the Berlin Wall have also shown Die Linke to be a relic of the past. While the incident appears to not have had much affect on the results of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin state elections, it probably solidified distaste for Die Linke in western states.
FDP saw probably the largest reversal in fortunes. It went its best result ever to polling below the 5% threshold. FDP lost representation in several states this year. Truthfully, I don't have much of an idea of why this happened. The party leader, Westerwelle, certainly became unpopular, but that alone doesn't explain the total collapse of the party in just two years. Between the 2005 and 2009 election, FDP went from 10% to 15% of the vote. It now regularly polls below 5% nationwide. FDP didn't just lose the soft support in gained in 2009 due to protest votes, it has lost a large chuck of its core voters. However, FDP seems to fit into a larger pattern. FDP is a classical liberal party, supporting both economic and social liberalism. Other liberal parties, such as the Lib-Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party in Canada have taken massive hits in recent years.
The big winners this year are the Greens who have greatly increased their support throughout Germany. Support has dropped off a bit since its highs earlier this year, but it still polling at 20%, which is nearly twice what they received in 2009 and is a higher level of support than any party outside of the CDU and SPD has received since 1949. While the Greens are not immune to an FDP style collapse, they do not seem as likely to face one. The trend throughout the world is one of green parties continuously gaining in popularity.
What Germany seems to present is a generational shift in political ideology. A lot of questions have been raised about the failure of social democratic parties to regain the dominance they once had in northern Europe. One theory is that social democracy is no longer relevant in modern welfare states. The working-class union members that made up their traditional base have greatly diminished in numbers as manufacturing declines. It's also at odds with post-materialist culture, wherein a whole generation of people that grew up with all the material wealth they could ever want are now approaching majority and are no longer swayed by an ideology that at its core is materialist, seeking to provide more for the state and its citizenry. Certainly the SPD has recovered since 2009, but it hasn't return to its historical levels of support.
One interesting story from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern election is the Rügen I election which highlights some of the characteristics of contemporary party relations in Germany. The election in this district had to be delayed for two weeks when the CDU candidate died. A new candidate was selected, but it was discovered that he was a former NPD (far-right) member. The election went ahead, but CDU officially dropped their support for their own candidate. Since the election was delayed, the results from the rest of the state were already known and it was found that if the Greens got over 18.5% of the vote, they could cause the NPD to lose one of their predicted seats. This information was advertised throughout the district, so as to encourage people to vote for the Greens in a district where they somewhat limited support. The campaign worked, but too well. The Greens ended up receiving 25%, which depressed the vote for the SPD so much that SPD ended up losing a seat instead of NPD. The vote shows not only how much the majority of Germans dislike the far-right, but also how willing people are to vote for the Greens even if it's not their first choice.
A more shocking result is the 9% the Pirate Party received in Berlin. It is hard to dismiss this as a protest vote due to just how high the support was and how well spread the support was throughout the city. The district with the least support still gave them 4.7%. While there is a lot of overlap between Pirate Party and Green Party supporters (poll on shift in party support in German), there are some difference. Most Pirate Party supporters had either voted for a minor party or not voted at all in the previous election as well as gaining a lot of former Die Linke and SPD voters. Pirate Party support appears to be coming more from East Berlin as well, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations.
At the moment, it's hard to say if the Pirate Party is part of the same generational shift in political ideology as the Greens. While they both certainly appeal to the younger generation, they may overlap too much to truly distinguish themselves. The Greens could easily incorporate the Pirate Party platform into their own, but the same may not be said of the Pirate Party. It will be interesting to watch their results in the future.
The recent run of elections paints a very different picture of the political landscape than the 2009 federal election offered. As expected, SPD recovered from its abyssal 2009 results (23%) thanks to being part of the opposition to an unpopular government. However, its recovery has been nothing like what one would expect. In polls, SPD only gets 29%, which is historically very low.
Of course, the other consideration from the 2009 election was that the three smaller parties, FDP, Greens, and Linke, all showed their best results ever, and it seemed at the time that this trend would continue if the SPD didn't gain momentum. However, their fortunes have drastically changed in just two years. Die Linke's results are probably the most understandable as many of the SPD voters who switched to Die Linke as a protest vote are again supporting SPD. Die Linke was also hurt by the resignation of Lafontaine, who helped popularize Die Linke in the western states. Recent controversies such as several Die Linke members refusing to stand up in honor of those that died trying to escape over the Berlin Wall have also shown Die Linke to be a relic of the past. While the incident appears to not have had much affect on the results of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin state elections, it probably solidified distaste for Die Linke in western states.
FDP saw probably the largest reversal in fortunes. It went its best result ever to polling below the 5% threshold. FDP lost representation in several states this year. Truthfully, I don't have much of an idea of why this happened. The party leader, Westerwelle, certainly became unpopular, but that alone doesn't explain the total collapse of the party in just two years. Between the 2005 and 2009 election, FDP went from 10% to 15% of the vote. It now regularly polls below 5% nationwide. FDP didn't just lose the soft support in gained in 2009 due to protest votes, it has lost a large chuck of its core voters. However, FDP seems to fit into a larger pattern. FDP is a classical liberal party, supporting both economic and social liberalism. Other liberal parties, such as the Lib-Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party in Canada have taken massive hits in recent years.
The big winners this year are the Greens who have greatly increased their support throughout Germany. Support has dropped off a bit since its highs earlier this year, but it still polling at 20%, which is nearly twice what they received in 2009 and is a higher level of support than any party outside of the CDU and SPD has received since 1949. While the Greens are not immune to an FDP style collapse, they do not seem as likely to face one. The trend throughout the world is one of green parties continuously gaining in popularity.
What Germany seems to present is a generational shift in political ideology. A lot of questions have been raised about the failure of social democratic parties to regain the dominance they once had in northern Europe. One theory is that social democracy is no longer relevant in modern welfare states. The working-class union members that made up their traditional base have greatly diminished in numbers as manufacturing declines. It's also at odds with post-materialist culture, wherein a whole generation of people that grew up with all the material wealth they could ever want are now approaching majority and are no longer swayed by an ideology that at its core is materialist, seeking to provide more for the state and its citizenry. Certainly the SPD has recovered since 2009, but it hasn't return to its historical levels of support.
One interesting story from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern election is the Rügen I election which highlights some of the characteristics of contemporary party relations in Germany. The election in this district had to be delayed for two weeks when the CDU candidate died. A new candidate was selected, but it was discovered that he was a former NPD (far-right) member. The election went ahead, but CDU officially dropped their support for their own candidate. Since the election was delayed, the results from the rest of the state were already known and it was found that if the Greens got over 18.5% of the vote, they could cause the NPD to lose one of their predicted seats. This information was advertised throughout the district, so as to encourage people to vote for the Greens in a district where they somewhat limited support. The campaign worked, but too well. The Greens ended up receiving 25%, which depressed the vote for the SPD so much that SPD ended up losing a seat instead of NPD. The vote shows not only how much the majority of Germans dislike the far-right, but also how willing people are to vote for the Greens even if it's not their first choice.
A more shocking result is the 9% the Pirate Party received in Berlin. It is hard to dismiss this as a protest vote due to just how high the support was and how well spread the support was throughout the city. The district with the least support still gave them 4.7%. While there is a lot of overlap between Pirate Party and Green Party supporters (poll on shift in party support in German), there are some difference. Most Pirate Party supporters had either voted for a minor party or not voted at all in the previous election as well as gaining a lot of former Die Linke and SPD voters. Pirate Party support appears to be coming more from East Berlin as well, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations.
At the moment, it's hard to say if the Pirate Party is part of the same generational shift in political ideology as the Greens. While they both certainly appeal to the younger generation, they may overlap too much to truly distinguish themselves. The Greens could easily incorporate the Pirate Party platform into their own, but the same may not be said of the Pirate Party. It will be interesting to watch their results in the future.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Why Texting is Annoying
The phone I currently have is Estonian, and as such, it doesn't have predictive text for English. While sending a recent text, it seemed to me that the letter that I wanted was always the third letter on the key. So I decided to test if it's true that the most used letters are in a poor position or if it was just a selection bias (i.e. I only notice when the letter is poorly placed).
I found a list of letter frequencies on Wikipedia and decided to compare it to the lay out of letters on a phone number pad. It turns out my assumption was true, the most used letters are in English are in the third position.
All things being equal, with 26 letters distributed across eight buttons, letters in the first, second, and third position should each be used 31% of the time, with those in the fourth position (S and Z) should be used 8% of the time. Instead, letters in first position are used 30% of the time, second position 31%, third position 32%, and fourth position 6%.
So not a huge difference, but it would seem that the speed and ease of texting could be greatly improved by placing the most frequently used letters in the first position. If the letters were arranged in this pattern, instead of alphabetically, first position would be used 64% of the time, second 27%, third 9%, and fourth 0.2%.
I wanted to see how other languages compared, which are the best and worst for texting. However, most have additional characters and I'm not sure how they are used in texting or if replacements are used, such as "ue" replacing "ü" in German texting.
I found a list of letter frequencies on Wikipedia and decided to compare it to the lay out of letters on a phone number pad. It turns out my assumption was true, the most used letters are in English are in the third position.
All things being equal, with 26 letters distributed across eight buttons, letters in the first, second, and third position should each be used 31% of the time, with those in the fourth position (S and Z) should be used 8% of the time. Instead, letters in first position are used 30% of the time, second position 31%, third position 32%, and fourth position 6%.
So not a huge difference, but it would seem that the speed and ease of texting could be greatly improved by placing the most frequently used letters in the first position. If the letters were arranged in this pattern, instead of alphabetically, first position would be used 64% of the time, second 27%, third 9%, and fourth 0.2%.
I wanted to see how other languages compared, which are the best and worst for texting. However, most have additional characters and I'm not sure how they are used in texting or if replacements are used, such as "ue" replacing "ü" in German texting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)