The Oasis of Fools

This is revolutionary. It's a huge step forward in that it will eliminate that irritating delay in point-and-click cameras. But I think there's one problem they will have to take care of - people don't like having to focus every image on a computer when they go back to it later. They need some way of either determining where the photo ought to be focused automatically, then allowing the user to adjust it later. Another question is whether this technology is consistent with high quality optics. If not, it will only be successful in the low end of the camera market.  

Osi Umenyiora seems to think that LeSean McCoy ought to be offended that he called him a woman. It's disgusting that he thinks so, and exasperating that ESPN and other news sources believe that it's fine to report the story without commenting on the choice of insult. 

Background: As part of an ongoing feud between two NFL players from rival teams, McCoy called Umenyiora soft and overrated. Umenyiora responded by saying:

"I refer to him as she because that is something that a woman would do," Umenyiora told ESPNNewYork.com by telephone on Friday. "You can sit over there and be a Twitter gangster all you want to but on the football field is where you are supposed to address these types of things."

"I have always referred to him as that because he is woman," Umenyiora explained.

So let's get this straight. Osi, great gender theorist that he is, is telling us that McCoy, by publicly making disparaging remarks, is acting like a woman by rejecting the (naturally superior) masculine manner of settling disputes out on the field.

Kobe Bryant and Joachim Noah were both fined recently for using the word "faggot" on court. God knows all hell would break loose if anyone unleashed the n-word against either one of the two players involved in that spat. But "woman?" That's still fine. By all means, you may convey that someone is pathetic, cowardly, weak, and dishonorable by referring to them as a "woman". Is that really what "woman" means today? Our friends at ESPN felt it wasn't even worth recognizing that the choice of barb implied that 52% of the population is incapable of valor, bravery or even of being worthy of respect. Also, though I've never placed great importance on the concept of masculinity (as some of you know), it always irks me when anyone equates masculinity with physical dominance as Umenyiora seems to. If the central characteristic of masculinity is still the ability to defeat another man in some sort of physical combat, then I'm not much of a man, and I'm not sure I want to be much of one either. 

Upon reflection, it's really not so surprising that an NFL player might make this type of comment. After all, an athlete's ego feeds on physical superiority, and given that value structure, perhaps disdain for the female sex is inevitable. But those of us in the real world ought to know that to use the word "woman" as an insult is just as unacceptable as it is to call someone a faggot, or any racial epithet. Hopefully some day soon ESPN will realise that it shouldn't just report these stories without at least commenting on the overt sexism. 

On my masters program we seem to bump into the words "collective action problem" every time we turn around, whether it's to explain public goods provision, development outcomes or resource depletion. It's an example of just how elegant concepts can be when just a few basic assumptions explain so much. My favorite application is that decentralized corruption is harmful to growth, while the graft of one corrupt leader produces growth-maximizing incentives. The reason is that the corrupt police officer has no motivation to limit his extortion, while the dictator can end up reducing his take if he undermines economic incentives so much that output falls. Is corruption a problem for development? Not always, and in fact, it could potentially be beneficial if it encourages leaders to pursue sound growth-oriented policies. 

But I'm off point now. To return to collective action problems, I'm struck by how the internet turns game theory on its head in some ways. The basic CAP suggests that even if everyone in a group prefers a good to be provided, no individual will bear the costs of providing that good alone, and therefore the good will be underprovided. Which beautifully explains why the rubbish outside our shared flat lies around longer than I'd like, or why when I shop with my two housemates the grocery bill always comes out higher than we'd all like. But it certainly can't explain how wikipedia or any other crowdsourced technology functions. The beauty of the internet is that if a group desires a good to be provided, once one person bears the costs, the gains are available to everyone. The incentives have not changed - everyone still has the ability to free-ride, and most people (like me) still do. But now sheer force of numbers makes it almost impossible that a public good will go unprovided on the internet. Even if the probability of each individual bearing the cost is absolutely miniscule, someone, somewhere will make the effort. And that's all it takes for all of us to be better off. Wonderful.

"GABOS. Game Ain't Based On Sympathy."

And with that quick moral insight, the Miami jail inmate justified his brutal attack on a weaker cellmate, and moved on with a clear conscience. In Louis Theroux's two part documentary, "Miami Mega Jail," we enter a parallel universe that is shocking and troubling. Under-resourced and overcrowded, inmates live twenty-four to a cell, with minimal oversight from guards. In the absence of authority, convicts establish a hierarchy of respect based on strength that maintains a semblance of order in the cell. Unless a prisoner can make attacks on his person or possessions costly through violent retaliation, he will be preyed upon, or 'extorted'. When a stranger enters a cell, he is forced to fight for a bunk, with different bunks representing different levels in the hierarchy. Those who cannot or do not fight go through a 'line-up', in which his cell mates simply line up to fight, or beat him until he defends himself sufficiently or calls a guard. 

Brutality is simply an accepted way of life for Theroux's subjects. Repeatedly, he interviews convicts who display remarkable charm, intelligence and even a level of warmth. Yet when asked about their various acts of extreme violence, it was clear that they operated under a moral system that seems totally alien. They explain their actions by claiming that they simply had no choice; "That's just the way it is. I don't make the rules." The concept of respect also recurs. Once a prisoner's respect has been called into question, he cannot avoid violence if he wishes to maintain his standing in the cell. 

Such a decision appears to be simple posturing, putting status above fundamental moral principles. To see it as such is facile, however. The prisoners value respect above all things because it is only by establishing themselves as an individual to be feared that they might avoid constant predation of their peers. They do not value our middle-class moral framework because it gives them no advantage in their savage environment. Quite the contrary in fact.

Theroux has succeeded in producing a truly fascinating piece of television. But if there is one criticism to be made of this documentary, it is that it settles for exposing the jarring realities of the Miami jail system without being willing to admit that they might be understood. Interview after interview follows the same pattern, as Theroux seeks to establish that the aggressor feels no guilt for his actions. What might have made this remarkable documentary more successful would have been to trust that the audience could move beyond the shocking amoral attitudes to understand what produces these attitudes. Occasionally, the more in depth conversations reveal fragments of that understanding, but still leave the viewer wanting more. As it is, the program gives a sense of bourgeois judgment that does a slight injustice to the human characters that enlivened the wonderful two hours of footage.

Here are the links to the bbc iplayer for those who are interested. 

part one

part two

On my latest fave source for China analysis, Patrick Chovanec writes about the folly of China's immense high-speed rail network. He makes two interesting points:

The $100bn/yr project has served as a stimulus package for the Chinese economy during the global slump, making up for lower demand for Chinese exports.

High-speed rail is an expensive form of transport, and therefore it is poorly suited to meet the demands for transportation in China. It is already drawing passengers from air travel rather than from slower trains. The average Chinese worker will not be able to afford the high prices for a long time, and this makes some uneasy about the financial viability of the network.