Mid-Monthly Review 1:2

We’re late, and most of the content is from March (the short month was also a weak month from a news standpoint: we’ve already dealt with Quailgate and Dubaigate). We’re introducing a new recurring feature on Common-Sense Consumerism, which I hope will please all and instruct the young.

NCAA’s: More than a Bracket to Me

The first weekend of the tourney was a joy, with an overload of close games apparent to the most casual observer. It made it a bit more tolerable being laid up with a cold relapse through the best skiing weekend of the winter.

Well, I did get out to the slopes on Sunday—and that’s when the really crazy stuff broke loose. I lost two of my final four in my most visible bracket entry—Pitt and UNC—and am holding on to respectability by my thumbs.

From the bracket handicapping point of view, this was a very interesting year, with no clear favourite, eight to ten top teams, and everyone else very capable of beating each other.

I tried various strategies, just to get a feel for the variety of scenarios that could emerge. The five free entries ESPN gives in its contest, supported with friendly software, give one an easy way to experiment.

The strategy which has worked best this year is the one I’d call “Chalk Plus”—picking the favorites in most, ignoring long shots. The key to success in the first two rounds was identifying the soft spots in the chalk, those cases where there was a solid challenger to take spots seeded to vulnerable teams. West Virginia over Iowa, Washington over Illinois, Wichita over Tennessee, Georgetown over Ohio State. I did identify these opportunities in some of my entries, but didn’t choose them consistently or in the right combination for a winning entry: the best of my five on ESPN is 95th percentile, which is OK but not outstanding: (straight chalk would get you around 66th).

As for the longshots, Bradley and George Mason, forget it. Basically nobody had either team (I saw one case, where a 3-year-old had them both: we can only hope that those were random picks!), and their bracket impact will therefore be null as long as they’re in.

Results of the first two rounds show once again that the biggest problem with the tournament is the conference tournament mess the weekend before. Get rid of them all!
I like the suggestion to go to a single-elimination tournament with all the Division I teams. This is done very well in a few state championships.

My thumbs, by which I’m hanging: my main picks—the ones others will see—have Villanova beating Duke in the final; I still like those picks (I have to promise not to edit this out Friday night!) One of my upset specials had Texas over BC—a spectacular recoup of a lousy set of picks, if it happens. I found it amusing to read a friend’s post where he claims a probable victory. At this point, it’s pretty much impossible to claim victory, particularly in such a wide-open field.

Feingold’s Censure Motion

As far as its content, I’m 100% in favour of it. Bush’s use of unwarranted eavesdropping is something the Republican-controlled Senate sought to keep under wraps and work out behind closed doors, and it is totally in the interest of the American people to examine it and legislate on this in the light of day. Barring that, and barring its consideration is exactly the objective of Pat Roberts and the other Bushites (Roberts gets named nine of spades in the deck for his role), then pointing out that the spying violated our law is the next best thing.

I think we can all get past the bogus constitutional and statutory smokescreens the Bushtits have come up with, when they have bothered to attempt to justify their ignoring the FISA provisions. There also seems a consensus that the eavesdropping itself could have been justified, and would have been approved retroactively where warrants were needed if the administration had merely attempted to follow the law. Something I’d call “criminal intent” is missing here from what you’d want if impeachment were seriously under consideration (as it could still be, for example, with regard to the Iraq invasion, where the professed motives have been thoroughly debunked and the hidden ones, so far, remain hidden). The censure motion in this case is more like a finding that the President’s actions were in contempt of the law.

Feingold seems to have considered carefully the terms and the nature of his challenge and acted only after it became clear the Republicans in the Senate would block any open consideration of the eavesdropping program. His record for being right on these tough issues—like the USA Patriot Act, campaign reform, the Iraq authorization, etc.—is unmatched. Given all this, it’s clear to me that censure is the right action, and the motion’s passage might be possible if it were viewed through other than a partisan screen.

The politics of it, though, seem all too apparent. Feingold’s apparent political motives would be to put himself in the spotlight (and this move’s certainly got the blogs’ electronic wind behind the motion, and behind him) and put senators like Hillary on the spot. Unfortunately, there seems little reason to think any Republican would view the motion other than a partisan attack—I haven’t really heard the motion’s proponents reach out to moderate Republicans to give it consideration—so it has no chance of passage. Under those circumstances, Democrats will find it easy to fudge a reason to vote against, or just vote for it without the public examination of the issue which was the motion’s purpose.

So, the bottom line is, I won't be very happy when this comes to a vote and, in a more-or-less straight party line vote, the Senate votes not to censure Bush for breaking the law.

Common Sense about Everyday American Objects: Disposable Razors

I have tried various measures of dealing with my daily beard, including letting it grow, and find the least objectionable method to be using the disposables. This column is addressed to those who, like me, accept the throwaway as a better solution than, for example, leaving unusable bits of expensive electric razors all over the countryside.
If you’re on disposables (i.e., an adult man, using them daily to shave) I must beg you please to avoid the seductively advertised products—“the Power of Four”, the “Mach” blade, etc. I have studied this subject very closely and performed many experiments. The best measure of utility of these products—and I’ll defend it to the death—is the number of clean, satisfactory shaves per unit of cost.

Multi-bladed disposables were indeed an improvement in shaving satisfaction—when they went from one blade to two. The difference from two to three to four to infinity, though, is negligible, and I see no value whatsoever for the vibrating whatever. These “innovations” are all about getting more revenue per product sold. Important to the manufacturer, only a negative to you.

In terms of getting performance, there is one critical component. It’s called “One-Touch Cleaning” by Schick, the only manufacturer still producing blades with the feature. It’s a little button on the outside of the razor that pushes a little plastic ridge between the two blades (I’ve never seen it on a three or more). It takes the clog—which is further increased when you use their gooey shaving creams, but that’s another discussion—out from between the two blades so that they can both remain effective. That simple feature—if you get it, see it, and use it--prolongs the utility of the disposables by a factor of two to four (depending on the beard). For only with this feature does the durability of the blade come into play.

The market leader, Gillette, gets a double benefit from not including One-Touch Cleaning: you throw away blades sooner, because of the clog, and therefore you don’t even notice that their blades don’t last as many shaves. Their marketing, though, is truly exquisite, and their profits, robust. Schick, recently purchased by the manufacturers of Duracell, if I’m not mistaken, is in a much trickier position: they keep alive their two-bladed challenger product with One-Touch Cleaning, but they like much more the ride to Consumer Wasteland: more blades, more dollars per, and that’s where they put their advertising. It’s up to you, the consumer, to insist upon the superior product. Otherwise, civilization takes a hit (of unfiltered dirtweed, as ‘twere).

Since we’re on the subject, though, I have to say that my commitment to the two-bladed disposable with One-Touch Cleaning is an exigent thing. When the real improvement comes, I will switch in an instant.

Here’s my vision of what that would be: a shaving mask. The idea would be sort of like the orthotic devices which good footwear places are now customizing to the foot. You would have a shaving pattern chosen: moustache shape, close on the chin and cheeks, trim the sideburn, etc. Place your face into the mask, and the computer-controlled microrazors would execute the pattern, clean the stubble, apply the after-shave and disinfectant. Now that would be something worth paying for!

American World Order

That’s the name of a book review in the NYTimes of March 5. The review, written by Martin Walker of UPI, is of “The Case for Goliath”, by Michael Mandelbaum (review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05walker.html) credits Mandelbaum with an original take on the old “world government” debate: should we have one? What form? How do we get there? How could having one make things better than now?

Mandelbaum’s neo-realist thesis, at least according to Walker, is that we don’t have to have that debate anymore. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have world government, and it is US. As in USA. Or at least, close enough.

The idea is novel, and exciting enough to me that I’m going to go out right away and get the book. Then, I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, what I’m looking to see is if the author has actually thought this through, as if he believed what he said. If the US were to be understood to be, and recognized more or less formally, as global governor, how could that system work better than it does today?

My thought is, the US government would need a sounding board, an international panel of friends from fellow republics, which would have as its main purpose telling us when we’re wrong. That way, we could pause and rethink before we decide to discard a decent respect for world opinion and plunge forward blindly and solitarily. Like with Tony Blair, but less sycophantic.

In fact, just like the Brams of our federal government: I think there would be so many aspirants for this panel, powerless though it would ultimately be, that we’d have to beat them off with a stick.