Something's getting stranger

One of those exchanges that needs no further explanation, from the newsgroup rec.bicycles.misc:

> Bill wrote:

> I keep spare money, $100 bills, rolled up and about 5 each in a piece of
> 1/2" pipe threaded with caps on both ends. Each of these is a $500 stash.
> I don't even remember where I tossed some of them, but I do take a few
> tossed in my car on trips, just in case. If a cop ever pulled me over and
> demanded to see my trunk would they blow up my car?
> This country is getting stranger by the day. I wonder if we will have a
> new, Republican written Constitution by the time Bush get done with it.

Bob responded:
Just so I understand... you say you keep your spare money in what sounds like
phony pipe bombs and you think the country is "getting stranger"? Oooookay.

What states are more generous?

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> The annual report on charitable giving just came out, and
> once again, the richest states (CT, MA and New England) scored
> at the bottom, while poorest states (MS, AL) where at the top.
>
The overall data is generously provided at
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004&orderby=giving_rank

Being a statistician means I have a strange idea of fun, so I took a look at the data.
The way they analyzed it isn't wrong, but it's also possible to reach an entirely different conclusion.

Poor states like Mississippi did NOT come out on top in their ranking because they gave a lot. They don't; they rank 29th among all states in charitable deductions per return at $929, below the US average of $1072.

They come out on top for two reasons. First, relatively few people in Mississippi itemize deductions (21% versus a US average of 31%) and the catalogue divided by the number of returns that itemized, not all returns.

The average return in Connecticut had almost $400 MORE charitable deductions than the average return in Mississippi ($1309 versus $929, ranking 5th).  But more people in CT itemize (40% versus 21%).

So, why do the people in CT itemize more than the people in MS? The answer is simple. You itemize when itemizing makes more sense than taking the standard deduction. MS has lower taxes to deduct, so fewer people will find it to their advantage to itemize. If few people itemize, those that do itemize will tend to be the biggest givers. CT has higher taxes to deduct, so more people will itemize rather than take the standard deduction. If many people itemize, then the donation average per return will be skewed by the fact that those itemize will not just be big givers, but medium givers as well.

The catalogue people also adjusted for adjusted gross income -- NOT adusted gross income for returns which itemized, but total adjusted gross income. This isn't unreasonable, but does create a sort of apple-and-orange comparison.

So, to provide a contrast, I looked at the average charitable deduction per return, which is NOT what the catalogue for philanthropy report, although it can be calculated from their numbers.

I would contend that either way of analyzing the data is useful. The Catalog for Philanthropy's method serves to remind us that states with lower incomes can contain just as much generosity. My method is more useful for figuring out where people are willing to give more cash. But my method is still flawed by the difference in itemizing by state.

Overall, states that look good their way look bad my way, producing a small negative correlation.

By this standard, the most generous states are Utah, Maryland, and New York. The least generous state is West Virginia, followed by the two Dakotas.

The notable exceptions where the ratings agree are Utah, which looks generous either way (#8 on theirs, #1 on mine) and New Hampshire (#50 on theirs, #43 on mine). I would suspect Mormon encouragement of tithing has something to do
with the Utah results.

More typical are states like Louisiana (#4 for them, #42 for me) and New Jersey (#47 for them, #6 for me).

If you e-mail me I will provide the spreadsheet with my added columns of calculations; you won't find the numbers above directly on the spreadsheet the web
link provides.

Stinkin' Lucky

I was riding home from the train station last night in the dark after a hard day. I was feeling tired and lethargic and just wanted to get home.

Suddenly a large skunk sashayed out of the bushes right in front of my bike. I had instant visions of hitting the skunk with my front wheel, going over the handlebars and breaking an arm, collarbone, or other valuable body part -- AND getting sprayed by the skunk for my trouble. I braked.

The skunk, meanwhile, was similarly panicked. The skunk pivoted, claws scratching and grabbing the concrete. He pulled out of the way, I swerved a bit, and rolled by. I may have run over the tip of his tail, but basically missed him. I guess he didn't have time to spray.

Commuter's Triathalon

Many mornings I complete a triathalon before I go to work. It's not quite as strenuous as the Ironman triathalon, though:

Ironman: 2.4 mile swim, 112 miles on bike, 26 mile run

Commuter: 2.4 minute shower, 1.12 miles biking to the train station, .26 mile walk to the office.

Quartercolon making its marks

"The International Grammar Standards Organization has approved the quartercolon for use starting in June of 2004. This is the first new punctuation mark added to the English language since IGSO approved the exclamation mark in 1914."

http://bbspot.com/News/2004/05/quartercolon.html

A colon looks like two periods over each other. A semicolon looks like a period over a comma. The quartercolon looks like two commas over each other.  See the link above for proper usage hints.

Personally, I think it's a sign that some keyboard manufacturer hired a marketing guy who used to work at Hallmark. Just as those fake holidays (Divorced Grandparents Day?) spur greeting card sales, a new punctuation mark every 5 years or so could spur keyboard sales.

Eulogy for a Schwinn Sprint Bicycle

Yesterday, my faithful 1980 Schwinn Sprint bicycle was retired. Stripped. Put into the back of the basement so its remaining parts could be used at some future date.

I bought this bike 5 years ago, in June 1999, at the St. Catherine Laboure rummage sale for $40. I wasn't sure if I ever wanted to ride a drop handlebar road bike again, and this seemed like a cheap way to find out. I intended to do maybe 2,000 or 3,000 miles on the bike until either I figured out drop bars were no longer for me, or I figured out what I really wanted in a road bike and got a new one. I put 8,551 miles on that bike -- only my winter / bad weather / urban commuter bike has more miles on it during the last 4 years.

Our relationship started slowly. The wheels were shot and wouldn't hold a tire on the rim at normal pressure. I tried to sell the bike at my own garage sale but got no takers. But instead of throwing the bike out, I got a new set of wheels for it, moved the shifters from the stem (!) to the downtube, and started riding it in spring of 2000.

It became my summer bike, my club ride bike, and my touring bike for the last 4 years. All of my longest rides (131, 130, 117, 115) and back-to-back centuries are on this bike. I did RAGBRAI across Iowa on this bike (cursing it as I broke 3 spokes on the last day, had to sag in the last few miles).

The Schwinn Sprint was a cheap bike when new. It had gone through one owner already. I didn't maintain it to last forever because I only intended it ride it until I determined what I really wanted. It aged. When I tried to raise the handlebars I discovered rust had fused the front fork together.  The right pedal couldn't removed, because it had been cross-threaded. The frame was slightly bent. 

I bought another inexpensive road bike -- this one a "new" Fuji 10 speed that had sat in a bike shop basement since maybe 1989/1990. I spent yesterday swapping parts -- taking the light brackets, rack, water bottle cage, etc. off the Schwinn Sprint and putting them on the Fuji. I swapped the front wheel as well. The bike is now an amalgam and will be even more so when I swap handlebars and brake hoods (The Fuji has awful brake levers with the extra lever you can use from the top of the handlebars.)

So, in a sense, I just bought some spare parts and a replacement frame. The bike is still evolving, in a way that old bicycles can do, but cars don't. Sort of like the tourist who was shown George Washington's axe.

"Is that really his axe?" asks the tourist.

"Of course it's his axe. We've had to replace to handle 4 times and the head twice, but it's George Washington's axe," replies the tour guide.

I haven't yet figured out what I want in a road bike. In the meantime there's riding to do.

 

 

Too Willing to Help?

A recent nonscientific poll on TheHistoryNet asked:

"Do you believe today's America would be willing to make the same level of sacrifices for other nations as was made during World War II?" We had a total of 2,683 votes for this poll. The results are as follows:

Yes: 23%
No: 72%
Don't Know: 5%

I wonder if this is correct. Before World War II, America was rather isolationist and seemed inclined to avoid foreign entanglements.

These days, we ARE the foreign entanglements, and a little dose of isolationist skepticism might have done us good in 2002 and 2003, and might do us some good now.

There was such widespread support for World War II precisely because we avoided getting in until the issue was crystal clear.